My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope.......if you present hard facts to people, facts that are accepted conventions, facts that are taught in school and those people ignore those facts it makes me wonder about their intelligence.

You can google "does a sphere have edges", and all you will find is the answer no. Yet when presented with this fact and it gets ignore in order to perpetuate a myth, it is a sure sign of lack of intelligence.

Well... I guess if one looks at intelligence in regards to a moral relationship, then I guess I could agree with you.

What I meant was anyone involved being lacking in the intellectual ability to understand.

I think it can be very much like Poolplaya9 said, & it involves a level of denial & fear of being shown that they were/are wrong & fear of any possible ridicule for such, etc.

Anyway, it is whatever it is.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
Not by me, John. I'm a rather tech 'idiot'.

But... you should be able to do what Poolplaya9 suggested in the quote of him that I posted earlier.

Then we'd have a specific number of objectively derived shot angles of which to compare regarding the number required to actually play the game.

Best Wishes.

PS When you mentioned leasing space to do videos, I hope you do not intend video as a form of a so called proof regarding objectivity vs subjectivity.

Video can not be legitimately used as any sort of proof for the realm of abstract... I eve struggle for the proper word to call them, shall we say...attributes.

I intend to use video to explore every topic of interest. What it proves or doesn't prove will be for viewers to decide.

I have no idea what Poolplaya9 suggested.

I have yet to see any "holes" diagrammed though. If I said there were holes then I would be on video trying to show them.
 
The following is quote of Poolplay9's post#2108 on page#141 from the Poll thread on Aiming Systems vs Feel

All the math you will ever need is right there in my post you quoted. Hint: Start off by counting how many unique objective cut angles CTE Pro 1 produces. To ensure you aren't counting fake angles you can only manufacture with subjective feel adjustments, make sure you are able to give a full detailed description of all the CTE steps to achieve a cut angle before counting it. Detailed means no two people could possibly do it any differently if everybody were trying to follow your instructions. How many unique objective cut angles that you can fully explain all the steps to exactly reproduce it in detail (and where everyone else could exactly reproduce it) did you come up with?

Bumped for JB's convenience.
 
The knowledge comes into play with having the visual intelligence to stand in the correct place to attain the visuals, then using the A,B, or C reference line in accord with the CTE line to obtain the visuals, then making the half tip pivot. VI+V+P=SL (visual intelligence plus visuals plus pivot equals shotline)

You then state that it is not objective, even though you are in an objective place, because the system does not tell you each step to get into that place. But yet, it does. Just not in the way you were expecting. The system does say you need visual intelligence. As Rick pointed out but didn't understand, that means spatial awareness. In this case, knowing where to stand to be on the rough shot line. So, it is objective. It's just that the system doesn't go through each and every step to learn how to obtain that spatial awareness. Nor should it. That would be a course on fundamentals, not aiming.

You then state that one doesn't fine tune by objective guidelines. In most all other systems, that would be a true statement. However, with this system, that is not a true statement. That is a big part of the problem with some trying to understand and use this system. They continually want to bring in other ways of obtaining the objective into the system which only corrupts the system and causes it to fail.

With CTE there is no finetuning by feel. One's finetuning is done by acquiring the proper objective visuals, and then completing the objective pivot. That is all. That procedure in and of itself will put on on the shot line finetuned to a slight overcut which CIT will change to a center pocket shot line.

As to your last part, no, visual intelligence does not mean aiming by feel. As stated earlier, your visual intelligence puts you into an objective place from where one then begins his aiming.

OK Neil. This is about as straightforward a post as I've seen on how to use CTE. It doesn't get us all the way there, though. I've put in bold the phrases that I picked up on and that I'd like to ask you to expand on if you would.

For the purposes of this post, I don't care if something is objective or not.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If I read the bold sections above I conclude that "visual intelligence" is simply knowing enough about pocketing balls to know where to stand so that if you hit the cue ball the object ball would go somewhere near the pocket, if not in. Cookie man also said you have to stand in the approximate correct position to start the process. Then you say from this vantage point you look for the CTE/ETA lines to fine tune the actual aim point, and then do a pivot. This is where you lose me. When I stand in the approximate spot to pocket the ball ("visual intelligence") and then try to apply the visual, I find that I cannot make a CTE/ETA visual work even if that is supposed to be the correct visual because I'm standing in a place that won't allow me to see the CTE/ETA unless I do something ridiculous like bend sideways. What am I doing wrong?
 
ok, I see where you are going with this.

Try this.

Every shot is it's own task.

CTE doesn't "produce" cut angles. The cut angle is already there. All CTE does is guide the shooter to the shot line through a series of steps.

When the shooter uses the CTE line for the initial alignment he is literally less than .5mm away from the actual shot line regardless of the angle. The objective step fixes the cue ball and the shooter in place and sets up the rest of the aiming process in the CTE system.

Because each shot is an isolated task unrelated to any other shot it has been found that four perceptions do indeed cover any shot directly to a pocket and most banks. I don't know why it works but it certainly isn't by guessing and it's not by estimating.

OR

IF there is guessing and estimating then it turns out to be subconsciously done AND it's significantly consistent and accurate.

What has been found to be true is that if you have a shot and you apply the eight perceptions to it coupled with the visual sweeps then you will find that most of them send the object ball towards pockets. I haven't yet found any "holes" in this and I have tried.

Soon I will have other people learning CTE and then we can explore it together and see if they can find the holes you all speak of. We will also explore the question of objectivity and see where it leads.
 
ok, I see where you are going with this.

Try this.

Every shot is it's own task.

CTE doesn't "produce" cut angles. The cut angle is already there. All CTE does is guide the shooter to the shot line through a series of steps.

When the shooter uses the CTE line for the initial alignment he is literally less than .5mm away from the actual shot line regardless of the angle. The objective step fixes the cue ball and the shooter in place and sets up the rest of the aiming process in the CTE system.

Because each shot is an isolated task unrelated to any other shot it has been found that four perceptions do indeed cover any shot directly to a pocket and most banks. I don't know why it works but it certainly isn't by guessing and it's not by estimating.

OR

IF there is guessing and estimating then it turns out to be subconsciously done AND it's significantly consistent and accurate.

What has been found to be true is that if you have a shot and you apply the eight perceptions to it coupled with the visual sweeps then you will find that most of them send the object ball towards pockets. I haven't yet found any "holes" in this and I have tried.

Soon I will have other people learning CTE and then we can explore it together and see if they can find the holes you all speak of. We will also explore the question of objectivity and see where it leads.

John,

The statement I placed in blue makes no sense to me.

Is it a typo?

If not, can you please elaborate as to what you mean & how so?

Best Wishes.

PS Where I was going is where I was & it's where the description & instruction sent me & that is as far as they have gone.

After that it's 'move until you see it, move until you see the proper perception for the shot'.

Can you please direct me to where there is any objective instructions or directions on how to get where one sees it? You do understand that there is only one place where one can see the two lines at the same time objectively & hence there are only 2 possible outcome angles, one each per pivot direction. So what is it that objective tells or guides one to a different position by objective means?
 
When the shooter uses the CTE line for the initial alignment he is literally less than .5mm away from the actual shot line regardless of the angle.

As I understand it, CTE is the line from the center of the cue ball to the edge of the object ball, otherwise known as a half-ball hit. Your statement implies that all shots are half-ball hits. No?
 
OK Neil. This is about as straightforward a post as I've seen on how to use CTE. It doesn't get us all the way there, though. I've put in bold the phrases that I picked up on and that I'd like to ask you to expand on if you would.

For the purposes of this post, I don't care if something is objective or not.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. If I read the bold sections above I conclude that "visual intelligence" is simply knowing enough about pocketing balls to know where to stand so that if you hit the cue ball the object ball would go somewhere near the pocket, if not in. Cookie man also said you have to stand in the approximate correct position to start the process. Then you say from this vantage point you look for the CTE/ETA lines to fine tune the actual aim point, and then do a pivot. This is where you lose me. When I stand in the approximate spot to pocket the ball ("visual intelligence") and then try to apply the visual, I find that I cannot make a CTE/ETA visual work even if that is supposed to be the correct visual because I'm standing in a place that won't allow me to see the CTE/ETA unless I do something ridiculous like bend sideways. What am I doing wrong?

Dan, watch this video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKAP8iR3Lw

After you watch the video, try this- set up those shots, or even just the first two shots in the video. Place another ob in place as the ghost ball. (the cb and the ghost ball should be close to the same distance off the side rail, IOW, a straight up table shot on the ghost ball. (you may want to also stand something straight that is taller than the pool balls touching the outer edge of the ob so you can reliably see where the edge of the ob is since the ghost ball will block it)

For this test, set it up for a cut to the upper left corner pocket. Now, get down in your stance to hit the ghost ball dead center with the cb and freeze there. Then, with your tip still very near the cb, pivot to the right 1/2 tip with your upper body, not just your cue. From that position, you should be able to see LCBE to A and CBC to ROBE. That is where you need to be when acquiring the visuals.
 
Last edited:

Yes, this is one of the videos that has created so much confusion. Nobody understands what Stan is saying and he doesn't appear to be capable of choosing a different means of getting his point across.

I'm accepting that visual intelligence gets you to the initial shot line (although Stan doesn't say this), and I'm accepting that you use the selected visuals to fine tune the aim point. I don't know how to make the shot when the visual intelligence puts me in a place that conflicts with lining up the visual. The video doesn't address this question.
 
John,

The statement I placed in blue makes no sense to me.

Is it a typo?

If not, can you please elaborate as to what you mean & how so?

Best Wishes.

PS Where I was going is where I was & it's where the description & instruction sent me & that is as far as they have gone.

After that it's 'move until you see it, move until you see the proper perception for the shot'.

Can you please direct me to where there is any objective instructions or directions on how to get where one sees it? You do understand that there is only one place where one can see the two lines at the same time objectively & hence there are only 2 possible outcome angles, one each per pivot direction. So what is it that objective tells or guides one to a different position by objective means?

Ok, so if you use the cte line to position your body to the shot that line comes through the center of the CB and out the back facing the shooter. That's objective in that every shooter can find the CTEL and get on it.

If you then map the actual ghost ball line (the actual shot line) you will find that this line converges with the cte line in the center of the cb and then exists the back of the cb towards the shooter.

At the exit point the real shot line is literally less than .5mm away from the CTE line.

That's a fact regardless of what the cut angle is. I say less than because I don't have the measurements for all possible angles.

This video however demonstrates the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETWcUmJsgs

Now, beyond that, the difference in body placement for each perception is very slight. I will cover this in depth at some point on video. It is however consistent in that any CTE user will end up with their body and bridge in the same place if the instructions are understood and followed.

Yes, any given perception used on any given shot can only produce ONE outcome. But as demonstrated the SAME perception can work on many different shots because each shot is a single task unrelated to any other shot.

I know you are hung up on the five shots from one position video. It's funny but we both drew opposite conclusions from this. You drew the conclusion that there must be fudging happening and I drew the conclusion that CTE works for real based on those multi-shot videos. I know that you understand that Stan and Gerry are both calling out DIFFERENT perceptions/solutions for each shot.

Thus their body position IS different for each shot. The steps however remain the same, use the CTE line for initial orientation, choose a perception and a pivot, sweep in and go to center cue ball. The difference for each shot IS the perception used. It's not a guess or an estimation but instead a hard choice based on practiced division of the object ball into four pieces yielding three points to align/aim to, A, B, C.

The fact that the shooter doesn't know if the shot line he is led to is "right" should be a proof of some sort to the objectivity of the system.

(of course over time the more shots are taken the more that "shot pictures" are formed so you have a chicken/egg scenario where having landed on the correct shot line so often through CTE now the shooter has a just see it picture of the right shot line as well)

The difference is that there is no real trial and error. It's simply correct choice vs. incorrect choice. Because out of the four perceptions and tossing out the few shots where two perceptions are functionally the same, the shooter can literally eliminate at least two right away and is left with two to choose from. Choose wrong and you try again with the other one and it's right.

No, little thinner, little thicker, thinner, thinner......figuring out how to hit the shot. Simply choose a perception and shoot and be either right or wrong. If wrong use the other one and be right and then you literally own it from then on, assuming you can remember it.

BUT if you practice enough then you learn to recognize immediately which perception is the right one right away and thus can just move into the shot fluidly. That's when it becomes second nature and literally no one can tell what the shooter is doing to aim.

The move until you see it isn't subjective, it's literally MOVE until you can perceive the lines clearly. Those lines are connections that IF drawn are literally in the same place for everyone and this is exactly why it takes all the illusion out of aiming.

So the only subjectivity comes in the initial training phase where the shooter learns to see the lines where they are rather than to superimpose old aiming habits on top of CTE. That bias which precedes a paradigm shift can be very subjective. Once the shift to seeing what IS there properly happens though then it's pretty much all objective from there. There is no step beyond that where the shooter has to guess at anything when deciding where to put the cue down in preparation to shoot.
 
Yes, this is one of the videos that has created so much confusion. Nobody understands what Stan is saying and he doesn't appear to be capable of choosing a different means of getting his point across.

I'm accepting that visual intelligence gets you to the initial shot line (although Stan doesn't say this), and I'm accepting that you use the selected visuals to fine tune the aim point. I don't know how to make the shot when the visual intelligence puts me in a place that conflicts with lining up the visual. The video doesn't address this question.

I am capable a 100 times over! I have never intended for YouTube videos to address every question.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Yes, this is one of the videos that has created so much confusion. Nobody understands what Stan is saying and he doesn't appear to be capable of choosing a different means of getting his point across.

I'm accepting that visual intelligence gets you to the initial shot line (although Stan doesn't say this), and I'm accepting that you use the selected visuals to fine tune the aim point. I don't know how to make the shot when the visual intelligence puts me in a place that conflicts with lining up the visual. The video doesn't address this question.

see my edit in post #250.
 
I am capable a 100 times over! I have never intended for YouTube videos to address every question.

Stan Shuffett

Stan - the feedback I get even from your followers is that they don't really know what you are talking about. Isn't there possibly a different way to illustrate how different ball positions on the table (ie, red, yellow, green oversized balls) lead to different perceptions of the same visuals?
 
Stan - the feedback I get even from your followers is that they don't really know what you are talking about. Isn't there possibly a different way to illustrate how different ball positions on the table (ie, red, yellow, green oversized balls) lead to different perceptions of the same visuals?

You can bet your last dollar on that!

Stan Shuffett
 
Yes, this is one of the videos that has created so much confusion. Nobody understands what Stan is saying and he doesn't appear to be capable of choosing a different means of getting his point across.

I'm accepting that visual intelligence gets you to the initial shot line (although Stan doesn't say this), and I'm accepting that you use the selected visuals to fine tune the aim point. I don't know how to make the shot when the visual intelligence puts me in a place that conflicts with lining up the visual. The video doesn't address this question.

You mean some of you don't understand what Stan is saying. I understand it.

Stan has made a video that he absolutely did not have to make. He is demonstrating that the system followed properly in this scenario shows the same perception works for these three different shots even if his estimation tells him that these three cuts should not be the same perceptions.

I know you don't understand it but to me this is because you are not immersed in the system as a student yet.

But think about it. Why would Stan stand up in front of the world and tell everyone that he has discovered that three very different angles use the same perception if not to show that the method objectively works regardless of how a person feels about it?

Anyway, what Stan is saying is follow the instructions and observe the results BUT make sure you're doing it right OR the results won't be right. He gives a great lesson on what perception means and how to be between the lines, not directly on one or the other and why.
 
You mean some of you don't understand what Stan is saying. I understand it.

Well, I won't get into that. Let me just say that as someone not "immersed in it" as you say, the video is not effective. I think you have to already understand the concept in order for the video to make any sense, which of course defeats the purpose of creating an educational video.
 
Stan - the feedback I get even from your followers is that they don't really know what you are talking about. Isn't there possibly a different way to illustrate how different ball positions on the table (ie, red, yellow, green oversized balls) lead to different perceptions of the same visuals?

You didn't get that from me. So please don't include me in this.

If you don't get it you're not really listening. I didn't get it for a long time for that very reason. In fact when the first DVD came out I was put off by the language and messed with it a little bit and went right back to my cobbled-together version.

It takes a real paradigm shift to empty out your mind and be truly open to what Stan is saying here. In my opinion at least based on my own experience.

Thing is let's for the sake of argument assume that there is no gearing happening in the execution phase.

In this perception video can you or English or anyone point to any part of the process that Stan is describing and show the subjective choice? Can you show estimation happening in the process?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top