Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[cookie man]

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.

I would have thought my video would have cleared that up. Do you have a link to the one you are talking of ?

 

[ENGLISH!]

There are laws against false advertising, and while I don't really care to delve into whether that is an issue in this case, I don't think it is ever fair to entice a new player by using false claims. One thing that rubbed me a little the wrong way is when Stan says this is a "professional system." He goes on to tout that this is a very high level thing and implies that it is something only the top players really understand. To someone new to pool, they are going to think that CTE is standard training for the high level players, and it just isn't.

I've said several times regarding the assertion of it being a totally objective 'system', that if it were to be put in any official national advertising & a charge were made, the judge would have no trouble finding the assertion to be not allowed.

I sold advertising for a few years & rather often had to rein in a client from over embellishment.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[Dan White]

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

When I ask something like "Why the hell can't anybody answer a simple question?" You see that as me discrediting the system. Well, OK, after awhile of listening to crickets chirp the mind begins to wander. Again, I don't want to discredit it, I want to learn it.

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.

Well, Stan never offered to help me. I'm learning from his free videos and, frankly, I'm calling him a poor teacher for allowing a big meatball of confusion to sit out here in the public discourse without addressing it. So why would he bother with me? If he knows what he is doing inside and out, why not end the thousands of posts and just answer the question directly?

Using my engine analogy again, if I don't understand the description of a cam shaft, I don't call the CEO of General Motors.

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.

OK, listen to what I am saying carefully, please. It isn't a matter of just trying it and see how it goes (although I've done that). There is a more fundamental problem. When I line up ETA and CTE like Stan does in the video, I get the exact same orientation for all three shots. When I shoot the first shot (the shallow one of the 3) the OB hits the side rail somewhere near the side pocket. By the time I'm shooting at the third ball (or 5th ball in the other video) the OB goes pretty close to the corner pocket. When Stan shoots the shots, they all go in. I don't know what I'm doing differently from what Stan is, and nobody who is an expert at CTE seems to know, either. That doesn't make me anti CTE.

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

How about this, just to make sure we are on the same page... Can you state in your own words what it is that I have trouble with in Stan's video? Sometimes people argue right past each other because they are talking about different things.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Really, are you speaking for Dan because this is his qoute. "From my view at this point, the CTE system as defined can be called an objective system because the cue ball and object ball aim points, and the pivots are all fixed and used repeatedly the same way."

You conveniently left out the rest of what he said & apparently don't seem to care how such tactics make you look to innocent bystanders but you are not alone in that regard.

Take a yoga class, John. :smile: I'm not at the point of trying to stop anybody from doing anything. I just want to learn more. And, yes, I have my own brain, and no, Rick isn't sending me any videos. I did google some on my own as well.

From my view at this point, the CTE system as defined can be called an objective system because the cue ball and object ball aim points, and the pivots are all fixed and used repeatedly the same way. The problem is that I'm not sure that's how balls are actually pocketed. I would be more sure if I understood the video instruction better.

 

[Dan White]

I would have thought my video would have cleared that up. Do you have a link to the one you are talking of ?

No, the whole pivot issue is different from the issue I'm discussing (unless Stan is doing something with the pivot that he isn't telling us, which is doesn't look like).

Here is my original post. The second link takes you to Stan's video:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5316560&postcount=824

 

[ENGLISH!]

Look I don't care. At the time, two or three years ago or whenever I posted what Rodney publicly said on FB. It was relevant then. It isn't relevant now.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

John,

If he tried it & decided it was not what it was said to be & dripped it, it is certainly relevant.

I don't know if that is the case or not, but if so, it's relevant.

Best Wishes.

 

[JB Cases]

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..




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.

There is only place where both lines are visible to the shooter. That's what move until you see it means.

In fact, that is the definition of objective. There are lots of illusions in life that appear one way until you obtain the right perspective and see them clearly for what they are.

That's really what all this is about, obtaining the right perspective. And the right perspective is the one that comes from OBJECTIVELY using the balls to obtain, as close to humanly possible, a visual that is consistent and reliable.

This is where the practical objectivity comes from. As much as is possible CTE allows the user to be extremely objective in perceiving alignments that work for just about any shot faced. It doesn't matter if there is a little subjectivity in the process. The amount is so small as to be insignificant.

You and others want to make it out as if when there is ANY subjectivity then CTE is not any better than ghost ball or just guessing.

That's not the case. CTE is way better. It's 99% objective in my experience.

 

[cookie man]

You conveniently left out the rest of what he said & apparently don't seem too care how such tactics make you look to innocent bystanders but you are not alone in that regard.

Because that wasn't the important part. It's an objective system. I'd worry a little more about how looking on here. It's not going to pretty for you.

 

[Neil]

I've said several times regarding the assertion of it being a totally objective 'system', that if it were to be put in any official national advertising & a charge were made, the judge would have no trouble finding the assertion to be not allowed.

I sold advertising for a few years & rather often had to rein in a client from over embellishment.

Best 2 Ya.

I'm not going to bother quoting the dictionary definitions again, because you obviously never bother to read them. Go ahead and bring it before any judge, and you will get laughed out of court. You still have no idea what objective and subjective even mean. Yet, you have thousands of posts about it.

In any case, we all know after your thousands of posts about it, that you still don't think it is objective. You don't need to keep polluting these threads with the same old gibberish. Get over it already.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

If he tried it & decided it was not what it was said to be & dripped it, it is certainly relevant.

I don't know if that is the case or not, but if so, it's relevant.

Best Wishes.

Why?

So then if a pro player uses it openly forever then that counts too?

If he liked pepsi three years ago and mountain dew now what does that mean? It means he liked something then and something else now.

You used to be pro-CTE and now you are nitpicky about it. Others were anti-aiming system and now use them.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I'm trying my best to take people at their word and not prejudge. There's no hurry and when I believe I have an answer, which looks like it may be in the form of a non-answer, then I'll go "poof" like a genie and will be back to running balls rather than typing keys.

Regards,

Dan,

I hear you. I just don't like thinking of others wasting time looking for something that's just not there.

If they know going in that there are questions as to it's nature then fine, they know what they are getting into.

The answer to which you & others are looking has not ever come.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[ENGLISH!]

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

Yeah, I wish he would post more but he has his reasons & understand them.

 

[Neil]

John,

If he tried it & decided it was not what it was said to be & dripped it, it is certainly relevant.

I don't know if that is the case or not, but if so, it's relevant.

Best Wishes.

It's not any more relevant than Darren not using the SEE system on every shot. They both were already master aimers. They both tried a new way of aiming, and they both gave their thumbs up to it. Darren even endorsed the SEE system.

After decades of aiming one way that works for them, why should they totally abandon it for another system that takes time to learn as well as they know their old system that will still only make them a master aimer? It's not like either one of them miss much. And, you can be sure that 99% of the time they do miss is not because they didn't know how to aim the shot, but because of some other reason.

So, whether either of them now uses SEE or CTE, is totally irrelevant. What is relevant, is what they had to say about it after giving it a good testing.

 

[Dan White]

There is only place where both lines are visible to the shooter. That's what move until you see it means.

Not to jump over Rick, but we are asking the same question. If there is only one place where both lines are visible, and Stan uses the same pivot, how is he able to send the object ball in three different directions in his video (the one I just posted for cookie man)?

Thanks.

 

[JB Cases]

How about this, just to make sure we are on the same page... Can you state in your own words what it is that I have trouble with in Stan's video? Sometimes people argue right past each other because they are talking about different things.

We aren't on the same page. At this point I don't even care what you have an issue with. I push CTE because it works and because of a promise to Hal Houle.

Stan is easy to reach and if you don't want to do that and instead argue with a cheerleader go ahead.

Again, nothing said on here matters, CTE is a legitimate method that works. Aside from Stan most of the top instructors in the United States teach some form of ball to ball aiming that is derived from Hal's methods.

To paraphrase a well worn saying, 'I can lead a player to knowledge but I can't make them think'.

 

[JB Cases]

Off to gamble using CTE.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

IF IF IF your estimates were correct then that might be the case.

Answer Dan's question.

Answer TonyTheTiger's question.

Answer Satorie's question.

Answer PJ's question.

Answer 8Pack/Anthony's question.

Answer Panos' question.

Answer Silver Cue's question.

Answer My question.

Colin has a bit of a different but similar. Answer Colin's question.

Answer the question that has been asked by those whose names I don't remember.

Better yet, explain why that question has never been answered...by any CTE advocate nor Stan.

Best Wishes.

What questions?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Balls are pocketed by sending the cueball down the shot line.

This all reminds me of trying to get my six year old to eat new things. Just try it doesn't work on her either. After years of trying to get her to eat apples she finally tried one and now loves apples.

Trippy how hard it is to convince forum readers to try new things designed to help them play better.

Knockers are liked those who picket abortion clinics trying to convince women not to do what the woman feels is best for their own life.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

And the absolute WORST thing for the LIFE of a new HUMAN BEING that possess their own separate & individual DNA from the very beginning.

Your tasting food analogy is also ridiculous.

Best Wishes for you, John.

 

[Neil]

Dan,

I hear you. I just don't like thinking of others wasting time looking for something that's just not there.

If they know going in that there are questions as to it's nature then fine, they know what they are getting into.

The answer to which you & others are looking has not ever come.

Best 2 Ya.

And how would you even know if it is there or not? Since you discarded it once you heard the word objective and found out that it actually required work on the table and wasn't a magic pill like you thought it was? You say you would never discourage anyone from using it, yet here you are doing just that.

As to the answers Dan is seeking, he has received them. From myself and others on here. He also is looking for a magic pill and is put off by words that he apparently has a different meaning to than most. He is not willing to get on the table and practice the shots on the DVD with the steps given so as to learn the system. He wants instant gratification. No aiming method gives that. Not even your precious feel system.

All good things come with a price. This system requires work. Much less work than years of feel does, but still work. Most are not willing to pay the price for it. They try a couple of shots, and give up. Their loss.

 

[JB Cases]

Not to jump over Rick, but we are asking the same question. If there is only one place where both lines are visible, and Stan uses the same pivot, how is he able to send the object ball in three different directions in his video (the one I just posted for cookie man)?

Thanks.

Ask him. Why ask me when the shooter is available to you?