Cte

Shit, Jimbob, why not just come out and tell people to **** off if they're not as good as you are? I've got an idea.. **** you, too. :thumbup:

I don't give a rat's ass about your game or about CTE.

Since we should all do what better players do, maybe I should go out and get some earmuffs, ass weights and a 70" cue.

Some day I may even reach an APA 4, just in hopes of making you proud.

This is the bullshit why CTE'ers are told to **** off. They try to push this shit like a drug, act innocent, then proceed to act like a bunch of ****ing *****s to anybody that's sick of their crap.

Come on man you know crack is illegal, its time to back off the pipe. For reals playa!!!!

I never asked you to care about my game or cte or etc or anything really.

read my original post

I understand everyone is blessed with a certain amount of talent and then its up to them to develop it, for example yours is obviously smoking crack.

Instead of hearing peoples opinions on HOW THEIR game improved , I have a whole bunch of posters talking about " No you cant prove it , it doesnt exist blah blah blah, no I really cant play but Im gonna tell you how to play"

Pool is a results oriented business and the results dictate whether something works... Im just talking about me .....

Thank You and Goodnight
 
Are you trying to claim that cte makes only shots from 12 precise angles?

Yes and no.

For a given CB/OB separation, yes. Actually, it would be 11 rather than 12, because "straight" would be counted twice. Also note that some reviewers have claimed a slightly different number, but that's irrelevant for the point being made here.

But if the CB/OB separation changes, you'd get a different set of 11 angles. So, whereas 37 degrees might not be on the menu for a particular CB/OB separation, it might be on the menu at a different CB/OB separation.

This stuff was all covered a month ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2881548&postcount=74

So I view Stan's CTE method as a "discrete" method, as opposed to a "continuous" method like ghost ball or contact-point-to-contact-point. PJ calls the family of discrete methods "x-angle" methods.

Note, however, that some discrete methods produce the same cut angle for a given prescription regardless of CB/OB separation. The "quarters" or "SAM" or "3-angle" system is of this type -- a three-quarter-ball hit (14.5 degree cut), a half-ball hit (30.0 degree cut) and a one-quarter-ball hit (48.6 degree cut). Because of the multiple-line visuals involved in Stan's CTE, the cut angles change with the distance between the CB and OB, but it is still, to me, a discrete system for a given CB/OB separation -- and I have heard no rational argument to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Come on man you know crack is illegal, its time to back off the pipe. For reals playa!!!!

I never asked you to care about my game or cte or etc or anything really.

read my original post

I understand everyone is blessed with a certain amount of talent and then its up to them to develop it, for example yours is obviously smoking crack.

Instead of hearing peoples opinions on HOW THEIR game improved , I have a whole bunch of posters talking about " No you cant prove it , it doesnt exist blah blah blah, no I really cant play but Im gonna tell you how to play"

Pool is a results oriented business and the results dictate whether something works... Im just talking about me .....

Thank You and Goodnight

Look at the shit you have started James (not really started, more like continued). Now you see why real players don't seem to stick around on AZ. There are always some keyboard jockeys telling people who can really play how it should be done. If you pay attention and practice real hard, you might actually drop a ball or two :)
 
I have drawn in ACAD:
- two eyes separated by 2.25"
- 1 foot (12 inches) behind the bridge (too short and will try 2 feet later)
- 1 foot from the bridge to the CB
- 1 foot from the CB to the OB. 2, 3 and 4 feet separations.

I am studying the secondary aim point from the left edge of the CB to the center (1/2 or "B") of the OB.

I used the left eye as dominant and gazing on that "line".

I brought the cue up under the center of the chin or 1.125 in. to the right of the secondary aim "line" with the tip offset to the left of the center of the CB by .25 in. or 1/2 tip dia.

With the OB 1 foot from the CB, I pivoted the cue at the bridge to the center of the CB and extended a shot line to the ghost ball (GB) and achieved a 50 degree cut angle.

I moved the OB to 2 feet from the CB and it missed the OB to the right. This was not productive so I reverse engineered the diagram.

I had to reduce the travel angle in order for the GB to contact the OB at the same point as in the 1 foot separation.

I placed the GB at a 50 deg. cut angle touching the OB and extended a line from the center of the GB through the center of the OB to the (side of) bridge. I moved the bridge laterally to the right .255 in. to where the line was.

From this new bridge location (on the GB line), I drew a line to a new tip offset to the right by .0271 in. of the new exit point of the GB line on the CB. I then extended this new tip offset line to the new center of my chin which moved my eyes to the right by .27 in.


At 3 feet separation, the tip offset was .071 in. to the right and at 4 feet the offset was .089 in. to the right.

This is one tough exercise with unexpected outcomes.

My hat is off to those that have mastered CTE.

:):thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Yes and no.

For a given CB/OB separation, yes. Actually, it would be 11 rather than 12, because "straight" would be counted twice. Also note that some reviewers have claimed a slightly different number, but that's irrelevant for the point being made here.

But if the CB/OB separation changes, you'd get a different set of 11 angles. So, whereas 37 degrees might not be on the menu for a particular CB/OB separation, it might be on the menu at a different CB/OB separation.

This stuff was all covered a month ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2881548&postcount=74

So I view Stan's CTE method as a "discrete" method, as opposed to a "continuous" method like ghost ball or contact-point-to-contact-point. PJ calls the family of discrete methods "x-angle" methods.

Note, however, that some discrete methods produce the same cut angle for a given prescription regardless of CB/OB separation. The "quarters" or "SAM" or "3-angle" system is of this type -- a three-quarter-ball hit (48.6 degree cut), a half-ball hit (30.0 degree cut) and a one-quarter-ball hit (14.5 degree cut). Because of the multiple-line visuals involved in Stan's CTE, the cut angles change with the distance between the CB and OB, but it is still, to me, a discrete system for a given CB/OB separation -- and I have heard no rational argument to the contrary.

I have shown the same set up can make a shot with a 20 degree difference. Pj's calculations of the number of cut angles is worthless in these cte discussions! and so are dr daves. There is a reason dr dave is not posting in these threads now, there was a time he was all over these cte threads! He realized he better keep quiet now until he has more of an understanding. None of you guys who dont know how to apply the system or seen it or tried it realize your posts are way off and amusing to people who are able to apply the system.

There are 9 total type of cuts not counting the straight in twice. Dr Dave has it wrong also.
 
Last edited:
John's post ... doesn't tell you ... the final or pre-pivot cue alignment....

Yeah, that's not of much interest to me. In Stan's "basic CTE" (where there's an explicit pivot of the cue itself) the pivot point and bridge point are co-located (i.e., you pivot on the bridge point). Stan doesn't say that explicitly, but we know it must be the case since the bridge is not relocated once it's in place and the cue has been pivoted to the center of the cue ball. If the pivot/bridge point is on the CB to GB center line ("GB line"), then it doesn't matter where the cue is at all - it could still be in the cue bag your cue bearer** carts around for you. What I am interested in is how to consistently get the bridge point onto the GB line at a reasonable bridge length.

That said, I suppose it's possible that Stan/Landon/Stevie are somehow using the cue to help find the GB line and/or bridge point, but they certainly don't say so and it certainly doesn't look like it on the DVD. Stevie Moore, in particular, moves very quickly once he's (presumably) acquired his sight lines. I suppose they could be completely unaware of what they're doing, but that seems unlikely. I seriously doubt they're deliberately hiding such information from us; that seems even more unlikely.

I'm also beginning to wonder whether everyone who says they've watched the DVD actually paid attention to what was done in the context of what was said, and made a good faith effort to understand it, or to test it physically. A number of them are beginning to remind me of the geologists who declared flawed any data that showed evidence of plate tectonics on the grounds that simple reasoning proved that such phenomena could not possibly exist, and who excommunicated from the geological community anyone who espoused such ideas.

**Yes, I said cue bearer. Like a gun bearer (I don't like the word "caddy"). Winning lotto next week has made it to the top of my list of things to do, and when I do that I'm going to hire a cue bearer. It'll save a lot of trouble, things like remembering where I last left the cue I want to use for the next shot. Currently, Shandi Finnessey is the leading candidate for the job.
 
I didn't say that 'this is the only thing [that I] found from his posts that were [sic] informative'. I said, 'for starters'. I'm at work and only have intermittent, and short access to the web...

But in response to your request that I put his statement into my own words, I would say that you might restate it as there are CTE atheists, and CTE agnostics. The atheists would say, "There is no CTE god", and the agnostics would say, "There may be a CTE god, but I'm skeptical and will require something more than the testimony of others to convince me".

Of course, PJ will have to justify and defend his own assertions (as I am confident he is capable of doing), and I may have it all wrong.

As a preemptive measure, I want to state that I don't intend to spend much more time analyzing and justifying my position on PJ's posts. You originally asked me to "...tell me any point,information...", and I provided you with an example.

I count myself as a CTE agnostic.

To continue with the religion analogy, the CTE-believers would have us subscribe to Pascal's Wager: You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by just trying it.

Unfortunately the accumulation of all I have read (going back to Hal's original statements) are insufficient to persuade me to expend effort trying it. I assure you, however, that if a clear consensus emerged, that the system is self-consistent, verifiable, and theoretically valid, then I would definitely expend the effort.

I haven't seen that yet.

So, pound some more.

Do you notice he is not backing up his own posts he made in the past and only stcks to these points >>> "Feel" critic "Stans instructions" and the word "exact". Think about it!

Its a wise decision to not continue backing up Pj posts :thumbup:
 
champ2107:
There is a reason dr dave is not posting in these threads now
Yeah, it's because it's not his shift. I'm the designated Houlegan Sitter for March - it's my job to keep the Houlegans busy in the CTE threads so they don't disrupt the real threads. I think Dave's next shift is August or something like that.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's because it's not his shift. I'm the designated Houleigan Sitter for March - it's my job to keep the Houleigans busy in the CTE threads so they don't disrupt the real threads. I think Dave's next shift is August or something like that.

pj
chgo

well good to see you still have your sense of humor Pj :)
 
I have shown the same set up can make a shot with a 20 degree difference.

Was the CB/OB separation the same for the two shots? If so, please show us those two shots and exactly how you arrived at the final cue alignments that differ that much.​

Pj's calculations of the number of cut angles is worthless in these cte discussions! and so are dr daves.

Why?​

There is a reason dr dave is not posting in these threads now, there was a time he was all over these cte threads! He realized he better keep quiet now until he has more of an understanding.

Or, perhaps he is very busy with the real world at present. Or, perhaps he has grown a bit tired of having to say the same thing over and over if he were to post more. Or, ... (many other possibilities)​

None of you guys who dont know how to apply the system or seen it or tried it realize your posts are way off and amusing to people who are able to apply the system.

Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge of, or experience with, CTE.​

There are 9 total type of cuts not counting the straight in twice. Dr Dave has it wrong also.

Yes, you have said that before. Essentially, you personally get the same results using two of the setups. Hence, Dr. Dave's 6 become your 5. Twice 5 less 1 (so as not to count "straight" twice) is your 9. But that's irrelevant to the point of my post #182, as I said in that post.​
 
Yeah, it's because it's not his shift. I'm the designated Houleigan Sitter for March - it's my job to keep the Houleigans busy in the CTE threads so they don't disrupt the real threads. I think Dave's next shift is August or something like that.

pj
chgo
well good to see you still have your sense of humor Pj
Did I say that out loud?

pj
chgo
 
Was the CB/OB separation the same for the two shots? If so, please show us those two shots and exactly how you arrived at the final cue alignments that differ that much.​



Why?​



Or, perhaps he is very busy with the real world at present. Or, perhaps he has grown a bit tired of having to say the same thing over and over if he were to post more. Or, ... (many other possibilities)​



Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge of, or experience with, CTE.​



Yes, you have said that before. Essentially, you personally get the same results using two of the setups. Hence, Dr. Dave's 6 become your 5. Twice 5 less 1 (so as not to count "straight" twice) is your 9. But that's irrelevant to the point of my post #182, as I said in that post.​

Here you go for the second time, same ctel,aim point and pivot. Explain to me where Pj's calculations factor in here or in any part of the cte system? Explain how dr dave/PJ say 6 cut types are not enough? ok, I will assume you are knowledgeable, i am now listening? I did get a chuckle from reading the word assumption :)

sh1.jpg

sh2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Pablo. I wasn't aware of it and did have a read. John's post describes overall body movements, but still doesn't tell you just where the cue should be pointing. Body/eye position alone doesn't constrain the cue enough to define that with enough precision to judge whether the final or pre-pivot cue alignment is this way, or that way, or some other way; at least not with enough precision to determine whether a shot will be successful or not.

I read Mantis99's posts on this as well when he kindly pointed them out, but unfortunately came away with the same impression.

Thanks to a generous poster, I'm going to get a chance to look at it.

Jim

I have described where the cue should be pointing pre-pivot, so has Stan in the DVD. You are facing a cue ball and you honestly only have so many body positions you can be in where the shot can go. It's not as many as you might think.

CTE works. I think I know how it works but you and Dr. Dave have flat out ignored my posts on how it works preferring instead to continue to focus on your ideas of "exact" and precise.

If you start out SIGHTING the CTE line and put your bridge hand down with the bridge slightly offset then the cue tip will naturally fall on the side of the cue ball. When the shooter then pivots or shifts slightly the cue tip is brought to center and from that position the tip is pointing to the GB center.

The instructions provided are enough for a lot of people to follow and get themselves into a set pre-shot routine that lands them on the shot line more often than not. That is the key here. Not whether the instructions are so detailed as to tell you the exact distance that the bridge point must be from the cue ball for every angle, not whether the instructions define the exact distance which the bridge point must be offset from the CTE line.

No, the instructions are enough to get any person started on USING the CTE line for sighting and from there placing their bridge hand on the CTE line and from there bringing their cue tip to center. Getting a "feel" for doing this the right way (as defined by the way which produces a valid shot line) is where the practice comes in. What requires judgement here?

Defining the CTE line to use is pretty much the only judgement call. Once that is identified then the rest of the steps are rote.

Where you have a problem is that the shooter then does not KNOW if the line they are on is ACTUALLY the right line or not BECAUSE they didn't get to that line by crossing it against a point on the object ball which is in line with a line to the pocket as simple geometry demands in order to be CERTAIN of the line.

In other words how is it possible that someone can consistently get to the right shot line without creating a mental line between the pocket---->the object ball------>the ghost ball and then a subsequent line from there ------> cueball?

I believe I know how it works and I can express it in diagrams and on the table and I have reverse engineered it from many shot positions using 100% accurate ghost ball templates made with my laser cutter. But I couldn't begin to give you the math which would also include the parameters to allow for the shot to be made off-center as well, i.e. when someone used a 14.5" bridge length instead of a perfect 13.5" or when someone was slightly off in judgeing the cte line.

I have a detailed video that describes exactly where I point my cue when I use CTE. I also believe that the PIVOT is a natural movement that occurs BECAUSE the body is not set on the shot line as the shooter gets into the shot due to the use of the CTE line. The ONLY way to bring the cue into the shot line is to shift the body so that the cue pivots into it. This is the famous hip pivot.

In other words if you take a shot where you know with 100% certainty where the GB line is and you plant your foot on that line and step into the shot as taught and lay your cue straight down on that line and you then hip pivot so that the cue tip is pointing at the edge of the cue ball then you will find that you are in an uncomfortable position. IF you then shift you back foot SLIGHTLY to be on the CTE line you will now be in a comfortable position. NOW if you hip pivot BACK to the center ball position your cue will be pointing at the Ghost Ball (remember that during this excercise you have not moved your bridge hand at all). The resulting body and bridge position where the back foot is NOT on the shot line but instead on the CTE line BUT the cue stick IS on the shot line is how CTE works.

The CTE instructons force the shooter to put their hand down where the bridge point becomes a point on the shot line. The reason this works in my opinion has to do with the fact that the CTE line and the GB line converge in the center of the CB and the divergence out the back and to the shooter's hand is so small that all it takes at the back of the cue ball to go from the CTE line to the shot line is the tiniest of shifts. I firmly believe that there is some perceptual reason that allows this to work well but also that there are physical principles at work which are as yet undefined. Although I think Fred Agnir touched on this years ago when he introduced the discussion of optics into the realm of CTE discussion.

The point is that it works. It works well enough for certified and well respected instructors to teach it when they don't have to. It works well enough for top players like Stevie Moore and Landon Shuffet and James Roberts to see merit in it. And it works well enough for decent players around the world to see improvement when the only thing they changed in their game is the aiming method.

Precisely how it works is best left to you. Clear instructions on how to implement it abound however. But just like everything else, how people interpret those instructions is key to whether any individual person can "get it" right away, needs more time, or even needs instruction.

For PROOF of this go see Salman Khan's presentation on education at the TED Talks website. There you will see that by analyzing the data they have found that kids who would normally be labeled as retarded and sent to lower level classes for "slow" learners are very often able to catch up to and pass kids initially labeled as "gifted" because they were faster on the uptake in certain areas when the kids were given a way to learn that didn't depend on a one size fits all model for achievement. All kids got the same material and some kids jumped ahead quickly and then slowed way down on the harder problems while the "slow" gets struggled with the easier problems but then once they finally got the principles they then caught up to the fast kids and even had an easier time with the harder problems.

Anyway, to bring this post back on topic, regardless of how long it takes for a CTE user to "get it" eventually they do and most report significant improvement in their pocketing ability. That improvement brings greater success on the table which is what James asked about in the initial post.
 
If you ever run 15 from where I will be leaving you, you would deserve to feel froggy LOL.

No worries, Cliff Joyner taught me plenty about the moving game. My problem has always been that I could beat a guy to the shot and then sell out by not running out. I have no doubt you can move and I have the patience to move with you all day. In fact I enjoy it quite a bit and practice it a lot.

The good thing for me now is that I can make some really sporty shots using CTE. In fact CTE is even better for my one game because it works so well that when you miss you barely miss which is what a one pocket player wants.

I mean that if you have a shot then you want to make it of course and get the cue ball safe - if you don't make it then the next best thing is that it lays in the hole and that's something CTE is great for. As opposed to flat missing by a diamond and giving away the ball entirely.

And don't get me started on what CTE does for bank shots. I used to sell out or miss the short rail banks constantly when I was banking by feel. Now they either go or hang in the hole EVERY TIME.

So I will be looking forward to testing myself against you. $100 a game to start with seems reasonable to get our feet squishy in the mud and we can take it from there. If I am way out of line on where I think my game is in relation to yours we can adjust and get the bet up.
 
Here you go for the second time, same ctel,aim point and pivot. Explain to me where Pj's calculations factor in here or in any part of the cte system? Explain how dr dave/PJ say 6 cut types are not enough? ok, I will assume you are knowledgeable, i am now listening? I did get a chuckle from reading the word assumption :)

champ, come on -- the CB/OB separation is very different in those two shots. Please reread what I said in post #182, and what I asked you about in post #193.

And now I do remember your posting those same two shots a few days ago. Here is what I said at the time. You said nothing rational or cogent in response:

champ, for the second shot, yes, I'd use B with a pivot from left to right. That seems to work reasonably well.

But for the first shot, B with a left pivot overcuts the shot for me. B with a right pivot undercuts it (usually, in my trials). The best solution for me with your first shot is A with a left pivot.

So I disagree that the two shots are absolutely both B's with a left pivot. Apparently the visuals are a bit different from person to person.

But the reason both shots could work for some people with the same B/left alignment is that the CB/OB separations for the two shots are very different. The separation is about two times as much for shot 2 as for shot 1. That creates different angles sighting to the smaller appearing OB on the longer shot.

But in any case, these two shots say nothing about the point that jsp and I have been making over and over. That point relates to having two shots with the same CB/OB separation, doing exactly the same thing in terms of choosing an alignment from Stan's menu of possibilities (including pivoting from the same side with the same amount of offset), using the same bridge length -- and then getting different results (different cut angles).​
 
Touche John. I misstated my question, which is: after using the reference lines to position your eyes/head/body, what do you align the cue with? Clearly, you can't rely on the former to accurately bring the latter onto the proper shot line (or pre-pivot direction if you're pivoting).

Using the reference lines described in Stan's video will pretty much force the player to put their bridge down in such a way that the bridge point is a point on the shot line, or in other words the GB center is the starting POINT - then the line extends to the CB center - then the line extends to the bridge POINT. So if you then put the cue down so that the tip is pointing at the cue ball center then by extension it it pointing at the GB center.

And yes, you can rely on the lines used in Stan's dvd to accurately bring your bridge point to the shot line for any direct shot on the table.

Once your bridge is set then as Jwpred pointed out your cue could be taken out it's case and placed into your hands and it would be on the shot line.


Let's stay with Stan's version for the moment, if you will. I'm not sure what you mean by exact descriptions. I'm looking for well defined steps, such as "after you've acquired the visuals and gotten everything into position, your cue should be parallel to such and such" or "aligned with this or that."

As in your cue should be pointing at the cue ball a half-tip's width from center? Because that's what Stand says in his video for the pre-pivot position. The cue ball is an objective unmoving reference point, the tip width is clear to see.

We're talking a few tenths of a degree in cue direction between a successful shot and a miss, and we're not mind readers. Nor can we see what you're seeing. Unless the cue is guided and constrained at each step of the way with unusual precision, more than is evident in your videos, for example, it's impossible to know just how it got to the final aim line. That's why we have geometry; it provides answers with a precision unachievable in real life, especially casual demonstrations.

So if you have this perfect geometry which provides you with such precision why do YOU fidget when you are down on the ball? I understand that geometry provides precise answers on paper. And if every person in the world could really "see" a perfect ghost ball sitting behind the object ball in perfect line with the pocket then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact I would bet that MOST people if told you have 3 seconds to put one real ball behind another one in dead line to the pocket couldn't do it accurately even 50% of the time if there was any significant distance involved.


You're assuming the results of an experiment that hasn't been performed, at least not with a large sample of players. Even if, overall, players do see an improvement, that doesn't mean that CTE by itself is producing accurate shot lines. Our contention, of course, is that it's CTE + ghostball-like adjustments that are doing the job. In fact, if CTE is explicitly defined as not using those adjustments, there's no question about it for anyone with a working knowledge of geometry (logic is sufficient).

Like you I can only do thought experiments in the absence of resources. The people with resources to do these experiments like Dave Alciatore aren't interested. You contention is wrong. There are no ghostball-like adjustments going on. Make or miss I use the CTE line and the steps as prescribed. Sometimes I literally do not know if I am truly right or not and just shoot the shot, focusing on my delivery.


Then prove it.

Again, you're assuming the results of an experiment not yet performed; certainly not with a large enough sample to draw any conclusions. But even if it went the way you described, and we all agreed that there are benefits to using it, would that contradict our general point of contention?

Not on the surface no. This experiment is designed to show whether changing one variable, which aiming method is used, changes the outcome. It does not show exactly why any method would be better or worse. The discussion point here is whether higher pocketing percentages can be used as a strong hint that one method is better than another method. You say it does not matter if a player reports that they can make more shots and tougher shot after learning CTE. I disagree and think that this is the ONLY measure that matters.

Well, I think it would, a little.

Why? The goal is to make the ball and get position on the next one, rinse and repeat. So why would it matter if the "system" produces a shot line that varies but not enough to cause more missed shots than made ones?


Tell that to DeadCrab. Generally speaking, though, I think you're right. However, it can be used to prove or falsify statements of a "theoretical" nature with regard to aiming...but we won't get into that.

Math can be used to falsify a statement? Don't you mean prove or disprove a statement? We don't play pool in the theoretical realm, we play pool on the table and the ONLY time math is used is when counting the diamonds for kick shots and counting the money after the set is done.

By the way, who's this Jerkson? He sounds like he really knows what he's talking about.

Jim[/QUOTE]

Only to himself. Jerkson is a guy who won't try anything but knocks everything.
 
Back
Top