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
How does math show feel exactly.
We already know (boy, do we know) that you don't get it, but I'm glad to post it again for the bazillionth time:

It takes so many distinct cut angles to make the shots needed in pool that no aiming method can be detailed enough to define each one separately without being too cumbersome to use.

You're welcome.

pj
chgo
 
We already know (boy, do we know) that you don't get it, but I'm glad to post it again for the bazillionth time:

It takes so many distinct cut angles to make the shots needed in pool that no aiming method can be detailed enough to define each one separately without being too cumbersome to use.

You're welcome.

pj
chgo

So that's how math shows feel. Good to know. How do you tell the difference in all the distinct angles while playing? Does that cause slow play? Just curious.

PS all i do is look at two lines for all angles, sometimes one line.
 
We already know (boy, do we know) that you don't get it, but I'm glad to post it again for the bazillionth time:

It takes so many distinct cut angles to make the shots needed in pool that no aiming method can be detailed enough to define each one separately without being too cumbersome to use.

You're welcome.

pj
chgo

Wrong. CTE covers all the cut angles. Feel free to post one that CTE doesn't cover and we will be happy to show you on video why you're wrong.

Post your 25 cut angle diagram and we will make a video that covers each one.
 
How do you tell the difference in all the distinct angles while playing?
I think we memorize images of successful shots from our experience of shooting them over and over, and compare the memorized images with what we're seeing while aiming.

The whole process of doing that, from gathering the database of shot images to filing them in some organized way, to retrieving and recognizing them on demand, is of course too big a job to be done consciously - it's the kind of thing our subconscious supercomputer is made for.

Does that cause slow play?
You tell me - we all do it the same way.

pj
chgo
 
I think we memorize images of successful shots from our experience of shooting them over and over, and compare the memorized images with what we're seeing while aiming.

The whole process of doing that, from gathering the database of shot images to filing them in some organized way, to retrieving and recognizing them on demand, is of course too big a job to be done consciously - it's the kind of thing our subconscious supercomputer is made for.


You tell me - we all do it the same way.

pj
chgo

You think or you know. Do we miss shots because of that database?
 
Last edited:
You don't understand how CTE works, don't care how it works, and don't feel how it works is important. You have said that a number of times, John Barton who has said that dozens of times, and many of the other CTE arguers have said it as well. The problem is that on the one hand you all say you don't understand how CTE works, and then on the other hand you turn right around and argue in the most closed minded and adamant manner possible about every last detail of how it works and doesn't work. You all obviously do care a lot about the mechanism by which it works for you otherwise you wouldn't be so militant in your need to argue how it works even when you admit not knowing. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't understand it on the one hand, and then argue every last detail about it with someone on the other. Surely you see how it makes no sense to say you don't care how it works, and then be absolutely and completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that you might be subconsciously adjusting for an inaccurate system regardless of the evidence.

When it is convenient for the CTE arguers, you admit you don't understand how CTE works. When someone asks questions you don't have answers to, or wants more detail where descriptions of the steps are vague, or wants proof of anything like that it objectively finds the correct aim/shot line or of anything else, the response from your side is all too often "CTE can't be proven to work as claimed and I don't understand how it works and it isn't important how it works and I don't care, all I know is it works for me and that is all that is important". But when someone is showing mathematical proof on paper or through explanation that it does not find the correct shot line, and that CTE users are actually adjusting by feel to make their shots just like with any other system, you and the rest suddenly become experts who fully understand every last detail of the system and will argue vehemently against any possibility of subconscious adjustment.

So which is it? Do you fully understand it or not? Do you care how it works or not? Here is the answer and give this some serious internal soul searching before replying back with the knee jerk argument that every pore of your being will reflexively want to make. You all don't understand how it works, otherwise you would never say you didn't understand if you did. Plus you would be able to answer those tough questions if you did. Of course you don't understand how or why it works and have said so many,many times. You also do care how it works--a lot. A whole lot. Like a WHOLE LOT. But why is that? Because you will feel stupid if you actually have to accept to yourself that you were just subconsciously adjusting for everything the whole time. So your ego makes you have a closed mind about that and makes you need to have to argue against that vehemently, in the hopes that nobody believes you were subconsciously adjusting and will think to themselves "look how dumb those guys were", and so you don't have to accept it yourself and feel like "man how dumb was I to have just been using feel all along and adjusting and never even realizing it". But it shouldn't be something to be embarrassed about or ashamed about or to feel stupid about. We all do things subconsciously that we don't realize, and often, and it's just part of being human. But ego just won't let you guys look at the evidence and the facts without that bias.

The truth of the matter is that you and the rest of the CTE arguers/users don't understand the system, and it isn't important to you how it works as long as it isn't subconscious adjustments you are making that corrected for the system's inaccuracies. Ego is why you can never accept subconscious adjustment and is why you are so compelled to argue that which you admit to not understanding. It is misplaced ego though. Again, not consciously realizing something you are doing subconsciously doesn't make you an idiot, it makes you human, and there is no shame in being human. On the other hand, ignoring facts and evidence because of your ego displays a lack of ability to utilize critical thinking skills, and that level of willful bias is something that actually is shameful though IMO because that is something we have a lot more if not total control over.

This is simply a case of reflexively fighting against something simply because it isn't the way you would want it to be (because you are afraid it will make you look and feel silly) instead of just searching for the truth without bias and with an open mind whether you will hate the answer you arrive at or not. Seriously, do some real soul searching on this and ask yourself honestly why it is so important to you that it doesn't turn out to be subconscious adjustment. If it was really true when you guys all say "who cares how it works as long as it works" then it wouldn't matter to you if the reason was subconscious adjustment, but yet it does matter to you all a lot (it shouldn't, and so the question to ask yourself is why does it, and in that answer lies the cause of your biases).

Two words: cognitive dissonance

See especially the fourth one below in bold:

from Wikipedia:
Cognitive dissonance theory is founded on the assumption that individuals seek consistency between their expectations and their reality. Because of this, people engage in a process called dissonance reduction to bring their cognitions and actions in line with one another. This creation of uniformity allows for a lessening of psychological tension and distress. According to Festinger, dissonance reduction can be achieved in four ways.[1] In an example case where a person has adopted the attitude that they will no longer eat high fat food, but eats a high-fat doughnut, the four methods of reduction are:

Change behavior or cognition ("I will not eat any more of this doughnut")
Justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat every once in a while")
Justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend 30 extra minutes at the gym to work this off")
Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not high in fat")
 
Um because I am paying attention to contact moment and cue path. Just as Steve Davis advises.

Let's say for the moment you are right and the stroke is in perfect line with his warm up shot at the moment of contact. Do you agree with me that the cue has been pulled in towards his body at the end of the backstroke and beginning of the forward stroke?
 
And Stan slips the jab with a nice evasive maneuver. Then counters E with a shot he never saw coming. I can picture E thinking to himself WTF did he just hit me with.

It does appear as if the shot did no damage to E though.

You sayin' somebody just got served? :eek:

lol j/k
 
Back
Top