Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Dan White]

Please. He gave examples of guys who got it quickly AFTER stating clearly that those are not typical results.

The guy who got it in a week was already a 70-80 ball runner when he decided to try CTE. For him he saw immediate improvement.

As Dave said, it is your loss. To use your engine analogy.....you would refuse to learn how to be a mechanic unless someone explained to you all the intricacies of an engine first.

Many people know how to fix cars without a full understanding of the engineering used to design the car.

I'd offer to send you my DVD just as I have lent it out many times but I think it's not worth it. Just try it seems to be a step to far for you. My sincere apologies for wasting your time trying to help you through pms. Sounds like you have the support that confirms your initial bias already.

Cte team, we lost one.....moment of silence please.....

John, I hate to tarnish your reputation, but I like your style. You're a real pisser. I have a table in my basement that I can get to in about 45 seconds, I have tried the CTE system as best I've learned on video. My background and degree is in chemical engineering, so I know my critical thinking skills are solid enough to understand CTE. Stan stammers his way through one section of one video (with all due respect) that I'd like to get a better understanding of. Instead I get cryptic half explanations from people who don't bother to answer a follow up question (not necessarily you). And after all that I am the one with the bias! :duck:

Regards,

 

[Dan White]

Yall do know in the real world.....spheres, ie balls do not have edges, just a surface.

A cube has edges.

Hater.....

 

[JB Cases]

Yall do know in the real world.....spheres, ie balls do not have edges, just a surface.

A cube has edges.

and the real world the edge of an object is the outermost discernable point. As in a knife's edge.

The "edge" of a sphere is certainly more easily visible than any "point" on it.

10 out of ten people on the street would be able to find the edge of a sphere from any viewing angle more precisely then they would be able to identify the exact center on the surface of that sphere from any angle.

 

[Jal]

Now I can guarantee that that guy right there understands Hawking's theory concerning how time began. :thumbup:

While I think we're in agreement on many things regarding CTE, I have to reluctantly disagree with the above.

...If you could send me a PM and explain it all, I'd appreciate it. :grin:

Jim

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick Johnson:
...none of them (including Stan) can describe it intelligibly.

cookie man:
...your post goes against all the years of you saying you know cte better than just about everyone.

I said you can't describe it, not me. In fact, I've described it in detail many times - you're just not ready to hear it.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

... and don't accuse those people of trying to discredit the system when they don't understand the instructor's lesson.

Your own posts have tried to discredit the system while you explained you haven't understood the material.

Is there anything stopping you from calling Stan instead of making these posts on AZB?

I mean you could have simply got the guy on the phone and had a conversation with the source rather than do all this on here.

People claim that they want to learn but instead of going to the source they debate on here. Makes no sense to me. When I want to know something and I have access to the source I don't go to the community first, I pick up the phone, email or message the source and ask them first. Then I can weigh their answers against the crowd's wisdom and experience and make my decision based on the available information.

I could have STOPPED after dogging the first two shots Hal asked me to try and said this system doesn't work and walked away. I could have said to my friend Bob Johnson why did you call me for this waste of time.

But fortunately for me I did not do that. Fortunately for me I decided to stop looking for a way to get away from that kooky old man and settle down and listen and give the methods he was teaching a fair shot. I was lucky that the source came to me because I would have never sought him out or called him. My mind was CLOSED to the idea that anyone with any aiming system had anything to teach me.

Only I didn't spend time arguing online with that position. I just flat out ignored aiming threads as I imagine many do today. But for those who do pay attention to them I sure am sad that there are those who ACTIVELY try very hard to get readers to make up their minds NEVER to try any of these methods. That is sad.

As for you. You might be genuinely interested but it's only if you get to publicly grill people for answers that satisfy you. If that answer isn't to your liking then you seem to be concluding that the method doesn't work as claimed and thus is not valid. I can understand that for an analytical mind an answer of "it just works" isn't satisfactory. Cool then don't mess with it because you might never be happy even after you see that it just works.

For a lot of others, that's a perfectly acceptable state of being, I have a tool that just works and works extremely well.

 

[Dan White]

While I think we're in agreement on many things regarding CTE, I have to reluctantly disagree with the above.

...If you could send me a PM and explain it all, I'd appreciate it. :grin:

Jim

I think there are a few Youtube videos out there. Do I have to do everything myself?

 

[JB Cases]

Hater.....

You got that 100% right. Duckie is the very definition of that word. He can't run five balls in a row but wants to tell EVERYONE on earth how to play pool.

 

[JB Cases]

John, I hate to tarnish your reputation, but I like your style. You're a real pisser. I have a table in my basement that I can get to in about 45 seconds, I have tried the CTE system as best I've learned on video. My background and degree is in chemical engineering, so I know my critical thinking skills are solid enough to understand CTE. Stan stammers his way through one section of one video (with all due respect) that I'd like to get a better understanding of. Instead I get cryptic half explanations from people who don't bother to answer a follow up question (not necessarily you). And after all that I am the one with the bias! :duck:

Regards,

I understand you have a table. I had a table too and spent many nights with CTE and other systems tearing them apart. I know you saw on my videos how I marked up my table. I also have made diagrams trying to understand the underlying "how and why" because subconscious adjustment is too simple to explain the accuracy possible with CTE and other methods.

You're not the only person with an degree and a degree in anything doesn't automatically mean you are a critical thinker. There are many with degrees in engineering, chemistry, law, and physics to name a fee who use CTE and know it works as claimed.

But the information you gave is insufficient. #1 we don't know what Hal told you or what system of his that he instructed you in over the phone. #2 we don't know what you actually know of CTE or how you are applying it. Make a video of you using CTE and send it to Stan and then he can tell you what you are doing wrong if anything. Or make the video and let it show you NOT making the shots and make it public and thus claim that CTE doesn't work. No one can stop you from doing that.

But until you actually really LEARN it you can't very well claim that you have given it a fair chance. That's the real bottom line here.

Pat Johnson for example flat out refused to even try the CTE steps when I met him in Chicago. He already has it in his mind that it has no value for him and he thinks it's all subconscious adjustment anyway. So he can't really speak with any authority on how it works when he doesn't even know the steps and hasn't ever practiced them.

 

[336Robin]

No bet here

Not a random feel player, 100 ball runner Lou Figueroa.

Lou has written many posts about his opinion on what a player should do to get better. Thus with a month any player under him should improve.

By how much is the question. And the measure will be a pool test developed by Dr. Dave.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I wouldn't bet on Lou as a teacher, as a player much different story.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yall do know in the real world.....spheres, ie balls do not have edges, just a surface.

A cube has edges.

An infinitely large circle is a straight line.

An infinitely large sphere is a flat plane.

How can pool even work?

pj
chgo

 

[Zphix]

Are people aware that when trying to reach your goal - if one path you take does not work, you try another one?

I seem to keep seeing the exact same arguments being pushed harder and harder with the same exact result. At this point, it's just phalanx warfare where the side with the sharper and longer spears wins. The only way to beat a Hoplite Phalanx is with flexibility.

 

[Spimp13]

Daz replied to my PM and said that he does not use an aiming system. It was just a one line reply. Just a heads up (not that it overly matters but that is his take on it).

 

[MahnaMahna]

Daz replied to my PM and said that he does not use an aiming system. It was just a one line reply. Just a heads up (not that it overly matters but that is his take on it).

If you post his exact words, JB will be able to analyze his writing style and show us that Daz is subconsciously using CTE without even knowing what CTE is! Everybody is using am aiming system no matter what they say or do!!!!

 

[cookie man]

Hi cookie man. I did spend time at the table. That's how I realized that edge to A is edge to A is edge to A (with CTE at the same time of course). Stan seems to get a different shot angle using the same edge to A in his three big ball examples. A good teacher doesn't tell the student "too bad your an idiot." He tries to explain the problem areas in a different way until the light bulb comes on in the student.

You posted pretty quick after the link i sent you.

 

[cookie man]

I said you can't describe it, not me. In fact, I've described it in detail many times - you're just not ready to hear it.

pj
chgo

You don't speak my language,lol.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Okay, I thought PJ would have handled this but perhaps since you directed it to me, he'd rather I do it.

First, let me say again that if any individual wants to buy & try CTE then they should certainly do so but they should understand that the assertion of it being a totally objective 'system' has not been proven nor has it been unproven..

How much of CTE is objective and how much is subjective? Please break down the whole method and give us the numbers?

I say it's 99% OBJECTIVE and 1% subjective.

The 1% subjectivity comes in mentally drawing lines to places on the object ball. Not 1 % but okay, subjective, if I understand what you mean by that. The edge is objective, Not really because it it the precise point on the equator on the same plane as the table that is relevant & that is not marked. That point is dependent on where an individual is standing. If two individuals look at the same point from different positions one might see it on the circumference(edge) why another might see it as no where near the circumference (edge). That basically is what physical subjectivity or relativity is. the center of the cue ball is objective. No, not really as it is not marked & must be estimated & while one can see the top of the ball one does not readily see the bottom of the ball, if ever. This too is dependent where one is standing. Dividing the object ball into quarters for the purpose of obtaining an A, B, C, and 1/8th line is subjective and dependent on practice to train one's perception to a higher level of accuracy. Technically yes for the first part, but for the sake of the discussion some have even conceded this to be an 'objective' part along with the previous. So, up to here although technically not objective some have conceded these as 'objective'for the sake of discussion & to be able to move on to more important matters. As to the getting more accurate through training, that is what many refer to as gaining 'feel' & does not just go from subjective to objective. Coming into the shot from a stance position is OBJECTIVE since the shooter is placed into a fixed position BEFORE he goes down into the shooting stance. A shooter has effectively no choice if they want to adopt a comfortable shooting position. So that's objective forced by the steps taken. No. Going from where one is to another location is based on their subjective perception of that new position & can be effected by there body size, proportions, and especially how their eyes & mind see lines from different elevations & whether or not their perception of parallel is accurate. Gene Albrecht & even CJ can speak better to those subjects.

Choosing the inside or outside sweep? Subjective until trained. After training completely objective. No. training does not make subjective perception all of a sudden objective. It merely PERHAPS makes the subjectivity more accurate or closer to being correct or correct perhaps more often, but the base foundation remains subjective as it is based on one's subjective perception of what needs to be done. Again, that is what some refer to as gaining 'feel'. Thin is in(side) is the rule.

So please tell us your percentages.

So, John, what percentage guess would you put on it? As I've said, percentage numbers can not be put on abstracts unless a specific guideline of how that is going to be attempted is laid out.

I'm not really comfortable with this, as you left out the part of selecting the actual visual & then arriving at the proper 'perception' for the shot at hand that actually gets one to the line that they are going to shoot on after the pivot. That is the most important part & the part that everyone not fully in the CTE corner wants answered. Up to now it has just been,'move or rotate until you see it'. That is not any definitive nor objective instruction on how to arrive on that line.

We all know what we are supposed to see simultaneously that places one on that line with a fixed cue ball, but that is the same place objectively, relative to the balls, regardless of where the balls are on the table for each visual. It does not vary... not objectively. That is science.

So how does one get a different objective picture for shot 5 than than they do for shot 1?

From the perspective of the shooter the CTE line is the same & the ETA line is the same. There is nothing objective that affects that. So, how can one get a different outcome angle from the same objective line derived from the objective visual lines & exact same bridge placement with the same exact pivot? This is what we that are not fully in the CTE corner want answered in a concise objective manner.

Based on the scientifically sound premise regarding the visual, the only answer that can be, is that the bridge placement is not the same 1/2 tip parallel to the vision line OR... one moves off of the objective vision line, ahhh but how much & why? THAT ANSWER IS BASED ON ONE'S INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTIVITY.

The 'answer' of where the balls are on the table dictates the 'perception' of the visual does not float, not objectively. There is nothing between the shooter & the line of the balls that can change the CTE & ETA lines seen simultaneously to get that objective fixed cue ball. Again, that's just science & it governs all dimensions.

SO, what percentage is objective & what percentage is subjective?

I'd say that the only important part is 100% subjective most of time except for when a shot exactly fits one of the objective visuals with the proper directional "1/2 tip pivot" & even then subjectivity comes into play to decide if that is so or not.

YOU ASKED.


Best Wishes

PS I can hear all the I don't know CTE, yatta yatta yatta. Well for how long has the 'world' has been waiting for the same question to be answered in a logical concise objective manner based on totally objective means other than 'just move or rotate until you see it'... 'it will present itself', etc.?

Just answer the question.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Everyone has the capacity to be nice or horrible. Making another person's life miserable for something insignificant isn't nice at all.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John,

If the person to whom I think you are referring is miserable it is through his own doing by making an unproven invalidated assertion to the 'public' regarding something that he wants to sell.

It's he that has the ability to rectify that.

Best Wishes,

PS I certainly have no desire to make anyone miserable but my affinity for the truth prevents me from making false statements or concessions to untruths. That my at times be a short coming of mine. But... “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

 

[336Robin]

What if feel were teachable?

So for arguments sake.

You arrive at your end result and a feel player arrives at an end result and both of those results were the center ball contact point.

What if feel were proven to be teachable to that point and beyond into the application of spin. Would it be worth your time as a CTE player to want to learn to play with feel from the center ball contact point by strict objective direction and what if by that direction you were able to learn to feel shots from that point. Would this be of any value to you?

?

 

[Dan White]

You posted pretty quick after the link i sent you.

I've been playing around with CTE here and there all along. The link you sent me talked about thinning and thickening the shot with pivoting. Pivoting was not the issue at hand in the original video that I did not understand. Stan never said he changed his pivot in any of the 3 big ball example shots and the confusing part occurs well before he gets to the pivot stage. It is in the perception of the edge to A line/CTE line from a standing position where the confusion occurs from one shot to the next.