CTE. Why I think it works...

[ENGLISH!]

If I was on a sinking ship with English, Kanye West, and Hitler and there was only room for two on the lifeboat...

If it was Jon & I, with only room for one on a floating 1/2 door, after the ship sank...

I'd give it to Jon.

but... I would never choose Jon as or for...

 

[ENGLISH!]

seriously, at this point, who bloody cares why cte works? I mean it, there is no gold at the end of this rainbow folks. People have been fighting over this blasted system for so long, and for what? People are just out for a fight, that is it. Some can pocket balls with it, others can't, and nobody can prove a damned thing, this discussion is no further along from the rsb days.

Some people can pocket balls this way, good for them, they should stick with it. Others cant', they should move on. There are probably hundreds of different ways to aim, one or more of them will be right for you.

that objective/subjective distincition is nothing but a distraction imo, if i were stan i'd just let it go, because no aiming system will ever be truely objective (and feasible to use) in the strict sense. This is not a put down of the system in any way, in fact i think it's pretty clever. The only thing that detracts from the system, for me, is the bullying on this forum, on both sides of the debate. It's a pity too, because stan comes off as somebody i could probably learn a lot from, and his passion about the system shows in the effort he puts into his videos. It's not to be, because of this stupid forum nonsense, which has once and for all soured me on that system.

I never took a wasted pool lesson in my life, i've manage to learn something from just about everything, even if i don't use what the teachers are teaching, there could still be good knowledge there. At the very least you'll know that that system or whatever, is not for you. I learned something from my cte pro one dvd 1, even though i was disappointed at the time. I used what i learned working with that system, to improve my setup and fundamentals, especially the upper body posture and how to pivot precisely. That helped immensely with other pivot systems, which were more suited to me.

If pool is truely your passion, then you owe it to yourself to try anything you think can help improve your skill. What is a few hours, compared to the endless hours you will spend playing pool throughout your life?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


___________________________________________________vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

[ENGLISH!]

:thumbup2: Good Post.

Yes. Drop that inaccurate description & ALL move on to focusing on matters that can make a difference.

But... it is clung to like the Goose That Laid The Golden Egg.

My only real concern regarding it is that it is a very provocative suggestive statement & can be... & actually is... misleading because it is inaccurate.

No one should be enticed into wasting time hoping to get something that just does not exist & that is exactly what can & I am rather sure does happen because of that description.

It was just said that PJ brought that description up & that I have latched onto it.

If that is the case, then why is it not just simply stated that it is NOT what PJ brought up. It is NOT an objective aiming system.

Then ALL can move on to matters that make a difference like those that you mentioned.

Again, Good Post, Sir.

Actually... a VERY GOOD POST.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

___________________________________________________vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

 

[tonythetiger583]

Seriously, at this point, who bloody cares why CTE works? I mean it, there is no gold at the end of this rainbow folks. People have been fighting over this blasted system for so long, and for what? People are just out for a fight, that is it. Some can pocket balls with it, others can't, and nobody can prove a damned thing, this discussion is no further along from the RSB days.

I've concluded that they must like it. Every so often, I'll present a potentially new way of looking at the issue, but everyone's had a lot of practice at the same old argument. I think they're just stuck in a loop.

 

[mohrt]

I don't think the argument about CTE is so much "does it work", we can mostly agree on that answer. The argument is generally "is the description of CTE critically accurate?"

I can make a comparison with the airfoil lifting force of an airplane wing. There are a couple of generally accepted explanations, both which have received scrutiny going on decades. For those interested here is a web page about it:

http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

That said, the arguments of airfoil lifting are irrelevant to the question "do airplanes fly", which we all know the answer to.

CTE is described as "objective" due to the discreet references used in alignment and ultimately very accurate potting of balls. Obviously not everyone can make it work right off the bat, so it gets dismissed. With a little effort though, it comes pretty quickly.

So, does CTE work as described? I think it does. You don't need any more information that what is given in the description to get it working. You will probably get it working faster with someone at the table with CTE experience, or you can go the longer route through repetition. Is CTE "objective"? Obviously there are those that dispute this claim, and a small number of folks that make it a life mission to drive their autismatic (is that a word?) rebuttals into the dirt. But in the end it does not matter. CTE still works, it works given the words used to explain the system, and it is beneficial to pocketing balls if you can get past the initial re-learning phase. It isn't hard, its just different that what we have been taught for ages.

 

[GoldenFlash]

Well stated!

I don't think the argument about CTE is so much "does it work", we can mostly agree on that answer. The argument is generally "is the description of CTE critically accurate?"
I can make a comparison with the airfoil lifting force of an airplane wing. There are a couple of generally accepted explanations, both which have received scrutiny going on decades. For those interested here is a web page about it:
http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html
That said, the arguments of airfoil lifting are irrelevant to the question "do airplanes fly", which we all know the answer to.
CTE is described as "objective" due to the discreet references used in alignment and ultimately very accurate potting of balls. Obviously not everyone can make it work right off the bat, so it gets dismissed. With a little effort though, it comes pretty quickly.
So, does CTE work as described? I think it does. You don't need any more information that what is given in the description to get it working. You will probably get it working faster with someone at the table with CTE experience, or you can go the longer route through repetition. Is CTE "objective"? Obviously there are those that dispute this claim, and a small number of folks that make it a life mission to drive their autismatic (is that a word?) rebuttals into the dirt. But in the end it does not matter. CTE still works, it works given the words used to explain the system, and it is beneficial to pocketing balls if you can get past the initial re-learning phase. It isn't hard, its just different than what we have been taught for ages.

Very good post sir. The aerodynamics analogy is splendid !
I believe those who spend years and years debunking the method and being 'crusaders for justice' over the meaning of two or three words are suffering from severe Obsessive Compulsive Behavior bordering on psychotic.
I agree that the initial re-learning phase is brutally tough, at least it was for me.
Old ideas of what we've been taught for ages don't get shoved into a 'storage box' in the mind without the mind putting up a fight over it.
Some get with it right away. I did not.
I am a slow learner, but once something learned is in its place and diagnosed......I can groove with it and let it all happen.
It's all about being willing to stick to it.....those DVD's were not cheap and I don't have money growing on trees. I paid money and that was enough motivation for me.
By the way, I really enjoy your website and have added it to my "favorites" list on the computer.
Regards,
Flash

 

[ENGLISH!]

I don't think the argument about CTE is so much "does it work", we can mostly agree on that answer. The argument is generally "is the description of CTE critically accurate?"

I can make a comparison with the airfoil lifting force of an airplane wing. There are a couple of generally accepted explanations, both which have received scrutiny going on decades. For those interested here is a web page about it:

http://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

That said, the arguments of airfoil lifting are irrelevant to the question "do airplanes fly", which we all know the answer to.

CTE is described as "objective" due to the discreet references used in alignment and ultimately very accurate potting of balls. Obviously not everyone can make it work right off the bat, so it gets dismissed. With a little effort though, it comes pretty quickly.

So, does CTE work as described? I think it does. You don't need any more information that what is given in the description to get it working. You will probably get it working faster with someone at the table with CTE experience, or you can go the longer route through repetition. Is CTE "objective"? Obviously there are those that dispute this claim, and a small number of folks that make it a life mission to drive their autismatic (is that a word?) rebuttals into the dirt. But in the end it does not matter. CTE still works, it works given the words used to explain the system, and it is beneficial to pocketing balls if you can get past the initial re-learning phase. It isn't hard, its just different that what we have been taught for ages.

Hi Monty,

Here is an "autismatic" question. (Anther personal slur due to a lack of a rational logical explanation.)

Other than being in a very very slightly different starting position, how is it any different in it's foundation than fractional with a move to thicken or thin from the actual fraction? Would you say that there are other methods that are objective aiming methods?

No one that I know of has said that one can not pocket balls utilizing the method. That is NOT the same thing as saying "IT works".

I just recently opened a thread to explain that difference. Have you read it? If not I certainly invite you to do so.

But... pocketing balls utilizing it does NOT mean that it is 'an objective aiming system' & THAT is part of how it is described & that has implications that quite simply are not real.

Hence it is inaccurately described. It implies that there is something other than one's own subjectively LEARNED shot pictures of a BUILT data base of those shot pictures that the individual then calls upon to determine the final shot line that the individual will use.

There are up to at least 90 different shot lines that can & do come up. Are there 90 objective indicators within the 'system'?
The word perception is not objective. By definition perception is of a subjective nature.

Best Wishes for You & Yours.

This post is in reply to one, You, making it sound like "it is as described" & that is simply NOT the reality of the situation.

 

[magicrat69210]

i recently tried cte....to me it makes easy shots easy to aim faster.....medium difficulty shots are about the same i could see how some might like it.....and when i set up high difficulty shots it doesnt seem to help me at all.....it also worked well for shots that were long without much angle....to me as the angles get steeper cte works less just like every other way to aim as the shot gets harder.... that that being said you may be different and love it.

 

[mista335]

i recently tried cte....to me it makes easy shots easy to aim faster.....medium difficulty shots are about the same i could see how some might like it.....and when i set up high difficulty shots it doesnt seem to help me at all.....it also worked well for shots that were long without much angle....to me as the angles get steeper cte works less just like every other way to aim as the shot gets harder.... that that being said you may be different and love it.

If you having trouble with single line visuals you should watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiulmSbLDZM

 

[nfuids]

I have been thinking about this for the last couple of years. I am primarily a CTE player and use it for the most part. I am also a Tim Gallway and The inner game of tennis fan.

I too do use CTE and I'm a BIG BIG fan of the inner game of tennis!! A must read for anyone doing sport and competitive activities!

 

[mohrt]

I was thinking about it, and I think I have somewhat of an idea.

I've been working on cte for more than a year now, and I use it on everything but combos, and caroms.

I'm not sure if this is correct but my idea was to have a top down view of someone shooting on a table. One person just shooting any which way they want as long as it isn't at a pocket. The other person shoots every different perception except for the one that leads to the obvious pocket.

Now if you superimpose another larger table on top of that video any which way, as long as the cb and ob start within a part where both tables overlap, and as long as a cte perception is being used, wouldn't that mean that the ball should be tracking towards a pocket, either directly, or 1, or 2 or 3 rails?

I think you could determine after a large sample of shots that with cte, that more shots would track towards pockets using less rails, and with ghost ball, some shots don't track towards pockets at all.

I just dug this up and didn't see anyone respond directly to the question. In short, no. Every CB/OB orientation on the table is a unique shot, with its own unique shot-lines to pockets. For example, say you take a given CB/OB orientation and execute all the perceptions, and then draw shot-lines on the table for each given shot. Now you superimpose another table over the existing one in a way where the CB/OB is within an area the tables overlap. The lines you drew on the first table will have no meaning on the new table. This is because CB/OB orientation on the new table is a different one, with its own shot-lines. You would have to re-execute the perceptions to find them. You might argue: logic would dictate that you would end up with the same shot-lines given the same perceptions, but that is not the case. CTE could not work if it were. The 5-shot example would not work if it were. Every CB/OB orientation is uniqe, and results in a unique set of shot-lines. CTE is a visual system, not a system of angles.

 

[Bank it]

I just dug this up and didn't see anyone respond directly to the question. In short, no. Every CB/OB orientation on the table is a unique shot, with its own unique shot-lines to pockets. For example, say you take a given CB/OB orientation and execute all the perceptions, and then draw shot-lines on the table for each given shot. Now you superimpose another table over the existing one in a way where the CB/OB is within an area the tables overlap. The lines you drew on the first table will have no meaning on the new table. This is because CB/OB orientation on the new table is a different one, with its own shot-lines. You would have to re-execute the perceptions to find them. You might argue: logic would dictate that you would end up with the same shot-lines given the same perceptions, but that is not the case. CTE could not work if it were. The 5-shot example would not work if it were. Every CB/OB orientation is uniqe, and results in a unique set of shot-lines. CTE is a visual system, not a system of angles.

Oh you dug something up all right.

 

[tonythetiger583]

I just dug this up and didn't see anyone respond directly to the question. In short, no. Every CB/OB orientation on the table is a unique shot, with its own unique shot-lines to pockets. For example, say you take a given CB/OB orientation and execute all the perceptions, and then draw shot-lines on the table for each given shot. Now you superimpose another table over the existing one in a way where the CB/OB is within an area the tables overlap. The lines you drew on the first table will have no meaning on the new table. This is because CB/OB orientation on the new table is a different one, with its own shot-lines. You would have to re-execute the perceptions to find them. You might argue: logic would dictate that you would end up with the same shot-lines given the same perceptions, but that is not the case. CTE could not work if it were. The 5-shot example would not work if it were. Every CB/OB orientation is uniqe, and results in a unique set of shot-lines. CTE is a visual system, not a system of angles.

Well there has to be a 3rd variable between the CB and OB ball to account for the variation. I always thought it was because of the 1x2 dimensions of a table.

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I draw two overlapping rectangles and choose a perception to pocket a ball on one table, it's generally still the same perception that would lead to a bank on the other. I haven't tested it extensively though.

But yeah, if your statement is true, that would mean that you could overlap two rectangles in such a way, that you could use a 15 degree perception, thinned, and pocket it in two different pockets that don't overlap. And you would feel yourself shooting the ball differently, because a 15 degree, thinned is different from a 15 degree thinned is...

I can pick a pocket on either table, and "pocket" the ball with the right perception, but they haven't yet overlapped, meaning I haven't been able to use the same perception to pocket a ball directly on both tables.

Iunno, again, I haven't really done anything other than draw a couple rectangles in paint.

Thank you for responding to my question

Also, I think it would have meaning if the tables overlapped in the area that both the cb and ob rest. It's what gives them a relation. If there wasn't that overlap, then I would say that each table would be unique from each other.

 

[tonythetiger583]

Sorry just to reiterate:

Throw any two rectangles of any size together (As long as the dimension are 1x2).

Place CB and OB on any part that over lap.

You should be able to use the appropriate perception to pocket balls on either table.

You shouldn't have different variations of the same perception. i.e a 30-thin on one table that is a different 30-thin on the other. Meaning you shouldn't feel like you're hitting the OB thicker or thinner, based on the table you're applying the 30-thin to.

 

[mohrt]

Sorry just to reiterate:

Throw any two rectangles of any size together (As long as the dimension are 1x2).

Place CB and OB on any part that over lap.

You should be able to use the appropriate perception to pocket balls on either table.

You shouldn't have different variations of the same perception. i.e a 30-thin on one table that is a different 30-thin on the other. Meaning you shouldn't feel like you're hitting the OB thicker or thinner, based on the table you're applying the 30-thin to.

The "same perception", such as CTEL/B with an inside sweep, is going to be a unique physical alignment for any given shot, or in other words, each possible CB/OB orientation on a 2x1 surface. So the same perception given two different orientations (such as the two shots on overlapping tables) would result in two individual and unique shot lines.

Lets just think about the 5-shot perception video for a moment. Say we setup each shot one by one, and on each shot we simply align CTEL/A and freeze. Is there going to be any difference between each alignment? Discreet logic would say no, but our perception will naturally lead us to a slightly thinner physical alignment as we move to each shot. Why? Because of the CB/OB orientation on the 2x1 table. Sound illogical? Try it, and really focus on following your eyes naturally. ie. dont' "steer" where you *think* you should be looking. I will reiterate: even though you are doing the same thing (aligning CB edge to A), your physical alignment ever-so-slightly differs on each shot.

Now that said, this very technical level of detail isn't necessary to learn the system. You just need to follow the steps, dismiss your pre-disposition of discreet logic and just let the perceptions take you where they naturally go. If you realize that every CB/OB orientation has a unique physical ball-address for any given perception, you'll begin to see why overlapping tables (ie. different CB/OB orientations on the table) will be unique.

Here is another idea. Throw a CB and OB randomly on a table, and shoot nothing but CTEL/B with an inside sweep on every shot. Each and every shot will have a (similar but) unique physical starting alignment (even though its the "same" perception), and after we complete the pivot we will have a unique shot line, and very likely will result in a pocket or bank to a pocket. The only situation I can think of where it would not is if the balls are in a situation they will double kiss or otherwise get in the way of each other.

So concluding your idea above where 30-thin would not be hitting the OB thicker or thinner is incorrect, the technical shot angle would be unique to every CB/OB orientation.

[edit] here is one caveat to your table overlapping question. If the tables overlapped symmetrically so that pockets overlapped perfectly (tables lie at either parallel or 90 degree angles to each other, pockets over pockets) then all pockets are at perfect 90 degree angles from each other (think of a grid), and perceptions may indeed end up on identical shot lines. That being because the exact same shot lines that may have been directly to a pocket before may become a bank, but essentially lead to pockets non-the-less. That is getting a bit hypothetical with CTE, but it makes sense to me. I think (and this is not condoned by CTE instruction) that any tables with 90 angles and pockets at corners *should* work. That is, 1x1, 2x1, 3x1, 3x2, L-shaped etc. I will reiterate that this last bit is my *own* hypothesis on the topic. REAL CTE states that 2x1 is appropriate.

 

[nfuids]

Geez, I'd like to better understand the explanation!

Any way to make an image or better yet a video?

I re-read these explanation 4-5 times lol

 

[mohrt]

Geez, I'd like to better understand the explanation!

Any way to make an image or better yet a video?

I re-read these explanation 4-5 times lol

Have you watched Stan's 5-shot perception videos? Do you understand that each shot has a unique ball address even though they are all the same CTEL/A perception?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKAP8iR3Lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFOHUceNpA

 

[nfuids]

I will re-read the above carefully, and re-watch the videos as well, will keep ya posted!

Thanks!

 

[Jpool1985]

Still aim basic Hal Houle system

I still use the basic Hal Houle system and use the CTE line sight to put my body on spot then choose Left Edge,Left quarter,center,right quarter and right edge base on the angles of the shot into the pocket.

I may be right or wrong, but everyone is different on how their mind,eyes and body work for them. Not everyone can do exact same thing what other do.

 

[jasonlaus]

Are any of you guys that use this stuff even an APA 7, 6, 5? How much have you improved? Shouldn't some of you turned pro by now?