I took him literally. Depends on what type of string and what straw as to which method is best.
But, I feel you.
Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
I took him literally. Depends on what type of string and what straw as to which method is best.
But, I feel you.
Bill will get flat out creamed. I hope someone on AZB still likes him enough to warn him that he has no chance. Oh wait, I just did. Billy it looks like I will 20k to freeze up.
I would be confident in saying he sees them a lot better than me. I often rush and perhaps don't get it just right. No patience to wait for two lines to get in the right spot.....
Although if I really slow down and take an extra second or two I see them pretty accurately as the results on the table have shown me.
But I am certain Gerry has drilled the reference shots way more than me. Thus where I might still bve guessing between solutions that I am sure which one is right he probably never has that issue now.
I missed it. Happens sometimes when I don't methodically step by step scroll through the thread. I wish someone could teach me a system which would force me to read each post in order......
Wrong.
Both Stevie and Stan like to bend in order to see the visuals more clearly. It's really evident on cuts to the right.
John,
That might be a correct deduction if it were not based on a false premise.
I would deduce that Gerry has 'always' been a better shot shooter than you & that his subjective file base of subjective shot perceptions is & always has been more accurate than yours as he has many more makes from which to call upon.
So when the best visual is chosen that is still not an exact fit he can subjectively tweak it with his subjective subconscious & get the TRUE correct line while you can not do so nearly as often.
Like PoolPlaya9 said... you & others either deny of ignore the reality of the science & most probably for the reasons that he stated.
Have you done what Poolplaya suggested with regards to the 'math'?
If not, why not? Since you say that you are very interested in learning how & why CTE works, even though you should have added the phrase 'if it is working in any structured objective manner.
Like Dan suggested, It seems that you're not looking for the truth. It seems as though you are only looking for & wanting something to support the 'conclusion' that you have already reached.
Please remember went in with an open mind, but was intrigued by the assertion that CTE operated from an objective bases. It showed itself to me that while it did for certain shots that fit the objective parts, it also did not when those parts were NOT a fit.
Then Stan's 5 shots perception video confirmed to me that there would nothing forth coming to change that.
I would suggest that everyone that is on the fence or that is considering CTE should watch that 5 shots perception video & if they are comfortable with what is proffered there then they should perhaps move forward with it, BUT... if they are NOT comfortable with what is proffered therethan perhaps they should not do so.
Best Wishes.
PS I wonder why this thread was only moved after more than 2000 posts when it should have been move 'immediately' & if not then, perhaps not at all. I wonder about the timing of it.
Last edited:
I look for the truth all the time and for sure I have put in way more hours on the table working it out and on the computer making diagrams for my own understanding and just thinking about dissecting CTE than all of the knockers combined.
Your claim that CTE has holes in it can't proven apparently or your fellow knockers are not smart enough to devise a clear experiment to test it. I have an experiment in mind.
Your claim that any success with CTE outside a very limited set of "aiming points" is due to subconscious correction also can't be proven apparently except as a thought experiment.
Who knew that this would be so hard for you guys to just disprove it ON the table. Maybe you don't think video proves anything but right now CTE is winning because there is nothing on YouTube that demonstrates your claims and assumptions to even let the interested player weigh against.
You write literal tomes in almost every post, I thought I was overly wordy, and yet the audience here is small and getting smaller by the post. So all those words don't amount to much of anything. You can say is and we say is not a million times over here and the same ten people read it and 8 of them are already entrenched in their bias.
YouTube is where to put your video rebuttal. On the actual pool table. That's where all the non-azb players are getting their pool information, that and facebook. And in both places we are crushing it because there is no opposition.
Arguing here only serves to keep us sharp. We turn your own arguments against you when we make our video presentations. So honestly my advice for you if it is truly your mission to stop players from being duped in your opinion is to step up your youtube game.
I don't think we will see much but I hope we do.
That's not what i got out of his answer. Stop twisting words.
John,
What would you say if I dictated a test that in no way would be indicative of what case better protects a pool cue?
This is VERY SIMPLE. No video can prove nor disprove whether or not a shooter is employing subjectivity or not either by conscious or subconscious means. At least not without taking the shooter completely out of the picture & inserting a robot & the CTE advocate ONLY chosing which visual to use. That could probably be done, but I think it would be a bit expensive & the only one that might have that kind of monetary incentive for that type of investment might be Stan or his heirs.
So... as we now stand the determination can only be accomplished through intelligent, logical, reasonable, critical deduction & explanation.
So... sure you & others would love to pull those of us that know better into a NEW CTE VIDEO WAR.
You've shown here what would happen as you did with Dan's video.
Poolplaya9 nailed it on 'most' if not all of you. Perhaps everyone on the fence or considering CTE should also rad his 3 posts that I group together earlier in this thread.
Beat Wishes & Have a Great Sunday.
PS Since you have already done so much, then why not do as Poolplaya9 suggests regarding the 'math'? You 'all' have shown that no 'proof' can come from anywhere but your side that you all will believe. So... why not you do it?
Sean Fleinen said he was going to do & almost like 'Mafia Style' he disappeared. Does anyone know what happened to Sean?
Last edited:
Please see John's reply.
AND... asking a question is NOT twisting words.
Please stop trying to give wrong impressions.
So listening to you guys it seems the subconscious only adjusts to make balls. Doesn't your subconscious also hold onto missed balls? Does it ever adjust to miss? After a match i remember the misses more.
The 5 shot video is pretty advanced in the learning aspect of cte and for beginners and new users they would be much better suited to start with easier shots. CTE is really a visual system that's why so much of Stan's youtube focuses on easier shots. It is paramount to get the visuals ingrained.
You were leading the witness trying to trap him, pretty obvious.
Stan as already stated the math will probably never be done.
And Johnny was accused of using CTE back then, he denied it so I guess we have to take his word. Eerily similar to Stevie though. Just food for thought.
Well, if you wonder about the conspiracy end of it, why not just pm Mike or Dave and demand they tell you why they do what they do?
What would happen? What has happened is that Dan did more for you in a few days than you all have done in the six years or so since I have seen these arguments raging on azb.
At this moment Dan's videos exist and any viewer can view his findings and my rebuttal and decide for themselves what to believe based on their own observation guided by each of our comments.
You seem to think that any video put up by your side should not be rebutted or analyzed.
Not very sporting of you.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
I just want the math behind ghost ball before I will use it. I can't imagine how poor Duckie does it without the calculus that explains gb. Just that little paper arrow template thingy isn't enough to validate gb on the table.
Stan might be right but even if someone posted some math and diagrams claiming to give the underlying mathematical basis for CTE it would be dismissed and scoffed at and it wouldn't even be comprehensible to 99% of the membership here. Ergo it would likely be useless in the practical sense.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk