Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[KRJ]

Do you guys know the rest of the pool world is laughing at you? In my 60 years around pros and top road and open players have I heard even one of them talk about how to aim. If you don't get it in a couple 1000 balls...pool is not for you. Johnnyt

So, league players should stop playing because they can't see the "sight lines" and should hang up their cues. The only ones laughing is every other sport on the planet that is higher on the food chain then pool. You can go on a baseball site, and they won't attack you if you teach a curveball this way or that way. Or how you "recognize" certain pitches, cause we realize not everyone is the same, and they don't process information exactly the same way.

Not sure why pool is so special and there is only one way to do something ??

 

[KRJ]

Yeah, I rattled a straight in shot last time I played a week ago & aiming it wrong was not the reason that I rattled it.

Best 2 Ya.

Might be you just suck.. just saying

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Whether there is an answer to this question or not will settle in my mind whether CTE is what it is advertised to be, or just a marketng ploy.

Since it's the same question that's been asked one way or another for the past several years, I think we can safely assume the answer isn't coming, at least not in a language you'll understand.

But even if CTE isn't what it's advertised to be, I don't think it's just a marketing ploy. Stan seems to sincerely believe the stuff he says, and CTE's forum commandos definitely do (even if they each think it's something different).

pj
chgo

 

[MahnaMahna]

If this thread proves anything, it is that ENGLISH! is the most worthless person posting to this site right now. He writes 100 times more words than anyone else but says absolutely nothing.

GTFO

 

[Dan White]

Since it's the same question that's been asked one way or another for the past several years, I think we can safely assume the answer isn't coming, at least not in a language you'll understand.

But even if CTE isn't what it's advertised to be, I don't think it's just a marketing ploy. Stan seems to sincerely believe the stuff he says, and CTE's forum commandos definitely do (even if they each think it's something different).

pj
chgo

Well you're right. It's hard to tell what is in someone's heart and soul. All we have to go by is what we see (I was going to say "perceive" but thought better against it). An instructor leaves himself open to speculation when he is so clear about every little detail on one hand, yet is able to gloss over major concepts at the same time.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Why, I don't use CTE, why am I assigned to a group ? Your intentions are that you are a pool know it all who can't run 3 balls, and won't even post yourself playing when challenged by Neil. But, please, tell us more on how to play pool Rick, it's just so informative for all your years of expert play and instruction

The 'CTE' group is not where I've filed you.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Might be you just suck.. just saying

A Change of Heart. I'm becoming a better Christian & won't stay at the gutter level even if I do let myself get pulled in.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If this thread proves anything, it is that ENGLISH! is the most worthless person posting to this site right now. He writes 100 times more words than anyone else but says absolutely nothing.

GTFO

A Change of Heart. I'm becoming a better Christian & won't stay at the gutter level even if I do let myself get pulled in.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I was right! You do angle your cue. Your vision drives your cue angling. Your cue is likely across your vision ever so slightly, a characteristic of solid players........congrats, you are CTE user and you do not even know it........well, you are not alone.....most all good players do not realize it....
Just like Hal eluded to the idea that top players use CTE.....you are using CTE subconsciously on some shots and I could lesson you right through it.......so you would understand the nature of it......
Anyway, good shooting!
Stan Shuffett

Lou,

There is only one true way to tell.

If your aim dont work on a triangle table... you might be a cte'er

That's funny. Thing is a CTE user can always revert all the back to pure feel if needed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

How are they going to stop using cte if they dont even know they are using it?:shrug:

CTE users are self-aware and can choose on demand what method of aiming they want to use. Feel players are just stuck with hoping that their guessing skills are good enough.

What you say just doesn't make sense to anyone who has the ability to follow along in a conversation.

#onlyworksona2x1surface

 

[Straightpool_99]

Amazing 76 pages and still going...The fact of the matter is that since we don't know the mechanism by which CTE works, or doesn't work depending on which side of the fence you are on, it is extremely difficult to find a way in which to objectively test it. CTE seems to depend heavily on the distance between the eyes, how we percieve the perspective etc, but since the eyes are not static cameras, determining how they find the visuals etc is extremely complicated. The eyes move continuosly, scanning every scene so rapidly that even though a large part of every image is out of focus if we were able to freeze the frame, we don't notice it because of the rapid movement. Creating an analog system to this is no cakewalk.

Here is the easiest test protocol I can think of to test CTE, not perfect but practically possible if you can find a lunatic to do it:
Lets say you mounted two cameras the same exact distance as your eyes to a mount fastned to an articulating arm maybe(?), and then look individually at the image produced by both, moving the mount from side to side until you are satisfied you have picked out the visuals. You could also use them together and analyse the 3d video output. Then you'd have to place a cue (presumably spring loaded) half a tip away from the center cueball line as the "eyes" see it and then pivot with the required bridge distance, back to center. You now have to lock down the cue somehow and trigger the mechanism. If you miss, you must cycle through the perceptions. If you can't find one that works, CTE doesn't work. What kind of maniac would spend the rest of his life doing this, I wonder. Oh wait, we just had a 76 page discussion...Even if, and it's a bif IF, someone were to go through with a test like that, it would be dismissed as not being an accurate enough representation of what the eyes see. You'd be a couple of months older, and no further along. This shows how futile this discussion is.

 

[KRJ]

And might be your testosterone level is higher then your intellectual level.

Thanks for proving what I told another member would happen.

And a few members told me a few things, you can't shoot a lick. yeah, those 46 years of experience has really paid dividends for ya. So, by all means, tell me more Mr. Billiards :rotflmao1::rotflmao::nanner:

.

 

[Dan White]

I wonder if the combatants in this thread will humor me for a moment. I have a serious question about CTE but I am having trouble getting a serious response to that question. I asked Stan for some help back on page 60-something and got no reply. I know he saw my post because he posted both before and after I did. To me, the question I'm asking is at the heart of whether this is an objective system or not.

So far I've gotten a couple of pm's with half explanations, and no answer to follow up questions.

If Stan isn't interested, will at least one CTE supporter please PUBLICLY explain the answer to my question so that it is out in the open? If any of the CTE critics knows the answer, please post it as well.

Whether there is an answer to this question or not will settle in my mind whether CTE is what it is advertised to be, or just a marketng ploy.

Thanks for your attention, you will be returned to your regular programming...BEEP

This link will take you to another link:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5317584&postcount=954

Answering your own post feels a little like explaining a joke to people after telling it to them:

A couple of people pm'ed me some information, but safe to say that nobody understands what Stan is talking about in this video. This is unfortunate as this is the crux of the CTE system... and nobody seems to understand it.

I was pm'ed this video (thank you):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iuvQT7dwfs

It is about using left and right pivots to adjust the direction of the cue ball. It is very clear that Stan does require a knowledge of where the pocket is in order to select the proper visuals. It is also clear that each visual line up (A,B,C whatever) along with the CTE line will only produce one path for the object ball. Stan even says that you need to use the pivot or else the object ball will hit the side rail. So clearly, pivoting is a method to increase the number of angles you can send the object ball along towards a pocket. He also says that if you move the two balls a little more and a little more to sharper angles, eventually a line up to A won't work any more and you have to transition over to a B lineup. An A with inside sweep is like a B with outside sweep. Clearly, then, as you move the object ball a half inch or so at a time to sharper angles, the object ball is going to go fatter and fatter until it will no longer be pocketed. Then you know you need to aim at B. You only get this experience, as Stan says, by hitting thousands and thousands of balls and by learning the relationships between the balls and the right angles of the table (that is, where the pockets are).

Let me close by saying that everyone in this forum wishes Stan had something that we could all benefit from. God knows I wouldn't have spent a whole week in this thread if I didn't hold out some hope that I would understand how the system works.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I KNOW I'm going to get flamed for this, but in this case I have to call it like I see it. I believe Stan is doing a great disservice by marketing a system that he does not understand well enough to communicate clearly to students. Nobody can sell a DVD set and half way through the lesson say, "Now at this point I'm not sure what happens, but just do it and it'll work" so he has mastered an air of authority and earnestness without really saying anything sensible (I'm referring to everything after 6:30 in the video). Stan should figure out what he is really doing in that video with the large balls and then explain it clearly. If it really works then it should be explainable. I believe I understand Stephen Hawking's theory on the beginning of time better than I understand the two minutes following 6:30.

Now that I am officially a hater, I would like to offer that I would like nothing more than for someone like Stan to show me what a fool I am and let me understand how anybody can send the ob in three different directions by using the same visuals and same half tip sweep.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Now that I am officially a hater

Welcome to the Dark Side - hope you brought a flashlight.

pj
chgo

 

[DaveM]

Is all of this truly about how to cut a ball in a vacuum?

 

[Neil]

Answering your own post feels a little like explaining a joke to people after telling it to them:

A couple of people pm'ed me some information, but safe to say that nobody understands what Stan is talking about in this video. This is unfortunate as this is the crux of the CTE system... and nobody seems to understand it.

I was pm'ed this video (thank you):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iuvQT7dwfs

It is about using left and right pivots to adjust the direction of the cue ball. It is very clear that Stan does require a knowledge of where the pocket is in order to select the proper visuals. It is also clear that each visual line up (A,B,C whatever) along with the CTE line will only produce one path for the object ball. Stan even says that you need to use the pivot or else the object ball will hit the side rail. So clearly, pivoting is a method to increase the number of angles you can send the object ball along towards a pocket. He also says that if you move the two balls a little more and a little more to sharper angles, eventually a line up to A won't work any more and you have to transition over to a B lineup. An A with inside sweep is like a B with outside sweep. Clearly, then, as you move the object ball a half inch or so at a time to sharper angles, the object ball is going to go fatter and fatter until it will no longer be pocketed. Then you know you need to aim at B. You only get this experience, as Stan says, by hitting thousands and thousands of balls and by learning the relationships between the balls and the right angles of the table (that is, where the pockets are).

Let me close by saying that everyone in this forum wishes Stan had something that we could all benefit from. God knows I wouldn't have spent a whole week in this thread if I didn't hold out some hope that I would understand how the system works.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I KNOW I'm going to get flamed for this, but in this case I have to call it like I see it. I believe Stan is doing a great disservice by marketing a system that he does not understand well enough to communicate clearly to students. Nobody can sell a DVD set and half way through the lesson say, "Now at this point I'm not sure what happens, but just do it and it'll work" so he has mastered an air of authority and earnestness without really saying anything sensible (I'm referring to everything after 6:30 in the video). Stan should figure out what he is really doing in that video with the large balls and then explain it clearly. If it really works then it should be explainable. I believe I understand Stephen Hawking's theory on the beginning of time better than I understand the two minutes following 6:30.

Now that I am officially a hater, I would like to offer that I would like nothing more than for someone like Stan to show me what a fool I am and let me understand how anybody can send the ob in three different directions by using the same visuals and same half tip sweep.

Dan, have you even tried the shots on an actual table?

 

[philly]

over 1100 post on an aiming thread in 11 days. Help!

 

[Dan White]

Dan, have you even tried the shots on an actual table?

Yes. I've even done it with Hal on the phone. If I get a chance I will post my own video showing what I am trying to do and why I don't understand how Stan can do it.

 

[JB Cases]

Amazing 76 pages and still going...The fact of the matter is that since we don't know the mechanism by which CTE works, or doesn't work depending on which side of the fence you are on, it is extremely difficult to find a way in which to objectively test it. CTE seems to depend heavily on the distance between the eyes, how we percieve the perspective etc, but since the eyes are not static cameras, determining how they find the visuals etc is extremely complicated. The eyes move continuosly, scanning every scene so rapidly that even though a large part of every image is out of focus if we were able to freeze the frame, we don't notice it because of the rapid movement. Creating an analog system to this is no cakewalk.

Here is the easiest test protocol I can think of to test CTE, not perfect but practically possible if you can find a lunatic to do it:
Lets say you mounted two cameras the same exact distance as your eyes to a mount fastned to an articulating arm maybe(?), and then look individually at the image produced by both, moving the mount from side to side until you are satisfied you have picked out the visuals. You could also use them together and analyse the 3d video output. Then you'd have to place a cue (presumably spring loaded) half a tip away from the center cueball line as the "eyes" see it and then pivot with the required bridge distance, back to center. You now have to lock down the cue somehow and trigger the mechanism. If you miss, you must cycle through the perceptions. If you can't find one that works, CTE doesn't work. What kind of maniac would spend the rest of his life doing this, I wonder. Oh wait, we just had a 76 page discussion...Even if, and it's a bif IF, someone were to go through with a test like that, it would be dismissed as not being an accurate enough representation of what the eyes see. You'd be a couple of months older, and no further along. This shows how futile this discussion is.

Or a more practical way. You learn it and keep it if you like the results you get. Don't need a Popular Mechanics article and a peer reviewed study in the American Journal of Science.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Yes. I've even done it with Hal on the phone. If I get a chance I will post my own video showing what I am trying to do and why I don't understand how Stan can do it.

Cool. Now you get on the bus trying to actively stop people from learning CTE?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[duckie]

Funny thing is that everyone that aims uses ghostball, some just don't know it. However, not everyone use the same methods to visual how to get the CB to the ghostball.

What every system does is place the CB where the ghost ball would be to make the OB go where you want. You just do not go up a hit the OB with first knowing where you want to send the OB and hopefully at the same time consider where the CB is also going.

Once that is done, you got to know where to hit the OB to make it and the CB go where you want.....ie Ghostball position.

So, all systems are ghostball based. The only difference in systems is how the ghostball position is determined between each.

Some are simple, more realistic, others not so. But they all use ghostball position as the basis, even if you don't realize it........yet.