More exciting CTE facts and information

[cookie man]

OK then please correct me. I do not want to create misunderstandings.

As I understand it, I can line up 5 balls across the table between the side pockets and line up 5 cue balls at the head string so that each set of balls is parallel to the side rail. I'd reference Stan's youtube video on perceptions but he deleted it after so may years. So, anyhoo, I can shoot all five of these set up shots in the same corner pocket with the 15 degree (ETA) perception and an inside sweep. All 5 are done the exact same way, same sweep and every shot, each of which are different shot angles, will go in the corner pocket. This would be an objective system.

Now, is that no longer correct, and now some sort of artistry needs to be applied to this process?

First off those 5 shots will be broken down in detail in The Book.
Second off, see how you misinterpret things. NO ONE said any kind of artistry needs to happen for CTE to work 100% objectively. It's established that the instructions are objective and if followed exactly you will get the expected objective result. The only thing i said is that pool is an art. Are we playing 100% objectively, NO. We are playing pool. Doesn't mean we don't use objective instructions to get our visual.

 

[BC21]

I think we need to be careful here. I've said that Poolology seems to be an objective system or method in its raw numbers form as it would then dictate the exact fractional overlap. It would do that for every shot except that you had to change the arcs to straight lines for ease of use. Hence there would be an extremely large number of fractional overlaps.... enough to cover all of the required angles. Again through estimation & rounding of those numbers that large amount of fractional overlaps is reduced to a usable amount for a normal human being & brings in the subjectivity of the analysis portion.

In other methods they start off with a limited amount of visual markers & try to expand on those to cover ALL of the necessary shot angles. THAT involves Subjective Analysis & Application regardless of whether or not the instructions are so called objective instructions.

In others words, even if the instructions could be objective, such does not transform an innately subjective process into an objective process.

Another way to say it is that in any method there are a number of shots(angles) that objectively fit the instructions/visual markers... per the limited visual markers, but no usable 'system' or method is universally objective. Hence the subjective.. whatever one wants to call them... MUST be implemented in order to produce the intended success.

Does that make sense to you... or have I left out some connective tissue out & do you agree?

Best,
RJ

Makes sense, and I agree. However, it is possible for a set of instructions to be very objective, despite any successful or failed outcome. In other words, as with Poolology, the system can objectively provide an aim point for a given shot, and the instructional steps leading to this aim point are objective, despite the accuracy of the aim point itself. In the rare instance of an inaccurate aim point, it is system limitations/breakdowns that cause it, despite the fact that the aim point was obtained using objective steps.

The proof of subjective input is when the player makes the shot regardless of any slight inaccuracy provided by the system. That's where PJ is correct, imo, about all aiming methods being subjective in the end. They all boil down to a player's individual interpretation of what they are seeing/visualizing, and how they believe or feel they are lining up on what they see as the aim point, or what they see as the perfect pivot or sweep, or matching contact points up, etc... All of this is purely subjective. The more you do it the better you get at it, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of it.

 

[cookie man]

In other words, "no, I can't".

pj
chgo

No, it just means you wouldn't understand if I put it all out there for you.
You have shown zero signs of CTE understanding through out the years, why would today be any different.

 

[ENGLISH!]

OK then please correct me. I do not want to create misunderstandings.

As I understand it, I can line up 5 balls across the table between the side pockets and line up 5 cue balls at the head string so that each set of balls is parallel to the side rail. I'd reference Stan's youtube video on perceptions but he deleted it after so may years. So, anyhoo, I can shoot all five of these set up shots in the same corner pocket with the 15 degree (ETA) perception and an inside sweep. All 5 are done the exact same way, same sweep and every shot, each of which are different shot angles, will go in the corner pocket. This would be an objective system.

Now, is that no longer correct, and now some sort of artistry needs to be applied to this process?

You are so much more concise than I am. I can't wait for an answer to that if a sincere one is ever given. It was that Video & the Other One on Perception that convinced me that I was correct when my brain returned to reality after leaving briefly due to the excitement of the 'promise' of a completely objective system. I knew then that there would be nothing to come in the then new upcoming DVD that would show any objective system. Now those videos have been removed. One has to ask why?

You too have been one of the more rational, reasonable AZB members. Kudos to you for Telling the Truth.

Outside gearing "ENGLISH" can offset CIT as can cutting the ball more but how much for what shot when can ONLY be subjectively learned through the ROTE method of much experience & there is no usable objective system for that either. Why? because the CIT is so different for so many shots & shot speeds. It is NOT one size overcut negates all.

Best Wishes,
RJ

 

[ENGLISH!]

Makes sense, and I agree. However, it is possible for a set of instructions to be very objective, despite any successful or failed outcome. In other words, as with Poolology, the system can objectively provide an aim point for a given shot, and the instructional steps leading to this aim point are objective, despite the accuracy of the aim point itself. In the rare instance of an inaccurate aim point, it is system limitations/breakdowns that cause it, despite the fact that the aim point was obtained using objective steps.

The proof of subjective input is when the player makes the shot regardless of any slight inaccuracy provided by the system. That's where PJ is correct, imo, about all aiming methods being subjective in the end. They all boil down to a player's individual interpretation of what they are seeing/visualizing, and how they believe or feel they are lining up on what they see as the aim point, or what they see as the perfect pivot or sweep, or matching contact points up, etc... All of this is purely subjective. The more you do it the better you get at it, but that doesn't change the subjective nature of it.

Brian,

Agreed on the second paragraph.

As to the first...I think we seem to be talking about two different things. Can you please give an example of an objective instruction on how to do a subjective function such as casting a fishing line sinker into a ring or bending a guitar string to a certain frequency or applying a certain "amount" of spin onto a ball?

Am I missing something? Or... are we lost in the weeds of a lacking language. Are we confusing objective with direct & specific instructions of what vs how?

Thanks in advance.

 

[ENGLISH!]

PJ & others fully understand the visual & physical components of Mr. Shuffett's CTE.

What else is there than that?

It is NOT rocket science. Physics is Physics & Geometry is Geometry. Science is Science & we 'All' have vision.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The instructions have NOT been established to be "objective".

Move or rotate until you see the proper perception is NOT an objective instruction as it does not relay objectively exactly what the proper perception is.

 

[cookie man]

PJ & others fully understand the visual & physical components of Mr. Shuffett's CTE.

What else is there than that?

It is NOT rocket science. Physics is Physics & Geometry is Geometry. Science is Science & we 'All' have vision.

Yet they show absolutely no signs of understanding, makes you wonder.

 

[cookie man]

The instructions have NOT been established to be "objective".

Move or rotate until you see the proper perception is NOT an objective instruction as it does not relay objectively exactly what the proper perception is.

lmao welcome back to your obsession

 

[ENGLISH!]

Before we all go 'too' far, I think it needs to be (re)stated that no one is telling anyone to stop using it nor to not try it, If one 'thinks' or believes that it is what is working for them & they are satisfied with their performance as Cookie & Low & others certainly seem to be, then that is ALL that should be important to them & fine, good, well, & great for them. That is what we all want... to be satisfied with our performance. If employing what they 'think' is IT has gotten them to that point, then it has delivered by some means.

Anyone who wants to try it or Poolology should certainly do so & I know of No One who is trying to stop that.

If Mike Siegel says that Chewing Juicy Fruit Gum can make one shoot like a Pro & there is no such thing as CB deflection, all are at will to believe that & give that a try, However, they should know that such is not scientifically correct.

Please do not be offended by that example? It is just an easy way to make a point.

I certainly know that there is more to it than such a simple thing as chewing gum

Once the road block is cleared then real discussions might be had as to the possible real benefits that might be had from it or aspects of it.

 

[cookie man]

B
Once the road block is cleared then real discussions might be had as to the possible real benefits that might be had from it or aspects of it.

It should be obvious that you won't change our beliefs just as it is obvious we won't change yours. Why not just move along now.
What kind of real discussion would you like to have?

 

[lfigueroa]

Said the nag!

Said the unknown troll on AZ, lol.

Look, I just scrolled through your 300 post history and obviously you don't contribute much here. I suggest you continue to spend your time in NPR or find an incel group that will take you in. But I have a low tolerance for NVA posters so I bid you adieu and am sending you to my Ignore file so you can spend your time with other malcontents.

Buh bye.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you wouldn't understand if I put it all out there for you.

In other words, "no, I can't."

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Brian,

Agreed on the second paragraph.

As to the first...I think we seem to be talking about two different things. Can you please give an example of an objective instruction on how to do a subjective function such as casting a fishing line sinker into a ring or bending a guitar string to a certain frequency or applying a certain "amount" of spin onto a ball?

Am I missing something? Or... are we lost in the weeds of a lacking language. Are we confusing objective with direct & specific instructions of what vs how?

Thanks in advance.

There is no objective means of doing any of these. Lol. These are skills that one develops through subjective trial and error.

 

[ENGLISH!]

There is no objective means of doing any of these. Lol. These are skills that one develops through subjective trial and error.

So... once a target has been determined, would you say that aligning a pool cue to such a target is an objective or subjective operation?

Now, the answer to that questions does not affect the answer to this question. Is determining the alignment for a cut shot that is to be struck on the vertical center line of the CB... an objective or subjective operation given the varying heighst available to hit on that vertical line along with varying speeds & the fact that CIT "does" exists?

Please know that I am NOT grilling you nor quizzing you. We are simply having a friendly discussion in text on a forum to determine if we are of like minds on the subject or not.

Again, Thanks in Advance,
RJ

 

[Patrick Johnson]

... once a target has been determined, would you say that aligning a pool cue to such a target is an objective or subjective operation?

Subjective, even if the target is clearly visible. Because of how binocular vision works in pool we even have to learn to estimate accurately where our cue is pointing. See this thread on "vision center".

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

Subjective, even if the target is clearly visible. Because of how binocular vision works in pool we even have to learn to estimate accurately where our cue is pointing. See this thread on "vision center".

pj
chgo

Hi, Patrick

I agree, especially since I have been going through some eye issues to go along with my back issues.

Just for the record, what about my other question? I know, but perhaps you might say something that will convince someone else.. maybe a silent member or visitor.

Thanks.

 

[BC21]

So... once a target has been determined, would you say that aligning a pool cue to such a target is an objective or subjective operation?

Now, the answer to that questions does not affect the answer to this question. Is determining the alignment for a cut shot that is to be struck on the vertical center line of the CB... an objective or subjective operation given the varying heighst available to hit on that vertical line along with varying speeds & the fact that CIT "does" exists?

Please know that I am NOT grilling you nor quizzing you. We are simply having a friendly discussion in text on a forum to determine if we are of like minds on the subject or not.

Again, Thanks in Advance,
RJ

I believe a target can be determined objectively, but striking the cb accurately, as well as accurately aligning to the target, dealing with visualizations and other shot variables....it is all subjective.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I believe a target can be determined objectively, but striking the cb accurately, as well as accurately aligning to the target, dealing with visualizations and other shot variables....it is all subjective.

Brian,

I am surprised by that answer.

I have said that Poolology, in the raw unrounded form, may be an objective method, but here is where it 'immediately' goes into the realm of subjectivity. The numbered position of the ball & the point on the rail is not exactly measured but is estimated. Those are subjective acts of approximations. Then there is the CIT involved for the speed of the shot & any spin put onto the CB.

Please explain, if you are so inclined, how can the target for a sitting shot be determined objectively by a method that is usable by normal human beings... or where you referring to a system or method that is "possible" but not readily usable?

Thanks,
RJ

 

[BC21]

Brian,

I am surprised by that answer.

I have said that Poolology, in the raw unrounded form, may be an objective method, but here is where it 'immediately' goes into the realm of subjectivity. The numbered position of the ball & the point on the rail is not exactly measured but is estimated. Those are subjective acts of approximations. Then there is the CIT involved for the speed of the shot & any spin put onto the CB.

Please explain, if you are so inclined, how can the target for a sitting shot be determined objectively by a method that is usable by normal human beings... or where you referring to a system or method that is "possible" but not readily usable?

Thanks,
RJ

For a normal rolling cb, no stun, the numbers used in Poolology account for typical throw. Of course, this is subjective based on ball/table conditions. With clean equipment, the aim points provided by the system work very well with a rolling cb. Any spin or stun is to be handled in accordance with learned experience, which is subjective.

I agree that the exact position value of the ob, as well as the rail/alignment values, rely on individual interpretation, not purely objective, but not guesswork either.

So how can a target be determined objectively? I suppose a straight in shot within a couple of feet from a pocket can be determined objectively, meaning 10 out of 10 players can simply look at the shot and know 100% that center ob is the target. Unfortunately, striking the cb correctly to put it on the target is not objective.