Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?

[Neil]

Everyone can make their own determinations regarding who makes more sense between you & Poolplaya9.

Best Wishes.

Typical, can't discredit the statement, so you try and discredit the person saying it.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Typical, can't discredit the statement, so you try and discredit the person saying it.

Nice try. Not playing.

Everyone can make their own determinations as to whose statements have more credibility between your statements & Poolplay9's statements.

Best Wishes.

 

[duckie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poolplaya9 View Post
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).

MY RESPONSE:
The funny thing is this argument could work both ways and in my opinion the naysayers have a lot more to lose. Things about CTE have been proven yet they reject and don't accept what we know to be true. So ask yourself, why is that. I mean you don't use and haven't learned PRO-ONE, so why so adamantly argue that it can't be true. Some have spent 20 years arguing against it yet it's use and understanding continue to grow in significant numbers. I think they have much more to lose. I mean arguing on the wrong side for 20 years is a bitter pill to swallow. Think about that.

PS for English. This guy states there has been mathematical proof on paper to disprove CTE, where is that paper exactly

Really.....I can give you the nuts and bolts about how ghost ball contact patch works.....even on paper. I can explain about adjustments with ghost ball contact patch.....can you with CTE?

Please state how ghost ball contact patch can not work.

CTE is a bullshit system.

 

[Ralph Kramden]

Really.....I can give you the nuts and bolts about how ghost ball contact patch works.....even on paper. I can explain about adjustments with ghost ball contact patch.....can you with CTE?

Please state how ghost ball contact patch can not work.

CTE is a bullshit system.

duckie... I've read a lot of your posts about the contact patch, and actually agree that it could work.. at times.
Some of your posts state CTE can't work because both the 2 ball sizes look different when they are far apart.

If you aim at the center of the CB... at the center of the OB... ball size doesn't matter. As the CB and OB centers become closer, the
CB appears as small as the OB that it's traveling toward. The CB center will hit the OB center no matter what the ball sizes appear.

If you aim the CB center to the OB edge... ball size doesn't matter. As the balls get closer the CB appears as small as the OB it's traveling
toward. The CB center goes directly toward the OB edge. The 2 balls.. now the same size.. collide at the same point as if they were close.

That being said... let's look at your Contact Patch. What size is the contact patch if the balls are close? What size is the patch when the balls
are 3 or 4 or 5 feet apart? Or would it be the same size patch for all shots? You never explain these questions. Inquiring ears are listening.

As you said above "Please state how ghost ball contact patch can not work".. Please explain how to adjust with your ghost ball contact patch.

.

 

[JB Cases]

CTE is extremely interesting!

Stan Shuffett

And objective.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Really.....I can give you the nuts and bolts about how ghost ball contact patch works.....even on paper. I can explain about adjustments with ghost ball contact patch.....can you with CTE?

Please state how ghost ball contact patch can not work.

CTE is a bullshit system.

Already debunked it on video along with your silly arrow. Even Mika Immonen days gb is only good for beginners, which is a class of player you permanently belong to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[PINKLADY]

40461 hits
2482 posts
166 pages
110 posters (N/I the 2 mods)
28 days

276 votes, and the percentages haven't shifted since week 1.

i was originally interested, and vested, in this thread's stats & the info that would unfold. i was also wanting a brief overview of CTE - since we've been exposed to so many others' "systems". but i never got an answer to my post question - albeit it's obvious.

unfortunately, this thread has gone to shit. i have only stats to rely upon, through its frivolity. and 276 votes, are the demographics.

this has been a vital lesson for my 14yr old son, in more ways than: which aiming system he should "choose". as well, i now understand why KK9 told me to avoid the Aiming Section.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Your "proof" is no proof at all. He stated that no two people could do it differently if they follow the steps.

That statement is a non-starter to start with. Just look at any schools math tests. They all think they followed the steps correctly, yet the answers are all over the place. Some right, some wrong.

So, if his proof was actual proof, then we must also deduce that math is not correct because some people got different answers.

Same thing can be said for what people see. You can have 20 people witness a crime, and yet not all 20 can even agree on what color shirt the perpetrator was wearing.

Just because not everyone will reach the same conclusion when they think they are following the steps does not equate to the system being flawed in any way.

You apparently misunderstood my post. The bottom line is if something is objective, the steps to using it can be described very precisely in great detail. They can be described so precisely in fact that if any one hundred people tried to follow those exceptionally precise and detailed steps, all one hundred would end up doing the exact same thing and no two could possibly be doing anything different from each other. If the steps to something cannot be explained with that much precision and detail then what you are explaining is not objective--period.

CTE cannot be explained in such a way that no two people could possibly do it differently if following the instructions. CTE instructions always have and always will lack detail and precision and are always sufficiently vague as to allow tons of room so that each person can do things differently than the next person. In fact almost no CTE users out there are doing things the exact same way and often the differences are quite drastic or even quite opposite. Sometimes they are not as drastic but even minor differences would be very significant if it were actually an objective system that objectively found the correct aim/shot line.

There are as many versions of CTE as there are people using it. Yet they all claim it works perfect for them. Why is that and how could that be though? They all get their different things to work because at the end of the day it just doesn't really matter that much what you are doing because your subconscious just uses feel to correct for the "system's" incorrect shot line and lets you pocket the ball anyway. It often "takes some time playing with the system when you first learn it" as they like to say for your subconscious to learn how to correct for the incorrect system though. No, they don't realize it is happening (although I think some do and just won't admit it), but that is indeed exactly how every version of CTE "works", with subconscious feel adjustments.

 

[Dan White]

Already debunked it on video along with your silly arrow. Even Mika Immonen days gb is only good for beginners, which is a class of player you permanently belong to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I believe you are implying something that Mika would not agree with. You are implying that ghost ball is an inferior aiming method, and that CTE is superior and should be used instead. I would bet confidently that Mika means no such thing.

 

[LAMas]

It could also be that all of the adjustments to achieve the correct aim line and get shape on the next OB could be conscious for some slow shooters.

If those shooters could document each adjustment, then that would be objective and could be a program for a robot. The possibilities are endless and each would require a specific program. It might be several thousand lines of code.:wink:

Be well

 

[Poolplaya9]

That's just a guess from someone that knows nothing about CTE. Funny if you think that's the math that disproves it.

It does prove it. Write the instructions for using CTE to get the correct aim/shot line for as many angles of shots as you can and then post them, one set of instructions for each shot angle (since you are doing something different for every shot angle). Do this for as many shot angles as you possibly can. Make the instructions for each shot angle so precise and detailed that every single person who followed them couldn't possibly being doing it differently than somebody else who followed them and this is easy to do if it is truly objective as you claim. I can tell you right now you won't come up with very many at all.

Like every other CTE user though you are going to try to make excuses for not doing it (instead of just admitting that you can't do it because it isn't an objective system but is instead a system using copious amounts of feel). I don't want to hear your excuses though. I just want to see the detailed and precise steps for as many shot angles as you can come up with, one set of instructions per shot angle.

Call me Nostradamus but I can already guarantee not one of you will do it and I know this because without feel the system only handles a few angles and you aren't going to submit the instructions for just a few angles where people will laugh at you and you will be forced to have to publicly admit that it isn't an objective system. Fortunately everybody else can just do this for themselves though and when they can't go through the steps for very many angles they too will know that it can't possibly be an objective system handling any angle of shot that comes up since it actually handles so few angles.

Go ahead, I challenge you to submit one set of instructions for every angle that CTE can handle.

 

[Neil]

You apparently misunderstood my post. The bottom line is if something is objective, the steps to using it can be described very precisely in great detail. They can be described so precisely in fact that if any one hundred people tried to follow those exceptionally precise and detailed steps, all one hundred would end up doing the exact same thing and no two could possibly be doing anything different from each other. If the steps to something cannot be explained with that much precision and detail then what you are explaining is not objective--period.

CTE cannot be explained in such a way that no two people could possibly do it differently if following the instructions. CTE instructions always have and always will lack detail and precision and are always sufficiently vague as to allow tons of room so that each person can do things differently than the next person. In fact almost no CTE users out there are doing things the exact same way and often the differences are quite drastic or even quite opposite. Sometimes they are not as drastic but even minor differences would be very significant if it were actually an objective system that objectively found the correct aim/shot line.

There are as many versions of CTE as there are people using it. Yet they all claim it works perfect for them. Why is that and how could that be though? They all get their different things to work because at the end of the day it just doesn't really matter that much what you are doing because your subconscious just uses feel to correct for the "system's" incorrect shot line and lets you pocket the ball anyway. It often "takes some time playing with the system when you first learn it" as they like to say for your subconscious to learn how to correct for the incorrect system though. No, they don't realize it is happening (although I think some do and just won't admit it), but that is indeed exactly how every version of CTE "works", with subconscious feel adjustments.

That is not the dictionary definition of objective.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
noun
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"
synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end; More
2.
GRAMMAR
the objective case.

 

[JB Cases]

I believe you are implying something that Mika would not agree with. You are implying that ghost ball is an inferior aiming method, and that CTE is superior and should be used instead. I would bet confidently that Mika means no such thing.

I implied no such thing. I merely relayed exactly what was said on Mika's instructional videos.

Although since you mention it it is certainly my opinion that CTE is clearly better than GB and should be used instead of GB for any intermediate to advanced player.

 

[JB Cases]

40461 hits
2482 posts
166 pages
110 posters (N/I the 2 mods)
28 days

276 votes, and the percentages haven't shifted since week 1.

i was originally interested, and vested, in this thread's stats & the info that would unfold. i was also wanting a brief overview of CTE - since we've been exposed to so many others' "systems". but i never got an answer to my post question - albeit it's obvious.

unfortunately, this thread has gone to shit. i have only stats to rely upon, through its frivolity. and 276 votes, are the demographics.

this has been a vital lesson for my 14yr old son, in more ways than: which aiming system he should "choose". as well, i now understand why KK9 told me to avoid the Aiming Section.

If you want to know about CTE then ask someone in private who is familiar with it. You are unlikely to be able to find the clear CTE signal through the constant amount of poisonous static allowed to pollute these discussions.

 

[Poolplaya9]

That is not the dictionary definition of objective.

ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral
"I was hoping to get an objective and pragmatic report"
2.
GRAMMAR
of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition.
noun
1.
a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
"the system has achieved its objective"
synonyms: aim, intention, purpose, target, goal, intent, object, end; More
2.
GRAMMAR
the objective case.

I'm using the word objective in a manner consistent with the way that it has been used and understood by you and everyone else throughout this thread. If you don't think it is the technically correct term, substitute whatever other term you feel is and my post will still remain true.

 

[Poolplaya9]

If you want to know about CTE then ask someone in private who is familiar with it.

Or just ask someone with exceptional intelligence like Bob Jewett or Dr. Dave (or anyone else in the very highest tiers of intelligence). That is where you will get the actual truth and reality.

 

[cookie man]

It does prove it. Write the instructions for using CTE to get the correct aim/shot line for as many angles of shots as you can and then post them, one set of instructions for each shot angle (since you are doing something different for every shot angle). Do this for as many shot angles as you possibly can. Make the instructions for each shot angle so precise and detailed that every single person who followed them couldn't possibly being doing it differently than somebody else who followed them and this is easy to do if it is truly objective as you claim. I can tell you right now you won't come up with very many at all.

Like every other CTE user though you are going to try to make excuses for not doing it (instead of just admitting that you can't do it because it isn't an objective system but is instead a system using copious amounts of feel). I don't want to hear your excuses though. I just want to see the detailed and precise steps for as many shot angles as you can come up with, one set of instructions per shot angle.

Call me Nostradamus but I can already guarantee not one of you will do it and I know this because without feel the system only handles a few angles and you aren't going to submit the instructions for just a few angles where people will laugh at you and you will be forced to have to publicly admit that it isn't an objective system. Fortunately everybody else can just do this for themselves though and when they can't go through the steps for very many angles they too will know that it can't possibly be an objective system handling any angle of shot that comes up since it actually handles so few angles.

Go ahead, I challenge you to submit one set of instructions for every angle that CTE can handle.

I'd like to know how much you know. Tell us exactly what angles CTE covers. You say it's a few, which ones?

 

[cookie man]

As of this date & time...

Only 8.36% use an aiming 'system' all of the time.

That means that 71.64% are using & know that they are using Feel.

So which way did you vote? CJ says TOI is an aiming system

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'd like to know how much you know. Tell us exactly what angles CTE covers. You say it's a few, which ones?

It depends on whose version of CTE as you all do it differently, but none of them provide for very many angles. But as I expected, you can't provide instructions for very many angles with your version or any other.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So which way did you vote? CJ says TOI is an aiming system

CJ has said just the opposite.

Take this to your TOI thread, if you want to discuss it.