CTE Video Of The Day #7 & #8

Way to go SpiderMan

SpiderWebComm said:
#7 (9) CTE: THE HOW VS. WHY - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia4...Y&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ&index=11&t=0s
Click to expand...

NOTICE TO THE READER:

This method is highly controversial. It receives a lot of criticism. If you get involved with it and decide to talk openly about it you better have a thick skin. You will certainly get some heat from the un-informed, the soothsayers, and the negativity preachers.
Otherwise, if you're interested enough to give it a shot (and it won't cost you a red cent), you might just discover a new world of shooting pool that you never dreamed existed.
Good wishes to you, readers,..... and have a safe, happy, blessed day.:thumbup2:
 
Last edited:
Low500 said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia45cZ-LEPA&list=UUW8lTFYIYGN2AjHKN23M-RQ&index=10&t=0s

<....sensational demonstration of nine balls sent into a corner pocket which is shimmed up to 3 1/2 inches. All using the same 15degree perception from nine different cue ball locations. No looking for the 5/8 fraction, the 13/16 fraction, the 7/8 fraction, the 21/32 fraction, or any of that complex arithmetic stuff that gives marginal results. And not depending on any pocket 'slop'. Now THIS is top level pool playing, in my opinion.
GREAT post, SpiderMan.
Click to expand...

Cool video. And a little math proves how he is able to pocket the ob from all 9 different cb spots. Math is awesome.

From the footspot, with a 3.5" pocket, the ob has a 2° window to go cleanly into the pocket. That's a margin of error of +/- 1° from a perfect center pocket shot.

Here's the math for that, the "why":

The ob is 2.25" wide, so a 3.5" opening would only allow 0.625" left or right of center pocket in order for the ball to fit in cleanly. And the ball is 35.4" away from the pocket

Margin of Error = +/- atan (0.625/35.4) = +/- 1.0°

This means the ob can only be off by 1° left or right of center pocket, which is only a 2° window. That's tight!

Now, this same 2° window applies to the cb also, meaning the cb has to be within a 2° window from the ob aim point or ob reference. Here's the math for that:

The cb is about 28" from the ob, based on what it looks like in the video. So let's calculate how much the cb's location can be displaced (left or right of the shot line) and still be within the required 2° window:

CB margin for displacement = tan(1°) x 28 x 2 = 0.98", or basically 1 inch

This means at 28" away from the ob, the cb can be anywhere within a 1" wide window and the shot works. In other words, by looking at all those little white hole reinforcements, they appear to be within the required 1" (2°) window that allows one aiming reference to work for each cb placement. Stan uses a 15° perception with an inside sweep, and he does an excellent job with consistency.

The same thing could be done using one fractional aiming reference also, but I understand this thread is geared to helping understand or learn CTE. I just thought showing a little math to explain why it works would be beneficial, a little proof that it's very possible to use one aming reference to cover a range of shot angles
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
Cool video. And a little math proves how he is able to pocket the ob from all 9 different cb spots. Math is awesome.

From the footspot, with a 3.5" pocket, the ob has a 2° window to go cleanly into the pocket. That's a margin of error of +/- 1° from a perfect center pocket shot.

Here's the math for that, the "why":

The ob is 2.25" wide, so a 3.5" opening would only allow 0.625" left or right of center pocket in order for the ball to fit in cleanly. And the ball is 35.4" away from the pocket

Margin of Error = +/- atan (0.625/35.4) = +/- 1.0°

This means the ob can only be off by 1° left or right of center pocket, which is only a 2° window. That's tight
Click to expand...

Redo the math. I think the pocket was reduced to 2 1/2 inches on the 2nd video.

When he holds one of the balls inside the pocket, there's only about 1/4" left for the opening.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
Redo the math. I think the pocket was reduced to 2 1/2 inches on the 2nd video.

When he holds one of the balls inside the pocket, there's only about 1/4" left for the opening.
Click to expand...

Impressive accuracy. But it's apples to oranges as far as comparing to the first video. I mean, he shoots different shots, different ob locations, so there's no consistent basis to use in order to prove anything with math.

2.5" pocket! He really dials in on those shots!
 
BC21 said:
Impressive accuracy. But it's apples to oranges as far as comparing to the first video. I mean, he shoots different shots, different ob locations, so there's no consistent basis to use in order to prove anything with math.

2.5" pocket! He really dials in on those shots!
Click to expand...

Do you feel spunky enough to video yourself duplicating his shots with pocket reducers on both videos while using poolology?

I'd like to see it as a comparison.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Do you feel spunky enough to video yourself duplicating his shots with pocket reducers on both videos while using poolology?

I'd like to see it as a comparison.
Click to expand...

Give me another decade of working thousands of hours with it and I will absolutely do it for you! Lol

Hell, I feel like I could dial into that accuracy now, using ALL of my developed experience over the years. Maybe.
Lol

Anyway, Stan has already mentioned that it's rediculous to assume an experienced CTE player can't fine tune or adjust the perceptions or sweeps when needed. I believe it was in response to someone asking a question, something like, If it's a center pocket system then how can you hit a pocket that's partial blocked by another ball? And Stan gave a great answer, a very truthful answer that made all the sense in the world. And I believe that's how he can be so accurate drilling these balls into that 2.5 gap.
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
Cool video. And a little math proves how he is able to pocket the ob from all 9 different cb spots. Math is awesome.

From the footspot, with a 3.5" pocket, the ob has a 2° window to go cleanly into the pocket. That's a margin of error of +/- 1° from a perfect center pocket shot.

Here's the math for that, the "why":

The ob is 2.25" wide, so a 3.5" opening would only allow 0.625" left or right of center pocket in order for the ball to fit in cleanly. And the ball is 35.4" away from the pocket

Margin of Error = +/- atan (0.625/35.4) = +/- 1.0°

This means the ob can only be off by 1° left or right of center pocket, which is only a 2° window. That's tight!

Now, this same 2° window applies to the cb also, meaning the cb has to be within a 2° window from the ob aim point or ob reference. Here's the math for that:

The cb is about 28" from the ob, based on what it looks like in the video. So let's calculate how much the cb's location can be displaced (left or right of the shot line) and still be within the required 2° window:

CB margin for displacement = tan(1°) x 28 x 2 = 0.98", or basically 1 inch

This means at 28" away from the ob, the cb can be anywhere within a 1" wide window and the shot works. In other words, by looking at all those little white hole reinforcements, they appear to be within the required 1" (2°) window that allows one aiming reference to work for each cb placement. Stan uses a 15° perception with an inside sweep, and he does an excellent job with consistency.

The same thing could be done using one fractional aiming reference also, but I understand this thread is geared to helping understand or learn CTE. I just thought showing a little math to explain why it works would be beneficial, a little proof that it's very possible to use one aming reference to cover a range of shot angles
Click to expand...

Would one FRACTION work to make multiple shots with the variations Stan used with a 15?

Also, could one realistically align the thick middle of the CB to the correct and exact fraction time after time without being off one or two ticks left or right?

I don't doubt your math to make the shots with fractions, what about the human aspect of accurately seeing and aligning and stroking to it using different systems? We could also throw equal and opposite contact points into the mix.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
Would one FRACTION work to make multiple shots with the variations Stan used with a 15?

Also, could one realistically align the thick middle of the CB to the correct and exact fraction time after time without being off one or two ticks left or right?

I don't doubt your math to make the shots with fractions, what about the human aspect of accurately seeing and aligning and stroking to it using different systems? We could also throw equal and opposite contact points into the mix.
Click to expand...

Very good points.

Yes one fractional aim point on the ob could be used to make multiple shots from all over the table, IF those shots happen to fall within the required margin of error window needed to allow it to work.

Yes, realistically one could use the "thick" middle of the cb to a portion or spot on the ob to accurately align the shot. Like anything else, it takes practice. Eventually your're not really thinking about it or trying to do it. Your brain recognizes the shot, no different than Stan automatically recognizing when a certain shot requires a 30-inside or whatever, or when he recognizes that the shot needs to be tweaked a little, like when a pocket is partially blocked. It's called experience. So yes, it is actually something that is very realistically possible to do with consistency, provided the player has adequate experience.

The human aspect is key. Seeing what to do and doing what needs to be done are two entirely different things. A simple comparison between Stan using CTE and you or some other non-pro player using CTE is proof of that. The same can be said of any aiming system or method. The players with the most consistent stroke, the most consistent psr and visual skills, will always make things look easy and automatic. And as you've said before, nothing is really automatic. But they make it appear automatic due to their level of experience and practice.

I don't want to derail your thread. I like the constructive daily video stuff. I just thought a little proof would be a nice compliment, proof that the same perception can indeed be used for multiple shots.
 
Last edited:
BC21 said:
Yes one fractional aim point on the ob could be used to make multiple shots from all over the table, IF those shots happen to fall within the required margin of error window needed to allow it to work.

And IF the correct fraction is accurately chosen. There are a lot of fractions closely combined on just 1/2 of the OB itself. The other side actually runs out of fractions beyond a 1/2 ball hit or aim.

Yes, realistically one could use the "thick" middle of the cb to a portion or spot on the ob to accurately align the shot. Like anything else, it takes practice.

It never came easy to me when using contact points. Pretty much the same number of "targets" across the OB and they are closely packed. Practice never ended because the same thing was done in actual play.

Eventually your're not really thinking about it or trying to do it. Your brain recognizes the shot,

Since I never wanted to miss, I always thought about it. Now if you're not aligning the fractions or contact points purposely, then you aren't really using the system to it's fullest. It's a short cut called, "no sweat, I got this one."

no different than Stan automatically recognizing when a certain shot requires a 30-inside or whatever,

Oh yeah, it's a big difference. The choice is only one of three and one can probably be immediately eliminated.

or when he recognizes that the shot needs to be tweaked a little, like when a pocket is partially blocked. It's called experience. So yes, it is actually something that is very realistically possible to do with consistency, provided the player has adequate experience.

Nothing beats experience and time spent to get good. Everyone doesn't have the luxury of that as well as a home table.

The human aspect is key. Seeing what to do and doing what needs to be done are two entirely different things. A simple comparison between Stan using CTE and you or some other non-pro player using CTE is proof of that. The same can be said of any aiming system or method. The players with the most consistent stroke, the most consistent psr and visual skills, will always make things look easy and automatic. And as you've said before, nothing is really automatic. But they make it appear automatic due to their level of experience and practice.

One might get that impression from what CJ is selling.

I don't want to derail your thread. I like the constructive daily video stuff. I just thought a little proof would be a nice compliment, proof that the same perception can indeed be used for multiple shots.
Click to expand...

Daily? I'm taking weekends off. Weekdays only. Enjoy them. No need to extend this one out, it's been said many different ways in the past.
 
Still a stan-dard shot anyone that who's good at pocketing can do by feel. ie guys who hit down the middle anyway. P2P (weighted for ball physics of course) will get you that ball width precision from anywhere. Takes much work but the work is focused on the actual mechanics of the collision; not whatever CTE is.
 
straightline said:
Still a stan-dard shot anyone that who's good at pocketing can do by feel. ie guys who hit down the middle anyway. P2P (weighted for ball physics of course) will get you that ball width precision from anywhere. Takes much work but the work is focused on the actual mechanics of the collision; not whatever CTE is.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you don't know and what there is to know but think you do. Nothing new, it's been going on for 22 years.

How about some videos on the table of you proving or disproving whatever it is you thing is going on or not?

No double talk, just a video or two.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
You don't know what you don't know and what there is to know but think you do. Nothing new, it's been going on for 22 years.
How about some videos on the table of you proving or disproving whatever it is you thing is going on or not?
No double talk, just a video or two.
Click to expand...
The soothsayers, false prophets, and fractional gurus in this place, never stop with the BS do they?
They remind of the fake news reporters on the major networks. 98% hot air and the rest just 2% lipstick.....ALL of 'em.
Keep on punchin' , SpiderMan, and let 'em eat cake.
:thumbup:
 
SpiderWebComm said:
You don't know what you don't know and what there is to know but think you do. Nothing new, it's been going on for 22 years.

How about some videos on the table of you proving or disproving whatever it is you thing is going on or not?

No double talk, just a video or two.
Click to expand...


You don't know what you don't know and what there is to know but think you do. That's a bunch of double talk right there.

I don't play pool to show it off to strangers either. That series you're posting now; didn't you say they were ignored and/or flamed? I can see why. They all show basic shot making with the CTE spieled on. It doesn't matter if CTE works. Everything demonstrated can be accounted for with standard methods yet Stan wants to say CTE is the true way. Until you guys get off the infomercial tack, people will continue to doubt. I guess that leaves you plenty to do.
 
straightline said:
You don't know what you don't know and what there is to know but think you do. That's a bunch of double talk right there.

I don't play pool to show it off to strangers either. That series you're posting now; didn't you say they were ignored and/or flamed? I can see why. They all show basic shot making with the CTE spieled on. It doesn't matter if CTE works. Everything demonstrated can be accounted for with standard methods yet Stan wants to say CTE is the true way. Until you guys get off the infomercial tack, people will continue to doubt. I guess that leaves you plenty to do.
Click to expand...

Here's a solution. Don't come in here and post! Save your emotions and angst for something else more meaningful. Do you really think you're saving the world?

Try climate change. That should keep you busy and happy to b*tch about.
 
SpiderWebComm said:
Here's a solution. Don't come in here and post! Save your emotions and angst for something else more meaningful. Do you really think you're saving the world?

Try climate change. That should keep you busy and happy to b*tch about.
Click to expand...

No angst. Just some observations and educated conclusions. I am compelled to post here because I see contradictions to reason that you guys evade; ever pushing for a food fight. Whatever. You appointed yourself counter guy at Pool - R - Us and I got questions is all.

Always looking to improve.
 
straightline said:
I got questions is all.

Always looking to improve.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Those willing to improve will watch, listen, do, and keep redoing.

You already know it all with answers and run your mouth as all know it alls do.

What is A, B, C besides the first three letters of the alphabet?
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
I don't think so. Those willing to improve will watch, listen, do, and keep redoing.

You already know it all with answers and run your mouth as all know it alls do.

What is A, B, C besides the first three letters of the alphabet?
Click to expand...

I watch. I hear contradictions. So far It just confirms my method. Incidentally this is text. no mouth involved.
 
straightline said:
I watch. I hear contradictions. So far It just confirms my method. Incidentally this is text. no mouth involved.
Click to expand...


What is A, B, C besides the first three letters of the alphabet?

This is the easiest question I can ask and you should be able to answer.

Trust me, they will get harder. Got an answer or more BS?

Your text is written with a big mouth behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top