Honest question for manual pivot CTE users

[Neil]

I'm sorry, but in several videos he explains sweeping into the 1/2 tip position. Here's one....

https://youtu.be/VyCSgUtLKdk?t=393s

I don't make things up to prove some make-believe point. I am simply trying to understand some things that are a bit ambiguous.

No, but you do seem to be picking phrases without really trying to understand the concept or big picture.

What does Stan call sweeping? He calls it coming in from the side and not from straight on. So, with that in mind, how is it that you don't understand sweeping to the half tip position?

 

[Neil]

I'm sorry, but in several videos he explains sweeping into the 1/2 tip position. Here's one....

https://youtu.be/VyCSgUtLKdk?t=393s

I don't make things up to prove some make-believe point. I am simply trying to understand some things that are a bit ambiguous.

You also missed the beginning of that video. Where he talked about learning the different phases in order so as to fully understand it. The part in your quote was in an advanced stage of using CTE. You have to keep things in the proper context to fully understand.

 

[BC21]

Cookie already said it, but you are not understanding exactly what Stan said.

CTE is a VISUAL system. Which is why Pro One should be used once you get the hang of doing it manually. The system gives you the correct shot line with no tweaking necessary. In fact, any visual tweaking will cause a miss.

However, when doing it manually, at times it may be necessary to tweak the amount of manual pivot to get the cue onto the visual shot line. You have to align the cue to the shot line that the three visual lines gave you.

That is all he is saying there. Aligning the cue properly, not tweaking the shot line. Which is exactly why Pro One is the preferred way to use CTE. You don't get an alignment problem.

This makes sense. Once a player has refined the necessary manual tweaks and has hit enough shots to make these tweaks subconscious actions, moving into Pro1 is the next step. It's the same thing as saying once a player uses the 5 lines of traditional fractional aiming long enough, making necessary adjustments for in-betweeners, they eventually find themselves capable of just seeing the shot line and therefore aligning automatically.

There is a very strong connection between Stan's/Hal's CTE and the 5-line fractional system. Each method works in the same manner. Looking at a cut shot with traditional fractions (5-line system) a player chooses which basic shot line looks closest to pocketing the ball, then a thin or thick adjustment is made based on experience. Looking at the same cut shot with CTE a player uses a particular perception that provides a close shot line, then a thick or thin adjustment is made. But I do believe the perception gets the player to a closer dialed-in angle for the shot when compared to estimating which of fractional line should be used from the 5-line system.

 

[BC21]

You also missed the beginning of that video. Where he talked about learning the different phases in order so as to fully understand it. The part in your quote was in an advanced stage of using CTE. You have to keep things in the proper context to fully understand.

I understand. This video here is excellent at describing the manual pivots and the pro1 sweeps. This concept is simple to get. Understanding exactly where the shot line (tape line) came from, or how it was determined, was a bit more difficult to grasp. Not anymore.

https://youtu.be/2KwI_62Npos

It really is a simple system, as many of you have always stated, but it involves quite a bit more visual judgement beyond the simple mechanics in order to make it work consistently for varying shots.

 

[BC21]

No, but you do seem to be picking phrases without really trying to understand the concept or big picture.

What does Stan call sweeping? He calls it coming in from the side and not from straight on. So, with that in mind, how is it that you don't understand sweeping to the half tip position?

I have never seen a player of any caliber, novice to pro, bring the cue straight in or straight down to CCB. There is always a sweeping motion from one side or the other. Every player sweeps into the shot. The only difference between CTE sweeping and general sweeping is the conscious placement of the bridge hand. Generally the bridge-V is automatically placed in position to allow the cue stick to settle directly on the aim line as provided by ghostball or fractional aiming or whatever, and no pivoting to CCB or 1/2 tip offset thought process is involved. With CTE the bridge-V is placed exactly 1/2 tip to either side of the aim line provided by the perception. And the perception is not the true aim line. The true aim line is said to always be a little thinner or thicker than the line provided by the perception, so a player must sweep the cue in to settle it perfectly at a slight offset angle (provided by the 1/2 pivot between the bridge-V and final CCB) to land it on the true aim line.

In the first case, the general case, the aim line is known (or thought to be known, as far as less experienced players go) and the player simply aligns to it accordingly. In the second case, using CTE, the aim line is not known until the final sweep or pivot to CCB. Granted, the setup leading to this offset alignment can provide a good idea of where the aim line is prior to sweeping or pivoting for players with enough experience. That's the big picture.

 

[BC21]

"I've tried that"...."I've done that"...."maybe I need the book"..."I add my own stuff to it", "the video says something different", etc. etc. etc.
Fellas....all of those statements that anybody under the whole canopy of heaven has ever posted in this aiming forum about CTE means just one thing: (and you can make book on this one)
It actually means:
I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
:thumbup:

We're not debating religion here. There should be nothing one needs to "believe" in. We're talking about aiming pool balls. It all boils down to the basic operation of the mechanics involved in whatever aiming process one chooses, and how accurate that process is from an objective approach, or how accurate it can actually become using a more subjective approach. There is nothing to believe in. An aiming system either works as portrayed or it doesn't. And that doesn't imply that the system doesn't work, it just means it doesn't quite work like it's said to work. This applies to any system.

 

[Low500]

--------------------

 

[BC21]

Q

Is the poolology system included in that idea?
:wink:

Of course it is, as far as fine tuning it. As far as how the system is portrayed.....the book is open and honest, and the system works exactly as stated and objectively described.

A player can use Poolology and pocket balls with minimal effort. But to really perfect fractional aiming a player must develop the feel needed to make fine tuning certain shots a subconscious effort.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Is the poolology system included in that idea?
:wink:

Is Poolology the one that's mathematically perfect but NOT the one he chooses to use for himself because the method he does use is better? You know which one I'm talking about. It's the method he can't even start to describe what he's seeing and doing but is far superior to anything else. Otherwise he wouldn't be using it.

Hey, maybe he and Lou have stumbled on the exact same thing but can't make a comparison because they have no idea where to start, what happens in the middle, or where it ends. It can't be verbalized even by two educated wordsmiths who put words and sentences together for a living.

Maybe Stan should have done the same thing.

 

[BC21]

Is Poolology the one that's mathematically perfect but NOT the one he chooses to use for himself because the method he does use is better? You know which one I'm talking about. It's the method he can't even start to describe what he's seeing and doing but is far superior to anything else. Otherwise he wouldn't be using it.

Hey, maybe he and Lou have stumbled on the exact same thing but can't make a comparison because they have no idea where to start, what happens in the middle, or where it ends. It can't be verbalized even by two educated wordsmiths who put words and sentences together for a living.

Maybe Stan should have done the same thing.

Poolology isn't mathematically "perfect". To be perfect it would be to complicated to use. I had to make it user friendly, which made it close enough to perfect that it works just fine for those that need it.

I played a 9ball tournament today and used the Poolology method on a few shots when needed. The rest of the time I just pointed my cue at the CB and sent it into the object balls, one at a time, rolling them right into the pockets, the way the game is supposed to be played.

It was a tough tournament, 49 players, several A+ players and one pro level guy with a Fargo score of 730 something. He won. I got second. But I took home more cash because I had the confidence and the money to buy myself in the calcutta. I'm sure he had the confidence too, but his backer paid his way, so he walked out with the smaller pot.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Poolology isn't mathematically "perfect". To be perfect it would be to complicated to use. I had to make it user friendly, which made it close enough to perfect that it works just fine for those that need it.

Nobody cares whether it's perfect or somewhat imperfect except the scientists who lurk on forums dissecting and discrediting CTE. Then math becomes the main focal point as a weapon.

I played a 9ball tournament today and used the Poolology method on a FEW shots when needed.

Hoooooray for Poolology! It catapulted you to a high finish with those "FEW" shots.

The rest of the time I just pointed my cue at the CB and sent it into the object balls, one at a time, rolling them right into the pockets, the way the game is supposed to be played.

Yeah, right. Where's your "Mensa genius" when it comes to writing skills describing that in finite detail?

I find it amazing you can't start to verbalize what you're seeing and doing with something you do know and are good at but you sure as hell can write chapter after chapter on a subject you know too little about and don't have the skills, yet keep discrediting it under the guise of "I'm just trying to learn and understand."

You're a real piece of work Brian. I don't trust you as far as I could punt you.

Solve your own written description of the way you aim and play the game without Poolology before you delve into erroneous ways of doing something you know too little about and keep misrepresenting.

My suggestion to the rest of the forum is let Brian flounder and drown in his thoughts and experiments with CTE all alone. Don't respond or try to help because it's going down the same dead end with land mines waiting to go off when you step on one like it has over the last 20 years.

Hey Brian, here's all you need to know about CTE. Visualize A, B, and C on the OB and the edge of the CB along with center of the CB. Line them up and shoot. That's a lot more information in writing than you can give about the way you aim and make balls with the "Magic Feel Method" of playing.

Do you want more? Give more yourself in writing about your "magic feel" method.

 

[BC21]

Yeah, right. Where's your "Mensa genius" when it comes to writing skills describing that in finite detail?

I find it amazing you can't start to verbalize what you're seeing and doing with something you do know and are good at but you sure as hell can write chapter after chapter on a subject you know too little about and don't have the skills, yet keep discrediting it under the guise of "I'm just trying to learn and understand."

You're a real piece of work Brian. I don't trust you as far as I could punt you.

Solve your own written description of the way you aim and play the game without Poolology before you delve into erroneous ways of doing something you know too little about and keep misrepresenting.

My suggestion to the rest of the forum is let Brian flounder and drown in his thoughts and experiments with CTE all alone. Don't respond or try to help because it's going down the same dead end with land mines waiting to go off when you step on one like it has over the last 20 years.

Hey Brian, here's all you need to know about CTE. Visualize A, B, and C on the OB and the edge of the CB along with center of the CB. Line them up and shoot. That's a lot more information in writing than you can give about the way you aim and make balls with the "Magic Feel Method" of playing.

Do you want more? Give more yourself in writing about your "magic feel" method.

I'm finished with analyzing CTE. It took a while to understand how it works because I was always trying to do it 100% objectively,. But doing it that way provided the same results I got using paper and a calculator. After rewatching a few of Stan's key videos, it's obvious there is a certain amount of subjective tweaking needed, adjusting a "tick" here and there to make it work where needed. At one point, after shooting the shot, Stan says he doesn't know whether or not he tweaked it. He says there's always a little tweaking, but no more than what a player would normally do on any straight-in shot to make it perfect.

Stan played for many many years without CTE, and played very well -- pro level. He is a well-respected certified instructor with many pool playing accomplishments under his belt. He could probably provide you a very wordy written explantation of exactly how he used to aim back when he didn't use CTE. You should contact him for written instructions on playing by feel. It may end up being a 600 page manuscript though, considering that the CTE book is probably close to 300 pages, and it's a very simple system. But he can teach CTE in 30 minutes, so maybe he could teach you the "feel" method in less than an hour. It's simple also -- you look at the CB-OB relationship, then align your cue to send the CB into the OB in a manner that sends the OB into the pocket. I could teach it in less than 2 minutes, but it would take hundreds of shots a day, thousands per week, before you really get it working well.

:thumbup:

 

[nobcitypool]

I'm finished with analyzing CTE. It took a while to understand how it works because I was always trying to do it 100% objectively,. But doing it that way provided the same results I got using paper and a calculator. After rewatching a few of Stan's key videos, it's obvious there is a certain amount of subjective tweaking needed, adjusting a "tick" here and there to make it work where needed. At one point, after shooting the shot, Stan says he doesn't know whether or not he tweaked it. He says there's always a little tweaking, but no more than what a player would normally do on any straight-in shot to make it perfect.

Stan played for many many years without CTE, and played very well -- pro level. He is a well-respected certified instructor with many pool playing accomplishments under his belt. He could probably provide you a very wordy written explantation of exactly how he used to aim back when he didn't use CTE. You should contact him for written instructions on playing by feel. It may end up being a 600 page manuscript though, considering that the CTE book is probably close to 300 pages, and it's a very simple system. But he can teach CTE in 30 minutes, so maybe he could teach you the "feel" method in less than an hour. It's simple also -- you look at the CB-OB relationship, then align your cue to send the CB into the OB in a manner that sends the OB into the pocket. I could teach it in less than 2 minutes, but it would take hundreds of shots a day, thousands per week, before you really get it working well.

:thumbup:

You need to refrain from the lying and misrepresentation. When Stan speaks of tweaking, it is on shots that require English. If you wish to state that crap, then reference one place where he states you need a subjective tweak to take a shot to an over cut to center pocket.

You must struggle to keep a straight face when you post your veiled insults and lies about Stan and what he's done with CTE after you supposedly suckered over 1000 people into buying your book. So this is your aiming system but in a tournament, you only used it on a couple of shots. Perhaps you should have titled the book "Poolology, My Occasional Aiming System". Your system is 10x more complex than Stan's CTE and still subjective.

You say you're done trying to understand or analyze CTE? Let's mark down that statement and see how long it is before you use more poorly disguised questions to attempt to slam Stan and CTE. I agree with Spidey, I wouldn't trust you one iota.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I'm finished with analyzing CTE.

LMAO! Can we hold you to that or is it nothing more than a bullsh*t lie? I should probably start an over/under bet on how long it will take you to start in again. I'm just not sure whether it should be # of days or # of hours. It's like Dan White saying "I guess we'll all just have to wait for the book to come out" 3,457 times and that was over only a one month period. (OK, ok, I exaggerated by about 100 times)

It took a while to understand how it works because I was always trying to do it 100% objectively,. But doing it that way provided the same results I got using paper and a calculator.

LMAO again! Paper and calculator, huh? Yeah, I can see why you figured it all out and understand now. :thumbup:

After rewatching a few of Stan's key videos, it's obvious there is a certain amount of subjective tweaking needed, adjusting a "tick" here and there to make it work where needed. At one point, after shooting the shot, Stan says he doesn't know whether or not he tweaked it. He says there's always a little tweaking, but no more than what a player would normally do on any straight-in shot to make it perfect.

Therein lies your entire motivation. To continue to say it's not objective even when not true and you've been told so by others.

Stan played for many many years without CTE, and played very well -- pro level. He is a well-respected certified instructor with many pool playing accomplishments under his belt.

Yet here he is using CTE 100% of the time. What do you think he knows that you don't? How about EVERYTHING.

He could probably provide you a very wordy written explantation of exactly how he used to aim back when he didn't use CTE. You should contact him for written instructions on playing by feel.

I don't need written instructions from Stan. We can both just pick up the phone any time of the day and discuss it or anything else.

I want it written from you and your literary Mensa genius. LOL. Your version might be different than his, Lou's, or anybody else.

Btw, I know a person on the forums and have known him for many years who IS a member of Mensa, not a wannabe or thinks he should be but isn't because it was too expensive to join. He uses CTE and has taught it as well as being an excellent player. What do you think he knows that you don't?

It may end up being a 600 page manuscript though, considering that the CTE book is probably close to 300 pages, and it's a very simple system. But he can teach CTE in 30 minutes, so maybe he could teach you the "feel" method in less than an hour.

Nope, I only want to read yours. Apparently your "feel" method is nowhere close to as good as Stan's because your achievements are not pro level or anywhere close to it.

It's simple also -- you look at the CB-OB relationship, then align your cue to send the CB into the OB in a manner that sends the OB into the pocket. I could teach it in less than 2 minutes, but it would take hundreds of shots a day, thousands per week, before you really get it working well.

:thumbup:

Funny how a lot of pro players say they actually use aiming systems and don't aim by feel for that aspect of the game. Yes, they use feel and have better feel than all of us for spin, speed, and imagination. But not aiming because it's visual systematic steps regardless of the system whether CP, fractions, stick or ferrule aiming, GB, or something else.

Do we need to do another recount of the ancient BD article again where more pros said they use an aiming system than those who didn't?

Now we have youtube where they talk about their system and illustrate it.

Since you can do it so easily in 2 minutes, make a youtube so we can get the secret and I can LMAO for a few hours.

 

[Low500]

----------------------

 

[nobcitypool]

"I'm finished with analyzing CTE"........................(to be filed under "Statements that make you go:...hmmmmmmmm.")
Wonder what the over/under on that one might be.
:thumbup:

It should be noted that he didn't say he's finished asking troll questions.

 

[BC21]

It should be noted that he didn't say he's finished asking troll questions.

Nope. Finished. No more questions. No more mystery. When the book comes out there will inevitably be some reviews. CTE users will naturally give glowing reviews. But there will also be non-biased reviews that may or may not match my opinion. If the book is going to be made available to a worldwide market, and not just Stan buying a few thousand copies that he has to sell himself, it will be subjected to unrestricted scrutiny (or praise), much more than the system has received here on AZ under moderator rules. It will be compared to other aiming systems and methods. I wish Stan the best of luck and success.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Nope. Finished. No more questions. No more mystery.

The above will be etched in stone for the remainder of time until the book comes out. We'll see if you're a man of your word or not. 12-3-17

When the book comes out there will inevitably be some reviews. CTE users will naturally give glowing reviews.

But there will also be non-biased reviews that may or may not match my opinion.

Non-biased reviews? I think we can count on the same cast of characters with BIASED understanding and reviews chiming in with more biased crap after examining each word for double meanings or meanings that can be twisted and skewed. You ARE included in the biased clan.

If the book is going to be made available to a worldwide market, and not just Stan buying a few thousand copies that he has to sell himself, it will be subjected to unrestricted scrutiny (or praise), much more than the system has received here on AZ under moderator rules. It will be compared to other aiming systems and methods.

There are a number of aiming systems that have been made available to a worldwide market that haven't been subjected to unrestricted scrutiny or praise. There was the SEE SYSTEM, SAMBA FOR POOL, and 90/90.

Very little or nothing was said about them one way or another which is the way is normally is. If a player liked it, then it was used. If they didn't, everybody just moved on with nothing being said.

CTE is in a completely different category for 20 years since Hal first introduced it. It won't matter if it's cleared up 100%, the same bunch will be laying in wait and salivating for new aspects to be pounced on.

I wish Stan the best of luck and success.

I'd like to wish it's sincere but I know it isn't because you'll be one of the same bunch doing everything in your power to rip it apart and tear it down.

Please tell me, "No I won't" so I can also etch it in stone to hold you to your word.

I'm thinking you won't post those words at all which is also telling.

 

[8pack]

None of have the right to who says what regarding any aiming system.
If you feel a person is trolling simply just don't reply.

Cant you answer in a decent manner??

Hope you cte guys get 2 turds for Christmas instead of 1.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

None of have the right to who says what regarding any aiming system.
If you feel a person is trolling simply just don't reply.

Well Anthony, since you are a troll and basher of CTE I can understand why you feel that way and say the above.

But it doesn't work your way. None of you trolls and bashers have the right.

And here's why. You're breaking the RULES:

AzHousePro

Bashing other aiming systems - 06-28-2017, 03:07 PM

OK, apparently this needs to be said again. I do not want to see anyone bashing another aiming system in any way.

If you have a positive experience with an aiming system, then feel free to post it. If you want to discuss the merits of an aiming system, then feel free. But for now, I don't want any comparisons as we all know that will just turn into bashing.

It is amazing to me that we have more reported posts about aiming systems than we do about politics.

This is going to be handled like baseball.

First offense will be a two week vacation.
Second offense will be a month.
Third will be a year. ]

Cant you answer in a decent manner??

Can't you stay out of something you have no interest in ever using?

Hope you cte guys get 2 turds for Christmas instead of 1.

We just got 1 turd with your post.