JBCase teaches CTE

Thresh

Active member
Those are the people referred to in the second sentence that can't understand it, or refuse to try, through no fault of the system.
You claimed you can prove CTE with math and easily prove it on CAD because you are CAD expert.

So still, to this day, you refuse to back up your claims.

I'm sure everyone here would love to see the CAD drawings proving CTE, that works settle any debates once and for all.

But, let me guess, you will come up with another excuse why you don't need to back up your claims, even though, it either be say easy, as you claimed.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Asking a CTE user for a clear explanation of the system is a waste of time?

Agreed.

pj
chgo
"Clear" is obviously not working for you Pat, that has been done here for years, so let's try it a different way.

"Simple Explanation" of CTE. The method of seeing a cue ball and object ball together with regard to their position on a 2 x 1 pool table, from a certain visual position.

There, now that is pretty simple, wouldn't you agree?

Now the fact that no two peoples vision is exactly the same must come into play, because even though the balls and the table look the same to everybody, the way they see or perceive them may, and likely does, vary, but then we know that, for sure, because people have different ways of aiming and always have.

You can choose to guess where to aim and eventually find a point of aim that feels right, and then you may or may not even make the shot based on that feeling. That doesn't make that method any better or any worse than using a method that takes that guesswork, or waiting for that feeling, out of the equasion, and just shooting when you see the shot alignment a cetain way. That is what the CTE system attempts to do, provide a visual that is repeatable that can be used on most any shot, without the need to feel that you are in fact aimed at the contact point, or even considering the contact point in the process at all.

BC21's does basically the same thing, I bought his book when it first came out and I can't remember feel or contact point being mentioned in it to determine the aim line of any given shot. So what is the difference? They all eventually arrive at the contact point if they result in making the ball, but that certainly doesn't mean that feel was necessary in the process.

I have read a lot of things you have written over the years about various billiards related topics and have no doubt you are very knowledgeable on the subject, and so it's amazing to me how close minded you are when it comes to the subject of aiming, specifically, aiming with the CTE method. If, by chance you are basing your opinion of CTE on the method Dr Dave has posted then that is a little bit understandable because he obviously doesn't understand it, or explains it very poorly at least. I would hope that given some of the writings you have done, you would do the research and form your own opinion of CTE rather than just go by hearsay. I would hope your other writings and opinions are truly your own.

Regarding Cad and CTE, drawing 2 pool balls on a flat surface is about the easiest thing in the world to draw. Adding a third object, such as a pocket, still pretty easy. Drawing a line from the center of the pocket through the center of one of the balls, say the object ball, still not complicated. Drawing a 3rd circle centered on that line tangent to the object ball easily and perfectly identifies the contact point. We can call the 3rd ball ghost if you like. So drawing a line from the center of the ghost ball through the center of the remaining circle, cue ball, represents the line of aim to perfectly strike the object ball with the cue ball to arrive at the center of the ghost ball, coincidentally at the contact point, which finally, drives the object ball into the pocket. Simple enough, yes? So that is all you need to know then right? NOPE! While all of this is mathematically perfect, every time it happens is a unique circumstance based on where the pool players vision center is when they perform the task. The shot looks slightly different to every player, and even varies slightly every time it is approached even by the same player. So, most aiming systems bring the player up to this point, which rightfully so, does perfectly describe what needs to happen to make a basic cut shot. But suppose we add 2 more pieces of geometry into the example for this shot. Lets make them say 2 circles, about 1 inch in diameter each, space them say 2 3/4" apart center to center, link them together so they move in unison and the place them spatially relative to the flat plane of the pool table say, 32" back basically along the line drawn between the ghost ball center and the cue ball center, and say 18" vertically above the plane of the pool table. This we will call shot position. Oh yeah, let's call these last 2 objects EYES. Now we know so far that the shot earlier described is mathematically perfect; Imagine the eyes being yours and you are looking through them at the balls and the pocket layed out in this example. It is still perfect, YES? Now move your head, just a little, any direction, and look at the shot. Looks different right? BUT, is it still perfect? Why yes, yes it is. This is the point.

This is why I will never, ever make a CAD drawing explaining it. It is different for every shot, for every person, every time, and mathematically correct every time. Repeatedly asking for such a thing is a very profound declaration that the asker has no clue what he is asking for. Every example drawn would look almost exactly the same to the learned user and would mean absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't understand,,,,,,,, a giant waste of my time.

CTE is simply a method, a step by step process, to train the user to systematically approach shots in a repeatable manner of seeing the same thing from shot to shot to shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbb

Thresh

Active member
"Clear" is obviously not working for you Pat, that has been done here for years, so let's try it a different way.

"Simple Explanation" of CTE. The method of seeing a cue ball and object ball together with regard to their position on a 2 x 1 pool table, from a certain visual position.

There, now that is pretty simple, wouldn't you agree?

Now the fact that no two peoples vision is exactly the same must come into play, because even though the balls and the table look the same to everybody, the way they see or perceive them may, and likely does, vary, but then we know that, for sure, because people have different ways of aiming and always have.

You can choose to guess where to aim and eventually find a point of aim that feels right, and then you may or may not even make the shot based on that feeling. That doesn't make that method any better or any worse than using a method that takes that guesswork, or waiting for that feeling, out of the equasion, and just shooting when you see the shot alignment a cetain way. That is what the CTE system attempts to do, provide a visual that is repeatable that can be used on most any shot, without the need to feel that you are in fact aimed at the contact point, or even considering the contact point in the process at all.

BC21's does basically the same thing, I bought his book when it first came out and I can't remember feel or contact point being mentioned in it to determine the aim line of any given shot. So what is the difference? They all eventually arrive at the contact point if they result in making the ball, but that certainly doesn't mean that feel was necessary in the process.

I have read a lot of things you have written over the years about various billiards related topics and have no doubt you are very knowledgeable on the subject, and so it's amazing to me how close minded you are when it comes to the subject of aiming, specifically, aiming with the CTE method. If, by chance you are basing your opinion of CTE on the method Dr Dave has posted then that is a little bit understandable because he obviously doesn't understand it, or explains it very poorly at least. I would hope that given some of the writings you have done, you would do the research and form your own opinion of CTE rather than just go by hearsay. I would hope your other writings and opinions are truly your own.

Regarding Cad and CTE, drawing 2 pool balls on a flat surface is about the easiest thing in the world to draw. Adding a third object, such as a pocket, still pretty easy. Drawing a line from the center of the pocket through the center of one of the balls, say the object ball, still not complicated. Drawing a 3rd circle centered on that line tangent to the object ball easily and perfectly identifies the contact point. We can call the 3rd ball ghost if you like. So drawing a line from the center of the ghost ball through the center of the remaining circle, cue ball, represents the line of aim to perfectly strike the object ball with the cue ball to arrive at the center of the ghost ball, coincidentally at the contact point, which finally, drives the object ball into the pocket. Simple enough, yes? So that is all you need to know then right? NOPE! While all of this is mathematically perfect, every time it happens is a unique circumstance based on where the pool players vision center is when they perform the task. The shot looks slightly different to every player, and even varies slightly every time it is approached even by the same player. So, most aiming systems bring the player up to this point, which rightfully so, does perfectly describe what needs to happen to make a basic cut shot. But suppose we add 2 more pieces of geometry into the example for this shot. Lets make them say 2 circles, about 1 inch in diameter each, space them say 2 3/4" apart center to center, link them together so they move in unison and the place them spatially relative to the flat plane of the pool table say, 32" back basically along the line drawn between the ghost ball center and the cue ball center, and say 18" vertically above the plane of the pool table. This we will call shot position. Oh yeah, let's call these last 2 objects EYES. Now we know so far that the shot earlier described is mathematically perfect; Imagine the eyes being yours and you are looking through them at the balls and the pocket layed out in this example. It is still perfect, YES? Now move your head, just a little, any direction, and look at the shot. Looks different right? BUT, is it still perfect? Why yes, yes it is. This is the point.

This is why I will never, ever make a CAD drawing explaining it. It is different for every shot, for every person, every time, and mathematically correct every time. Repeatedly asking for such a thing is a very profound declaration that the asker has no clue what he is asking for. Every example drawn would look almost exactly the same to the learned user and would mean absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't understand,,,,,,,, a giant waste of my time.

CTE is simply a method, a step by step process, to train the user to systematically approach shots in a repeatable manner of seeing the same thing from shot to shot to shot.
You claimed you can easily prove it on CAD and easily do that math.

So once again, do it.

BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You claimed you can easily prove it on CAD and easily do that math.

So once again, do it.

BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS.
Wow, are you really that slow?

I just told everyone step by step exactly what this would entail, as well as exactly why it would be pointless because there would never be 2 examples the same, I guess I typed it too fast for you or something,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 

Thresh

Active member
Wow, are you really that slow?

I just told everyone step by step exactly what this would entail, as well as exactly why it would be pointless because there would never be 2 examples the same, I guess I typed it too fast for you or something,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Again, you claimed it can EASILY be proven with a particular set of math formulas and CAD.

if you consider backing up your own claims pointless, then you should never make any claims to begin with.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Again, you claimed it can EASILY be proven with a particular set of math formulas and CAD.

if you consider backing up your own claims pointless, then you should never make any claims to begin with.
Just as an observer to the long-standing argument between you two guys... I have to say that Renegade DID say he could easily prove out CTE on CAD. I knew at that point he didn't understand CTE so it isn't surprising that he never came through on that. Even the CTE lifers say it can't be diagrammed (that would be too convenient).
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Again, you claimed it can EASILY be proven with a particular set of math formulas and CAD.
What I said about CAD is easy, I just described it step by step and you can't follow it. An actual CAD rendering is way over your head.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
...got any funny little pictures to make your point today?
This one usually cracks me up (YMMV).

pj
chgo

noname.png
 

telinoz

Registered
"Clear" is obviously not working for you Pat, that has been done here for years, so let's try it a different way.

"Simple Explanation" of CTE. The method of seeing a cue ball and object ball together with regard to their position on a 2 x 1 pool table, from a certain visual position.

There, now that is pretty simple, wouldn't you agree?

Now the fact that no two peoples vision is exactly the same must come into play, because even though the balls and the table look the same to everybody, the way they see or perceive them may, and likely does, vary, but then we know that, for sure, because people have different ways of aiming and always have.

You can choose to guess where to aim and eventually find a point of aim that feels right, and then you may or may not even make the shot based on that feeling. That doesn't make that method any better or any worse than using a method that takes that guesswork, or waiting for that feeling, out of the equasion, and just shooting when you see the shot alignment a cetain way. That is what the CTE system attempts to do, provide a visual that is repeatable that can be used on most any shot, without the need to feel that you are in fact aimed at the contact point, or even considering the contact point in the process at all.

BC21's does basically the same thing, I bought his book when it first came out and I can't remember feel or contact point being mentioned in it to determine the aim line of any given shot. So what is the difference? They all eventually arrive at the contact point if they result in making the ball, but that certainly doesn't mean that feel was necessary in the process.

I have read a lot of things you have written over the years about various billiards related topics and have no doubt you are very knowledgeable on the subject, and so it's amazing to me how close minded you are when it comes to the subject of aiming, specifically, aiming with the CTE method. If, by chance you are basing your opinion of CTE on the method Dr Dave has posted then that is a little bit understandable because he obviously doesn't understand it, or explains it very poorly at least. I would hope that given some of the writings you have done, you would do the research and form your own opinion of CTE rather than just go by hearsay. I would hope your other writings and opinions are truly your own.

Regarding Cad and CTE, drawing 2 pool balls on a flat surface is about the easiest thing in the world to draw. Adding a third object, such as a pocket, still pretty easy. Drawing a line from the center of the pocket through the center of one of the balls, say the object ball, still not complicated. Drawing a 3rd circle centered on that line tangent to the object ball easily and perfectly identifies the contact point. We can call the 3rd ball ghost if you like. So drawing a line from the center of the ghost ball through the center of the remaining circle, cue ball, represents the line of aim to perfectly strike the object ball with the cue ball to arrive at the center of the ghost ball, coincidentally at the contact point, which finally, drives the object ball into the pocket. Simple enough, yes? So that is all you need to know then right? NOPE! While all of this is mathematically perfect, every time it happens is a unique circumstance based on where the pool players vision center is when they perform the task. The shot looks slightly different to every player, and even varies slightly every time it is approached even by the same player. So, most aiming systems bring the player up to this point, which rightfully so, does perfectly describe what needs to happen to make a basic cut shot. But suppose we add 2 more pieces of geometry into the example for this shot. Lets make them say 2 circles, about 1 inch in diameter each, space them say 2 3/4" apart center to center, link them together so they move in unison and the place them spatially relative to the flat plane of the pool table say, 32" back basically along the line drawn between the ghost ball center and the cue ball center, and say 18" vertically above the plane of the pool table. This we will call shot position. Oh yeah, let's call these last 2 objects EYES. Now we know so far that the shot earlier described is mathematically perfect; Imagine the eyes being yours and you are looking through them at the balls and the pocket layed out in this example. It is still perfect, YES? Now move your head, just a little, any direction, and look at the shot. Looks different right? BUT, is it still perfect? Why yes, yes it is. This is the point.

This is why I will never, ever make a CAD drawing explaining it. It is different for every shot, for every person, every time, and mathematically correct every time. Repeatedly asking for such a thing is a very profound declaration that the asker has no clue what he is asking for. Every example drawn would look almost exactly the same to the learned user and would mean absolutely nothing to anyone who doesn't understand,,,,,,,, a giant waste of my time.

CTE is simply a method, a step by step process, to train the user to systematically approach shots in a repeatable manner of seeing the same thing from shot to shot to shot.
I call this, the target on the object ball.
An aiming point.
To a line into the pocket.
Learning how to adjust this point with power and english, practice and experience.

Nothing hard about adjusting a 3D model for all of these objects, a cue, a persons visual bias.
These are just variables that could be made to edit the geometry.
Yes, I am an Engineer.



Anyway, popped over here from the wang fight thread to see what CTE was all about.
Ghost ball basically.
Got it.
Thanks.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I call this, the target on the object ball.
An aiming point.
To a line into the pocket.
Learning how to adjust this point with power and english, practice and experience.
Yea I suppose, just never mentioned the need to focus on a target "aiming point" on the object ball, but yea, I agree with you.
Nothing hard about adjusting a 3D model for all of these objects, a cue, a persons visual bias.
These are just variables that could be made to edit the geometry.
Yes, I am an Engineer.
I know right?, I've been trying to tell this crowd it's very easy to lay out in Cad or even model, and that it would be worthless because no one could physically take it to a pool table and replicate it.
No, I'm not an engineer, I'm retired.

Anyway, popped over here from the wang fight thread to see what CTE was all about.
Ghost ball basically.
Got it.
Thanks.
eh, it's an acquired taste,,,,,,,,,,
 
Top