Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[ENGLISH!]

That non-sensical argument has been brought up before on here. They claim that while our subconscious could not make the shot before, even after years of trying to make it there still was no consistency in making it. But, somehow, this CTE system unlocked another portion of our brain that we weren't utilizing that knows exactly how to make the shot and enables the subconscious to now make the shot for us with consistency.

If that were even remotely true, it would be one of the greatest discoveries of the mind. And would be in all the scientific journals. Would be a greater claim than saying the subconscious is not what makes the shot.

You don't know it...

but you may have just turned off of the right road.

 

[JB Cases]

That non-sensical argument has been brought up before on here. They claim that while our subconscious could not make the shot before, even after years of trying to make it there still was no consistency in making it. But, somehow, this CTE system unlocked another portion of our brain that we weren't utilizing that knows exactly how to make the shot and enables the subconscious to now make the shot for us with consistency.

If that were even remotely true, it would be one of the greatest discoveries of the mind. And would be in all the scientific journals. Would be a greater claim than saying the subconscious is not what makes the shot.

I fully agree. Which is why I said it would be truly magical IF what they claim is how it actually works.

Furthermore if the subconscious causes some correction into the right shot line then what explains when I CTE user ends up on the wrong line? For example if I pick the wrong solution (key) then how come the subconscious doesn't correct me?

They like to explain the makes with subconscious adjustment but refuse to give the subconscious credit for the misses. And you're 100% right when you correctly ask where the subconscious was all the years of hitting a million balls with feel/ghost ball was?

Apparently only CTE can tap into it to trigger the subconscious into a higher state of accuracy......

 

[JB Cases]

Nice job of totally taking words out of context, adding some B.S. to make your point.

First off, when we say that we don't know how it works, you are applying that with a very broad brush. And, either are doing it out of a lack of understanding of the subject, or out of a bias of your own to try and prove that subconscious adjustments are made.

We know the steps to using it. And we know how to use it. That is something very few of your side that says it has subconscious adjustments know. What we don't know, is the math that has to lie beneath it all. No one knows that at this time. And, the reason for that has been explained dozens of times on here.

You say that we must be making subconscious adjustments, yet you are not able to use the system yourself, so you have nothing to back up your claim on that. Numerous times, I and others have made posts that prove that there is no subconscious adjustments made. Yet, you dismiss all of that because it does not favor what you want to believe to be the truth.

You erroneously state that we would feel stupid by having to answer the hows of why it works so we avoid it to not look stupid. Actually, if I could explain the math behind it, I would feel extremely brilliant. That is because no one yet has been able to figure out how to put what we see into a math formula. It just can't be done at this time. So, you even making that claim on us shows your bias or lack of understanding on just what the problems with totally explaining how it works even are.

As far as if it has subconscious adjustments to it, it doesn't even matter to me that much. I would use it anyways. I also use 90/90 and that does have some slight subconscious adjustments. But, you see, I know how to use CTE, and have set up tests for myself to see if there were subconscious adjustments to it. I haven't found any yet. What I have found, is that if I do make any subconscious adjustments, it causes a miss, not a make. But then again, I also have stated that numerous times on here. The exception to that being the bank shots. All users have stated that subconscious adjustment is needed whenever banking a ball for numerous reasons.

What I do find odd, is that so many of you that do not and can not use the system with confidence, and many of you can't even make one shot with it, or even come close to describing the steps to using the system, are so quick to claim that you must know exactly how it works and exactly what those using it are actually doing. That is just amazing!

What you fail to realize, is that for you to state that we must be using subconscious, then, by your argument, you must know the system well enough to know just what is needed to use it properly. And, have tested it thoroughly yourself. Yet, we know that you are not well versed in the use of CTE, so you have no basis to make the claims you do about it. But, your bias didn't stop you from making those claims.

So, in summary, do I know why following these steps lines me up to the shot line? No. I'm not a mathematician. But, I do know very well what those steps are, and can follow them to get the results claimed. I also know, that I am not using subconscious to alter my final shot line to then make the ball because the system did not do anything but get me close.

As far as descriptions of the system being vague, they really are not. They are surprisingly accurate. The problem arises when some refuse to actually follow the steps to the letter and keep inserting their own biases into it. We have given detailed descriptions in various ways to accomplish the steps. That some do not, or will not, understand them and take it to the table for more than a few shots is not on us, but on the users. So, for you to say that we have been vague, is just not true at all. In fact, on here, a number of us have said more than we feel comfortable giving out for free on here, yet, in the interest of helping others, the complete system is on here in various places and threads. That's not doing Stan any favors at all.

I fully agree and will add that Stan himself pretty much gives the viewers everything they need in his free YouTube videos if they simply will pay attention and absorb the information. To me that's in the spirit of Hal Houle as he gave away his knowledge for free to anyone willing to learn.

Stan has immersed himself in the study of how best to use CTE and taught himself how to teach it. In any other endeavor a person dedicated like this would be applauded and respected fo their expertise in the subject. Only on here is he knocked by those with not even a fingernail's worth of experience in the subject.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I wonder how much experience Pythagoras had circling the planet in about 500 B.C. when he used his intelligent logical critical thinking ability to deduce from just a few simple observations that the planet was not flat but 'round'.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I fully agree. Which is why I said it would be truly magical IF what they claim is how it actually works.

Furthermore if the subconscious causes some correction into the right shot line then what explains when I CTE user ends up on the wrong line? For example if I pick the wrong solution (key) then how come the subconscious doesn't correct me?

They like to explain the makes with subconscious adjustment but refuse to give the subconscious credit for the misses. And you're 100% right when you correctly ask where the subconscious was all the years of hitting a million balls with feel/ghost ball was?

Apparently only CTE can tap into it to trigger the subconscious into a higher state of accuracy......

Why would it be subconscious ???
When you go down then look at the two balls along with your tip pointing at the edge of the ob, if the hit calls for less than 1/2 ball , can't you tell then it'll be too fat of a hit ?

 

[Poolplaya9]

What we don't know, is the math that has to lie beneath it all.

Again, your argument is "well I can make balls with it so it must be mathematically correct." You can make balls with just about any system no matter how wrong it is because your subconscious will adjust. It might take some time (which is why it always takes CTE users a while "playing" with the system before it "works"), but it will. Some people do actually know the math though, and the math doesn't lie, nor is it inconclusive. The math (and common sense) shows that the CTE Pro 1 system and all other CTE based systems absolutely positively do not and cannot find the correct aim/shot line on almost any shot. It generally gets you in the ball park and that is about it.

Numerous times, I and others have made posts that prove that there is no subconscious adjustments made.

Yep, all those posts say "well I can make balls with it so it must be finding the correct aim/shot line." That isn't proof, evidence, or even logic. Anybody that believes "I can make balls with it" is proof that it finds the correct shot line is beyond help and simply lacks the capacity for understanding CTE (and lots of other things). No amount of proof or explanation or anything else will ever help that person understand.

You erroneously state that we would feel stupid by having to answer the hows of why it works so we avoid it to not look stupid.

That's not exactly what I said. I said that because you fear that it would make you will feel stupid, and you fear that others would see you as stupid and it would be publicly humiliating, it caused a bias and denial that will not allow you to ever truly consider that CTE finds the wrong aim line and you make it work by subconsciously adjusting. Your bias (because of the above fears) simply won't allow you to ever accept that conclusion no matter what proof could be offered, and lots has already been offered but there is literally nothing that would ever make you or John or Stan accept it. You will "deny 'til you die" in the face of any and all possible proof no matter what it is or ever could be. It doesn't matter. That is the power that bias can and does have over you.

if I do make any subconscious adjustments, it causes a miss, not a make.

How do you know you made a subconscious adjustment if it was subconscious? I'm not sure you have an understanding of what subconscious means and that knowledge would certainly help in understanding the discussions being made and in communicating accurately in them.

What I do find odd, is that so many of you can't even come close to describing the steps to using the system, are so quick to claim that you must know exactly how it works and exactly what those using it are actually doing.

Quite wrong, opposite in fact. No CTE user in history, ever once, has ever been able to explain all the system steps in detail. Detail means two things here. First, that it is comprehensive and precise enough that it doesn't allow all that room for your subjective subconscious adjustments by feel like your current instructions do. Second, they would be comprehensive and precise enough that any two people who followed the instructions would have to be doing exactly the same thing. If there were a system that objectively finds the correct shot line, then it could be explained in a way so as to make it impossible for any two people to be able to do anything any differently from each other when following those instructions. Otherwise your steps are just allowing the necessary subjectivity (adjustments by feel) in.

What you fail to realize, is that for you to state that we must be using subconscious, then, by your argument, you must know the system well enough to know just what is needed to use it properly. And, have tested it thoroughly yourself.

I and many others absolutely know the system well enough and have tested it thoroughly enough to know that it simply does not and cannot objectively find the proper shot line for almost any shot without user adjustments based on experience (feel). This isn't even rocket science though. Among a multitude of other evidence and proof, just count out how many objective angles the CTE system can give you (without your feel adjustments) and draw them out. If it is possible to put a pocket in between any of them at a distance of say eight feet then you know the system can't find the correct shot line.

So, in summary, do I know why following these steps lines me up to the shot line? No. I'm not a mathematician.

But some here are mathematicians. Every last one of them says CTE doesn't find the correct shot line. Just because you or someone else doesn't understand the proof doesn't make it any less so.

But, I do know very well what those steps are, and can follow them to get the results claimed.

Half of those steps are "use feel for this", and "use feel for that". Nobody has ever, in history, ever been able to give detailed steps that don't allow for subjective adjustments based on feel, and that don't allow for different people to be doing it differently. If it objectively finds the shot line you could write out steps that didn't allow for feel or for people to do things differently. If you think you are able to go ahead. Nobody else has come remotely close in twenty years of desperately wishing they could.

I also know, that I am not using subconscious to alter my final shot line to then make the ball because the system did not do anything but get me close.

How do you know what your subconscious is doing if it is subconscious? Again, I don't think you are understanding that concept.

As far as descriptions of the system being vague, they really are not. They are surprisingly accurate. The problem arises when some refuse to actually follow the steps to the letter and keep inserting their own biases into it.

Actually, you are dead opposite from the truth, again. The problems arise when CTE'ers refuse to follow the steps exactly without the adjustments and subjectivity. When they do force themselves to just follow the instructions (like when most first learned it) they shoot most of the balls dead into the rail. It is only after you your subconscious learns to creep in and correct for the incorrect shot lines that you can then make anything with it. But if you make the instructions more detailed, as they should be, then it takes away the ability to be able to do things slightly differently (at least intentionally) and to make adjustments by feel.

 

[Neil]

Again, your argument is "well I can make balls with it so it must be mathematically correct." You can make balls with just about any system no matter how wrong it is because your subconscious will adjust. It might take some time (which is why it always takes CTE users a while "playing" with the system before it "works"), but it will. Some people do actually know the math though, and the math doesn't lie, nor is it inconclusive. The math (and common sense) shows that the CTE Pro 1 system and all other CTE based systems absolutely positively do not and cannot find the correct aim/shot line on almost any shot. It generally gets you in the ball park and that is about it.


Yep, all those posts say "well I can make balls with it so it must be finding the correct aim/shot line." That isn't proof, evidence, or even logic. Anybody that believes "I can make balls with it" is proof that it finds the correct shot line is beyond help and simply lacks the capacity for understanding CTE (and lots of other things). No amount of proof or explanation or anything else will ever help that person understand.


That's not exactly what I said. I said that because you fear that it would make you will feel stupid, and you fear that others would see you as stupid and it would be publicly humiliating, it caused a bias and denial that will not allow you to ever truly consider that CTE finds the wrong aim line and you make it work by subconsciously adjusting. Your bias (because of the above fears) simply won't allow you to ever accept that conclusion no matter what proof could be offered, and lots has already been offered but there is literally nothing that would ever make you or John or Stan accept it. You will "deny 'til you die" in the face of any and all possible proof no matter what it is or ever could be. It doesn't matter. That is the power that bias can and does have over you.


How do you know you made a subconscious adjustment if it was subconscious? I'm not sure you have an understanding of what subconscious means and that knowledge would certainly help in understanding the discussions being made and in communicating accurately in them.


Quite wrong, opposite in fact. No CTE user in history, ever once, has ever been able to explain all the system steps in detail. Detail means two things here. First, that it is comprehensive and precise enough that it doesn't allow all that room for your subjective subconscious adjustments by feel like your current instructions do. Second, they would be comprehensive and precise enough that any two people who followed the instructions would have to be doing exactly the same thing. If there were a system that objectively finds the correct shot line, then it could be explained in a way so as to make it impossible for any two people to be able to do anything any differently from each other when following those instructions. Otherwise your steps are just allowing the necessary subjectivity (adjustments by feel) in.


I and many others absolutely know the system well enough and have tested it thoroughly enough to know that it simply does not and cannot objectively find the proper shot line for almost any shot without user adjustments based on experience (feel). This isn't even rocket science though. Among a multitude of other evidence and proof, just count out how many objective angles the CTE system can give you (without your feel adjustments) and draw them out. If it is possible to put a pocket in between any of them at a distance of say eight feet then you know the system can't find the correct shot line.


But some here are mathematicians. Every last one of them says CTE doesn't find the correct shot line. Just because you or someone else doesn't understand the proof doesn't make it any less so.


Half of those steps are "use feel for this", and "use feel for that". Nobody has ever, in history, ever been able to give detailed steps that don't allow for subjective adjustments based on feel, and that don't allow for different people to be doing it differently. If it objectively finds the shot line you could write out steps that didn't allow for feel or for people to do things differently. If you think you are able to go ahead. Nobody else has come remotely close in twenty years of desperately wishing they could.



How do you know what your subconscious is doing if it is subconscious? Again, I don't think you are understanding that concept.


Actually, you are dead opposite from the truth, again. The problems arise when CTE'ers refuse to follow the steps exactly without the adjustments and subjectivity. When they do force themselves to just follow the instructions (like when most first learned it) they shoot most of the balls dead into the rail. It is only after you your subconscious learns to creep in and correct for the incorrect shot lines that you can then make anything with it. But if you make the instructions more detailed, as they should be, then it takes away the ability to be able to do things slightly differently (at least intentionally) and to make adjustments by feel.

Besides disagreeing with about everything you just said, I'll ask one question of you- show me the math behind CTE since you stated that some do know it. You must have seen it to agree with it so boldly.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Besides disagreeing with about everything you just said, I'll ask one question of you- show me the math behind CTE since you stated that some do know it. You must have seen it to agree with it so boldly.

All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?

 

[ENGLISH!]

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

For Poolplaya9's last 2 posts.

That's 3 Thumbs Up

X 2
___________________

= 6 Thumbs Up

 

[BeiberLvr]

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

For Poolplaya9's last 2 posts.

That's 3 Thumbs Up

X 2
___________________

= 6 Thumbs Up

So you agree with him?

 

[duckie]

Example of what detail instruction looks like for a aiming system......anything like this for CTE?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=375273

 

[Tony_in_MD]

There sure is.

Have you read and responded to any of the posts in your thread? Or do you just like to post and run.

Example of what detail instruction looks like for a aiming system......anything like this for CTE?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=375273

 

[cookie man]

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

Perhaps the best statement of the year given the subject matter & timing.

Perhaps it's time to disengage with illogical individuals other then applying a one word description to posts they make that are illogical...

Balderdash.

bal·der·dash
ˈbôldərˌdaSH/Submit
noun
senseless talk or writing; nonsense.

Balderdash.

bal·der·dash
ˈbôldərˌdaSH/Submit
noun
senseless talk or writing; nonsense.

 

[cookie man]

It's amazing how ALL of the members of AZB have given you their authority to speak for ALL of them.

Amazing!

Simply Amazing!

Balderdash.

bal·der·dash
ˈbôldərˌdaSH/Submit
noun
senseless talk or writing; nonsense.

 

[cookie man]

I wonder how much experience Pythagoras had circling the planet in about 500 B.C. when he used his intelligent logical critical thinking ability to deduce from just a few simple observations that the planet was not flat but 'round'.

Balderdash.

bal·der·dash
ˈbôldərˌdaSH/Submit
noun
senseless talk or writing; nonsense.

 

[cookie man]

All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?

CTE provides a unique cut angle for every ball placement.

 

[KRJ]

I wonder how much experience Pythagoras had circling the planet in about 500 B.C. when he used his intelligent logical critical thinking ability to deduce from just a few simple observations that the planet was not flat but 'round'.

Oh, he had plenty of real world experience, training and studying in various disciplines around the world, including many notable philosophers, mathematicians, poets, etc. etc.

You know, stuff he could actually point to and say "hey, this is what I've done' and thus his opinion carried some weight.

You are unwilling to share with us your vast experience that helped you gain so much knowledge and understanding in the world of pool. I don't know why, say it loud and be proud...well, unless you're not.

So, comparing your thoughts on CTE to Pythagoras is an epic fail. But keep trying, it's good for a laugh anyways. Only a few more months, and then you hit that "magical" 47 years of experience (allegedly) :wink:

 

[336Robin]

Every angle

CTE provides a unique cut angle for every ball placement.

I have no investment in if it does or it doenst but I don't see how this is possible.

You have A B and C and how many manipulations off of those? If there is a finite amount you might have a angle that works for the fact that a pocket is 4.5 inches wide and several angles would in fact work but that is about all I can readily see from the information that I know.

Doesn't Stan even say that CTE wont work on table with pockets that aren't at right angles or if the table isn't 2 to 1?

 

[one stroke]

CTE provides a unique cut angle for every ball placement.

Ya ok




1

 

[ENGLISH!]

Same old same old from that certain few.

Duckie/Greg's post of last night seems even more applicable by dawn's early light.

You just can't use logic with illogical individuals & expect them to see the truth of matters.

PS Especially when they are acting like children. I guess I should not say that.

Most children act better than illogical adults that are acting like children.