Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

  • I always go by feel

    Votes: 153 53.5%
  • Usually by feel, with aiming systems for hard shots

    Votes: 68 23.8%
  • Usually with aiming systems, by feel for easy shots

    Votes: 24 8.4%
  • I always use aiming systems

    Votes: 26 9.1%
  • I just hit balls very hard and hope they sink

    Votes: 15 5.2%

  • Total voters
    286
Beginners aside, I've yet to see irrefutable proof someone becomes a better player through learning an aiming system.

Possibly because you don't live in the USA and don't interact with or track any players here.

On this forum.

Duke Laha got better.

Gerry Williams got better.

They aren't beginners. They put videos up of their progress.

Be honest though, no amount of evidence short of beating Ronnie Williams would satisfy you and even that probably wouldn't suffice.
 
Ok the lists are available and the participants could be surveyed. Still the fact is that system users have the highest scores, that's a fact. So you are free to make of that what you want. I choose to interpret it as - damn maybe I should consider whatever method these guys are using and see for myself if there is anything there that can help me get better.

BUT... how many non system users participated?

If only system users participated, then naturally they would be at the top... & at the bottom.

Yes I am a bit 'hung up on' the totally objective claim as I think it is wrong & wrong to use it to pull individuals in with it.

I've said that that is really my only objection.

If anyone wants to go with CTE, more power to them.

Just don't say that it is totally objective & requires no subjective judgement to arrive at the exact shot line because that is false.

One can believe it all that they want but they should not say it's true when they can not prove that it's true.

That would be false advertising & in that situation the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I really did not want to get into all of this & would like to get out of it.

Maybe you can do me a favor & don't respond. Just let me have a soliloquy.
 
In every other sport the top finishers are copied. Those below them want to try and emulate those finishing higher in every way possible so that they can experience the same rate of success hopefully. They try to copy the methods used.

A guy who works for me is a very good player. One of the best in Oklahoma, Sean King. Recently we watched the video where SVB describes and demonstrates his aiming method. It is a stick method using the ferrule and the shaft. My friend who beats the ghost playing ten ball took it to the table and worked on it for a few days and immediately improved his accuracy. He showed me some rail shots for example where he was rifling balls in down the rail on tight pockets. Something he had been having trouble with previously. But due to copying Shane and following the directions he, already a great player, got even better.

And the immediate result for him? He won an amateur tournament against the best amateurs in Oklahoma - a lot of very strong players - easily. This despite not putting in much practice other than several days prior to the event learning the aiming method.

Of course he might very well have won without the system but the fact is that he knows he became a better shotmaker in the space of a few days by virtue of learning Shane's method.

John,

I did not read much past your first suggestion. I am not one of the no aiming method guys.

I am just opposed to calling it something that it is not.

If it truly is a totally objective system then it would work for everyone with a straight stroke right out of the box. It doesn't.

Sighting individual cases only means it worked for those individuals & does not go to the why which is because they have an ability which is good subjective judgment when put near the line. Others do not have that.

With all of the time you have put into it, while better, why are you not way much better? Why are you not as good as Gerry Williams?

If it is a totally objective method then you should be.

I'm done.

CTE is the greatest thing since sliced bread for anyone that can use it.

For those that can't it's not.
 
Last edited:
Been real sick for about 3 weeks.........

I would recommend Gene's Perfect Aim to everyone if only to confirm that you are seeing a straight line as straight & not a crooked line as straight.

How have you been Gene? I hope well.

Not the flu but had flu like symptoms for 10 days.

Had this happen about 8 months ago also.

Need to shake this and get back to work.

Too many pool players need the help I can give.

But for now just trying to survive.

Hope things are well for you. Thanks again...........
 
No one forced you to discuss this or any other aiming method.

My responses were on topic addressing comments made in the thread.
If someone posts absolute factual falsehoods, as you have, I and others are understandably going to set the record straight.

I didn't go back and look at every one of the OP's posts in this thread, but nowhere in his first post, that lays out the thread subject, does he ask what aiming system someone uses, or the details of your aiming system if you do use one--only if you use one or not. But even if he had and you wanted to share about yours, your response should have been "I use a system called CTE. A lot of people disagree with it and because it is such a hot button issue that ALWAYS leads to nasty wars in every thread where it is discussed, the owner of this site, Mike, is requiring that all CTE discussions and other any aiming system discussions by done in the aiming forum that he created for aiming system discussions. I want to respect his wishes and directive so if you would create a new thread on the same topic over in the aiming system forum I would love to discuss it there and tell you all about it". I know you could care less and have never given two sh!ts about what Mike wanted before, but now is probably a good time to start.

You could be courteous and simply link to whatever you assert though. I do the same for you and everyone else I have a discussion with.
You are kidding right? Not only has no CTE user ever backed up anything you assert other than "well I can make balls when I use it so that must mean if finds the correct aim line", which is meaningless and proves nothing because there are much better explanations for that, but on top of that no CTE user to date has ever even been able to precisely explain what is supposedly a precise system (there is always lots of vagueness where the feel is being used that you wont admit to), and people have been asking for both these things for decades now.

If you want to have the thread moved it is certainly your right to complain to whomever you like that can move it.
I suspect it will end up moved, but it won't be because I complained about it.
 
John,

The wolfing challenges if accepted would NOT settle anything as to system vs subjective perception.

Your bad strokes with the cue going all over the place were subconscious efforts trying to correct for what the subconscious knew was poor aim or poor alignment.

I understand your pre-match issues, but once into the match you should have been able to implement the system IF it is totally objective as claimed.

I'm not looking for any argument.

But... I would be interested in hearing your explanation of the 5 shot perception video.

By definition, perception is subjective. Perception is not objective.

I refrained from posting earlier in reference to your statement that the 'system' takes one to the EXACT shot line.

The 'War' has been 'dead' for some time but statements like that will certainly bring it back again.

My ONLY issue is the totally objective claim.

I think Beiber/Jon who still likes CTE came to realize that subconscious 'adjustments' are likely.

As I said, I would just be interested on your take regarding the 5 shots perception video.

I'm NOT looking into getting into any argumentative back & forth.

But can you explain how moving off the visual until one sees the proper perception of the shot can in any way be objective & is not subjective.

Thanks in Advance,
Rick

Edit: I've now read your posts that were made while I was typing this post & have an idea that you are so not locked it on it being totally objective but still a very useful method.

You worry about the 5 shot video but by your own admission you just looked at it and decided it couldn't be true. How about actually shooting it the way Stan said, you would then have a much better understanding. I know you don't have time, too busy posting on AZ.
 
You don't need a test - the idea that any system simple enough to use could produce more than a fraction of all the cut angles needed to play pool is absurd on its face. And if you don't think CTE's explanations for that ("rotating edges", "3D perceptions", etc.) are ridiculous on their face, then you're most likely immune to science anyway.

pj
chgo

You are exactly right. I have been doing my best to avoid saying that, even though it is the truth. Even with ZERO formal physics or math education of any kind above being able to count and add and subtract it should immediately be beyond obvious that “the idea that any system simple enough to use could produce more than a fraction of all the cut angles needed to play pool is absurd on its face” if they just stopped and thought about how many possible shot angles are actually needed to pocket every shot that was possible on a 9 ft table of average tightness and how complicated and unusable the system would have to be to accurately be able to give you all of those angles.

One time I tried to make a very quick and rough calculation of how many angles of aim a system would need to pocket every conceivable angle of shot for every possible cue ball and object ball location on a 9 ft table with 4.5” corner pockets and not even where it will have to get you to center pocket but just anywhere where the ball would manage to fall. I think I came up with something like 500 unique angles of aim that would be needed to pocket every shot that could come up. I’m sure my number isn’t near close to exact but what is certain is that it is a very large number of unique angles that are needed and any aiming system not requiring feel would have to have a systematic way of finding every single one of them precisely.

Remember the original CTE system from Hal Houle, the one that said there was only six shot angles in pool and that his system that used only six shot angles could pocket any possible shot that could come up on a pool table (his claim was that because there are only six pockets that you only needed six cut angles to pocket any possible shot, as if those things have anything to do with each other)? Of course since them over time they have had to make changes to the prevailing CTE system many times every time enough people start to catch on to how ludicrous it is and that it couldn’t possibly find the correct aim line and then they were forced to have to “refine” it, ultimately trying to make it vague and “unexplainable” enough that it became hard for people to see what a crock of crap it was.

Although at every step along the way with every new version of CTE their claims were (just as they still are today) always that the system was “perfect and got you on the absolute perfect line of aim every time without exception”. Well if it was perfect in all of those previous versions like they always claimed it was then they never would have needed to change it now would they? If they changed it was because it wasn’t perfect after all, so either they knew it wasn’t perfect and were lying about it, or they were just ignorant to the imperfections for the longest time, and neither one should inspire any confidence in them at all.

The current version will be changed again before long too (once everybody who was interested in learning about the newest version CTE system has already paid for the lessons and bought the DVDs your sales dry up until you once again change the system so that it creates a new need for lessons and DVDs again), but never forget how today they were all saying how perfect it is and how it never breaks down or fails to perfectly find the correct line of aim just as they always said about all the other many past versions over the last couple of decades (which will again mean they were either lying about it not having imperfections today, or they were just ignorant to them). You heard it here first, mark my words.
 
The proof of a good aiming method is the results that a player gets out of it.

Well that would just be proof of whether or not it helped that specific person. It doesn't prove why, which is and always has been the issure. Nobody is saying that CTE can't provide some help for some people. What they are saying is that it doesn't find the correct aim line and doesn't at all help them the way you claim it does. It gets them in the ballpark of the pocket and their feel will subconsciously adjust from there, and it does help some people in some other ways, but actually finding the correct line of aim is not one of them, because it does not find the correct aim line.
 
What you are actually saying is: Who do we listen to? Those that know the system very well, or those that have only scanned the material and haven't spent enough time with it to actually learn it?

Actually what I am really saying is that pool is governed by all the laws of science just like everything else. It isn't special. Gravity doesn't fail to act on pool balls like it would for every other object for example. Everything in pool is covered by and explainable by and controlled by the laws of science. All pool is science. Now who know more about science, a scientist, or Joe Blow pool player (even if he is one who teaches, or one who plays at a high level). I can tell you who, the scientist. And they know your system very well, much better than you do in fact, because they actually understand what it is actually doing and not doing and how it works and doesn't work.

As I asked JB, I am going to respectfully ask that you continue your CTE related discussions in the forum it is supposed to be in so that I and others aren't forced into having to correct it here where it isn't supposed to be.
 
You are exactly right. I have been doing my best to avoid saying that, even though it is the truth. Even with ZERO formal physics or math education of any kind above being able to count and add and subtract it should immediately be beyond obvious that “the idea that any system simple enough to use could produce more than a fraction of all the cut angles needed to play pool is absurd on its face” if they just stopped and thought about how many possible shot angles are actually needed to pocket every shot that was possible on a 9 ft table of average tightness and how complicated and unusable the system would have to be to accurately be able to give you all of those angles.

One time I tried to make a very quick and rough calculation of how many angles of aim a system would need to pocket every conceivable angle of shot for every possible cue ball and object ball location on a 9 ft table with 4.5” corner pockets and not even where it will have to get you to center pocket but just anywhere where the ball would manage to fall. I think I came up with something like 500 unique angles of aim that would be needed to pocket every shot that could come up. I’m sure my number isn’t near close to exact but what is certain is that it is a very large number of unique angles that are needed and any aiming system not requiring feel would have to have a systematic way of finding every single one of them precisely.

Remember the original CTE system from Hal Houle, the one that said there was only six shot angles in pool and that his system that used only six shot angles could pocket any possible shot that could come up on a pool table (his claim was that because there are only six pockets that you only needed six cut angles to pocket any possible shot, as if those things have anything to do with each other)? Of course since them over time they have had to make changes to the prevailing CTE system many times every time enough people start to catch on to how ludicrous it is and that it couldn’t possibly find the correct aim line and then they were forced to have to “refine” it, ultimately trying to make it vague and “unexplainable” enough that it became hard for people to see what a crock of crap it was.

Although at every step along the way with every new version of CTE their claims were (just as they still are today) always that the system was “perfect and got you on the absolute perfect line of aim every time without exception”. Well if it was perfect in all of those previous versions like they always claimed it was then they never would have needed to change it now would they? If they changed it was because it wasn’t perfect after all, so either they knew it wasn’t perfect and were lying about it, or they were just ignorant to the imperfections for the longest time, and neither one should inspire any confidence in them at all.

The current version will be changed again before long too (once everybody who was interested in learning about the newest version CTE system has already paid for the lessons and bought the DVDs your sales dry up until you once again change the system so that it creates a new need for lessons and DVDs again), but never forget how today they were all saying how perfect it is and how it never breaks down or fails to perfectly find the correct line of aim just as they always said about all the other many past versions over the last couple of decades (which will again mean they were either lying about it not having imperfections today, or they were just ignorant to them). You heard it here first, mark my words.

You sound just like those that swore the earth has to be flat because if it was round, people would fall off the bottom and sides of it. Mock it all you want to, but it makes perfect sense when one actually understands it. Everything one needs to understand it has been given. One only needs an open mind, ability to listen and understand, and willingness to work on it.

Your second to the last and the last paragraph actually is nothing more than uniformed slander. You don't even know what you are talking about there, but are willing to slander the author. Before you make claims like you have, you should first be very familiar with the material, not just make stuff up and claim it as fact.
 
Last edited:
Thanks John, but I do not want to participate in your proposed test. As said, it won't prove anything.

In addition, one thing in particular about Dr Dave's test, is its static. Simply taking it multiple times is likely to improve the score, whether you are a feel player or system player. I believe if used as a measure of one player's true ability, only the first score each player submitted should be counted. And then maybe done once per year, so you don't "remember" all the shots of the test. If you look through the list, you will see that top level players like Marc Vidal only did the test once, and are quite a bit lower than the other players on the list, who did the test multiple times, and are clearly not as good as Vidal in a game situation.

As a practice drill I think its great, but as a rating drill, not unless only the first score is taken from each player. (Or alternatively the 10th score for example, etc).
 
Actually what I am really saying is that pool is governed by all the laws of science just like everything else. It isn't special. Gravity doesn't fail to act on pool balls like it would for every other object for example. Everything in pool is covered by and explainable by and controlled by the laws of science. All pool is science. Now who know more about science, a scientist, or Joe Blow pool player (even if he is one who teaches, or one who plays at a high level). I can tell you who, the scientist. And they know your system very well, much better than you do in fact, because they actually understand what it is actually doing and not doing and how it works and doesn't work.

As I asked JB, I am going to respectfully ask that you continue your CTE related discussions in the forum it is supposed to be in so that I and others aren't forced into having to correct it here where it isn't supposed to be.

That's where you are wrong. Take Dr. Dave for example, knows much more than me about science. Yet, he claims CTE does not do what it says it does, but is still beneficial. His claim to that is from looking at it on paper, and not in real life. He is missing the key to the system simply because he is not really paying attention to detail on what is said to do. And, without that key, you have very little. Basically, he and many others aren't even looking at the correct formula to make their claims.

As far as knowing the system well, he and others that can't use it, do not know it very well at all. They only know little parts of it, made their claim about it, and dropped it. You want the scientific method, then look at this- claims were made. Some looked at the claims, and just flat out stated that it can't possibly be true. Others looked at it and worked with the formula, and found it does do what it says it does. The first group dropped any further investigation because they didn't understand all the parameters, but had made their decision anyways. Where they failed is in seeing that others had come to a different conclusion, were adamant about their conclusion, and therefore they should revisit it and see what they had missed in their initial conclusion themselves. Obviously something was missed, because there is much evidence that it does work as described.

But, rather than be scientific and revisit it, they continue with their dismissal of it and even go as far as to make up things of how the successful ones suddenly became better at aiming despite the system. Totally absurd statement.
 
Last edited:
Thanks John, but I do not want to participate in your proposed test. As said, it won't prove anything.

In addition, one thing in particular about Dr Dave's test, is its static. Simply taking it multiple times is likely to improve the score, whether you are a feel player or system player. I believe if used as a measure of one player's true ability, only the first score each player submitted should be counted. And then maybe done once per year, so you don't "remember" all the shots of the test. If you look through the list, you will see that top level players like Marc Vidal only did the test once, and are quite a bit lower than the other players on the list, who did the test multiple times, and are clearly not as good as Vidal in a game situation.

As a practice drill I think its great, but as a rating drill, not unless only the first score is taken from each player. (Or alternatively the 10th score for example, etc).

Rich, of course one gets better when they practice it. That's the whole point of doing it. And, that is what the scores reflect. That one actually improves when doing the drills. And yes, those skills translate very nicely to game situations. That is what it was designed for. Scores reflect one current abilities, not what they used to be before improving.
 
You worry about the 5 shot video but by your own admission you just looked at it and decided it couldn't be true. How about actually shooting it the way Stan said, you would then have a much better understanding. I know you don't have time, too busy posting on AZ.

Cookie,

I did shoot it after I saw it. I've said that in the past.

To get 5 different results from the same visual requires subjective input based on the shot.

If done totally objectively each ball hits the rail at 'equal' distances apart, that is to say that the end result angle is the same. Unless one deviates & adds one's own input to what the shot requires. That is the same experience that Satore & 8pack Anthony had.

I would surmize that some are incapable of performing objectively & do the last part & add the subjective input.

I can make all of the shots without CTE, Right after the failed attempts with total objectivity & CTE, I rattled shot #5 with my method & pocketed it with TOI.

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that the 3 of us were 'testing the system' with regards to it's objectivity, unless I am wrong about the other 2.

I've never said that someone, Gerry, Mhort, or someone else can not make the 5 shots using CTE but they are kidding themselves if they think they are doing so totally objectively.

The issue in the discussions of this nature are that we, I & you & ohers, do not have the same 'definition' of objective.

If one just 'moves until one sees the proper perception' one has just inserted subjectivity & that is not even an objective instruction other than to paraphrase it & say, 'now use your individual subjectivity & move until you see the proper perception for the shot at hand'. One could start from anywhere & do that & not use nor need CTE.

I really don't want to discuss it with those that can't see the reality of it, but if I am continually portrayed other than what I am, I basically have little choice.

I don't want misinformation going out about me nor the method.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:
Rich, of course one gets better when they practice it. That's the whole point of doing it. And, that is what the scores reflect. That one actually improves when doing the drills. And yes, those skills translate very nicely to game situations. That is what it was designed for. Scores reflect one current abilities, not what they used to be before improving.

We have went though this before, and I disagree somewhat. I feel a player can improve their scores on a static drill, significantly, without it affecting their performance in a real life game situation. I did the drill twice (when it first came out) with about a day of practicing each individual section between the two full drill trials. I improved my score from 78 to 87 in those two days. That's pretty significant. I feel I could have improved it to over 100 with just a few more tries, especially because on the part 1 test, I was at the max amount before going to part 2, which limited my potential points because I was taking the easier of the tests. Now, there is no way I was a better player in real life over those two days.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think practicing weak shots will improve your game. I'm a big proponent of doing drills. My favorite are Joe Tucker's Guaranteed Improvement. One of the biggest thing I think doing structured drills does for a mediocre player like me, is expose and force one to shoot shots we might not typically use in our normal game. So by doing these drills, we learn new shots to us, and expand our available shots in a game.


Learning something new will improve your game. For example, I feel for myself, I have improved from a high C to a definite B (still lower level B) in the past year, because I figured out something new to me... how the CB curves off of the stick, much better than I had a grasp of that before. It made so many shots I have been having trouble with, and not understanding why sometimes they went, and sometimes they did not, make so much sense and increase their make percentage. I figured this out doing Joe Tuckers 10 Across drill from the Guaranteed Improvement book. That was just arbitrary, it just showed up on that particular drill to me, and I finally got it, because of the types of shots the drill forces you to shoot.
 
Not the flu but had flu like symptoms for 10 days.

Had this happen about 8 months ago also.

Need to shake this and get back to work.

Too many pool players need the help I can give.

But for now just trying to survive.

Hope things are well for you. Thanks again...........

Sorry to hear that Gene. I'm 'okay' for a 62 year old with a ruptured disc.

I'll say a prayer for you.

Take Care,
Rick
 
It's finally official. 74.24% or a large majority of pollsters in this thread either use feel only, or usually use feel. It's a landslide. Why all of the aiming threads on this forum to bore everyone to death.
 
Back
Top