My Thread... just so I can make some comments on... whatever.

Status
Not open for further replies.
ENGLISH! said:
I play on 9' Diamonds with 4" pockets & what is is less then 4" pockets.

There was discussion that you seem to have missed regarding the intersection of the rails & the 'connection to the 90* vertex of the angle.

It seems as with many points, CTEers want to have it both ways whichever fits their 'current argument' best.

Yet, here is another post by an advocate that avoids a question & 'attacks' the messenger.

Best to ALL.
Click to expand...

Not even worth addressing, as there is no truth whatsoever in your above post. So, I'll just say it again, learn where center pocket is.
 
Neil said:
Not even worth addressing, as there is no truth whatsoever in your above post. So, I'll just say it again, learn where center pocket is.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you like to call others liars to make them waste time to prove you wrong.

You have made yourself, at least to me, irrelevant regarding the subject matter.

That being the case, I'm not wasting any more time with you.

I've been cheating pockets using english for nearly 50 years. I know where center pocket is relative to the shot.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Joey,

What's your point?

That a 1/2 BALL pivot works for shots less than 12" from the pocket?

Will that same method work for all of the 75 required angles & at all distances?

No.

So, what's your point?
Click to expand...

That the internet is a dangerous place.
I didn't know you had no sense of humor at all.
Now, I know.
 
JoeyInCali said:
That the internet is a dangerous place.
I didn't know you had no sense of humor at all.
Now, I know.
Click to expand...

I do have a very good sense of humor.

It's just that there is so much vitriol thrown around in the aiming sub forum along with totally illogical 'arguments' presented as 'proof', that I did not expect any 'joke' just popping up from out of nowhere.

Sorry.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
Rick,

I just started looking at Joe Tucker's, Aiming By The Numbers Method. It's a group of 11 basic angles to the pockets using corresponding contact points on the object ball and cue ball. I was pleasantly surprised to find that these angles pretty much covered a majority of the shots on the table.

At first I thought it was a version of parallel and overlap aiming, but it proved to be quite a bit more accurate with some due diligence. It's very mechanical when you first start, but the results make it worth while. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
Rick,

I just started looking at Joe Tucker's, Aiming By The Numbers Method. It's a group of 11 basic angles to the pockets using corresponding contact points on the object ball and cue ball. I was pleasantly surprised to find that these angles pretty much covered a majority of the shots on the table.

At first I thought it was a version of parallel and overlap aiming, but it proved to be quite a bit more accurate with some due diligence. It's very mechanical when you first start, but the results make it worth while. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Well mike,

If one can accurately imagine or envision the numbers on both balls & how to align them & there is a method that tells which number to use for a given shot, I guess it might be rather efficient.

It's too mechanical for me & I'd have to see some significant improvement to go to it & I don't even seeing ME trying that mechanical of a method, but we're all different. It might be great for some.

There is a young guy at the hall that I frequent that shot okay. He went to that about 6 months ago & I can't really say that he's much better if at all.

The funny thing is that I showed him a change in his stance one night & he was shooting really well. I saw him a week later & he was back in his old stance. I asked him why & he said it just felt more comfortable.

You can't make young horses drink simple good water when they want their complex carbohydrates.

I don't see myself changing anything anytime soon but I am interested to see what Eeekes's SAMBA method is about.

Best 2 Ya.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
See how one can give an impression that is totally incorrect.

Some if us are not opponents to CTE at all. It's merely the incorrect description to which we object.

On that subject I see, IMO, that there are a few vocal proponents that either can't see the truth on that subject or they simply refuse to admit the truth regarding that subject due to biases, etc. as PoolPlaya9 laid out.

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).
Click to expand...
Wall of text.......sir we can't seem to find a way through the wall of text....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
ENGLISH! said:
https://youtu.be/Eb9e6NuNteE?list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9

John,

Why is this video labeled 'parallel shots'?

They are the same shot with the same outcome angle just at different distances from the pocket.

It's things like this that go to our earlier conversation. I've pointed this out to you before, but you've done nothing to clarify the situation.

Yes the balls are on parallel lines & they are more than one so hence shots, plural.

Technically correct?

Misleading? Intentional? Accidentally? Subconsciously? End result motivated? The ends justify the means?

What does that video really show? That a rail shot can be pocketed a few times in a row. A rail shot has a rather well defined line of the shot & there is no need for any CTE method.

Video Propaganda?

Also, when the ball is frozen to the rail, how does CTE get the slight over cut that is inherently incorporated by mother nature to counter CIT?

If anything, this shows that you're not using CTE as defined or CTE is not as defined.

If so, the cue ball would be hitting the rail first to get the slight over cut & then rebounding into the object ball & it would bounce it off the rail. Also the center of the ball is not going to the 90* intersection of the 2:1 ratio table, but instead it is the outside edge that goes there.

No doubt this too will be one of the have it both ways explanations.

Either CTE is as the 'system' is defined or it is not. It can not flip back & forth or it is not a 'system' at all. & if it does somehow magically flip then what allows it to defy science?

Would that possibly be one's subjectivity, whether subconsciously employed or not?

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
Click to expand...

That video was made in response to an assertion that the same shot, according to person presenting this layout, could not possibly be made using the same exact motions.

I set up his example and shot it on the table to show that I was not doing anything different for all variations of those shots.

Nothing defies science. You simply don't understand the science involved.

But for this video I was not using CTE as prescribed by Stan. I didn't know it at the time. But I did use the same exact steps for each shot.

This is what I wrote when I put the video up.

"This is a video I did to show that the motions using CTE are nearly identical shot for shot. Many of the opponents of CTE have put up diagrams of these shots and claimed that it's impossible to do the SAME motions on different shots and make the balls. The reality is that from the shooter's perspective every shot done here looks exactly the same. I use the CTE line as the starting point, put my bridge hand down with the tip pointing to the left side of the cue ball and pivot to center cue ball and shoot. Every shot done the same way.

This is one of the strongest advantages to using the CTE method of aiming. Even if there are some "adjustments" from shot to shot they are so small as to not be noticeable by the shooter. This gives the shooter a tremendous sense of confidence on each shot with the feeling that he is lined up perfectly and then can focus on the stroke. For a CTE user none of these shots is any tougher than any of the others.

If you are not a CTE user try these shots and see how you do."
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
Well mike,

If one can accurately imagine or envision the numbers on both balls & how to align them & there is a method that tells which number to use for a given shot, I guess it might be rather efficient.

It's too mechanical for me & I'd have to see some significant improvement to go to it & I don't even seeing ME trying that mechanical of a method, but we're all different. It might be great for some.

There is a young guy at the hall that I frequent that shot okay. He went to that about 6 months ago & I can't really say that he's much better if at all.

The funny thing is that I showed him a change in his stance one night & he was shooting really well. I saw him a week later & he was back in his old stance. I asked him why & he said it just felt more comfortable.

You can't make young horses drink simple good water when they want their complex carbohydrates.

I don't see myself changing anything anytime soon but I am interested to see what Eeekes's SAMBA method is about.

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...

I think the strengths of the aming by the numbers method are twofold:

1. The contact point to contact point method of aim seem to defeat certain perceptual illusions that commonly occur with pool cut angles. I could go into this more, but suffice it to say, it lets you shoot "straight at the ball" in a manner that is refreshing.

2. It puts a "name" or in this case a number to the various cut angles. This is an important mnemonic device. It also has more angles than the quarter system, some pivot systems etc, while still not going too far and become overly complicated.

Joe Tucker also presents his material in a very straight forward and easy to understand manner. There is really no mystery or magic in this method of aiming. What you see is what you get. It's straight forward, and it works. The system package is also well put together. One of the best commercial aiming systems available.
 
Straightpool_99 said:
I think the strengths of the aming by the numbers method are twofold:

1. The contact point to contact point method of aim seem to defeat certain perceptual illusions that commonly occur with pool cut angles. I could go into this more, but suffice it to say, it lets you shoot "straight at the ball" in a manner that is refreshing.

2. It puts a "name" or in this case a number to the various cut angles. This is an important mnemonic device. It also has more angles than the quarter system, some pivot systems etc, while still not going too far and become overly complicated.

Joe Tucker also presents his material in a very straight forward and easy to understand manner. There is really no mystery or magic in this method of aiming. What you see is what you get. It's straight forward, and it works. The system package is also well put together. One of the best commercial aiming systems available.
Click to expand...

Yes. I like Joe Tucker & how he presents things. He's posting a bit here & I think that that is great.

When I was 13, nearly 14 & leaving ghost ball, I started with fractional 1/4s & very quickly realized that they were not enough & stared going in between to 1/8s & then just started using even & opposite overlap with no defined numbers applied. It might be 5/16 or 11/32. It's whatever the contact point on the OB to the contact point on the CB yields.

That way there are no numbers on the brain.

To me it's sort of like physics. The principles are real & we then use math to be able to explain them.

Einstein was not really that good of a mathematician. He was heads above others in conceptual thinking & visualizing the concepts of which he was thinking. He actually needed help with the math at times. He once made a mistake & wrote the wrong formula & thought that he had a proof but then realized his mistake after much wasted time.

We're all different & different versions fit us each better.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

Best wishes to You & ALL.
 
Mikjary said:
Rick,

I just started looking at Joe Tucker's, Aiming By The Numbers Method. It's a group of 11 basic angles to the pockets using corresponding contact points on the object ball and cue ball. I was pleasantly surprised to find that these angles pretty much covered a majority of the shots on the table.

At first I thought it was a version of parallel and overlap aiming, but it proved to be quite a bit more accurate with some due diligence. It's very mechanical when you first start, but the results make it worth while. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

That is CP2CP or parallel aiming. The numbers correspond to each other.
 
HawaiianEye said:
That is CP2CP or parallel aiming. The numbers correspond to each other.
Click to expand...

Yes, I use it quite a bit and the numbers can correspond to one another if used that way. That's not what this system is about.

This system uses the numbers on the balls to correspond to 10 specific shots that Joe has identified. There isn't any random overlapping or contact point to contact point aiming used. The numbers are for each specific shot line.

For example, shooting down the long rail is the zero (0) shot line. Shooting down the short rail is the nine (9) shot line. These actual shots correspond to the numbers on the balls. The training balls have a 0-9 designation that are placed in a specific way in relation to the table. Each of the 10 different shots are identified by the user and the corresponding number on the cue ball and object ball is used to pocket the ball.

Until I actually looked at the system, I thought it was an overlap or CP2CP system, too. It's more and a good training aid for getting your eyes used to looking at the correct shot line.

Best,
Mike
 
Mikjary said:
Yes, I use it quite a bit and the numbers can correspond to one another if used that way. That's not what this system is about.

This system uses the numbers on the balls to correspond to 10 specific shots that Joe has identified. There isn't any random overlapping or contact point to contact point aiming used. The numbers are for each specific shot line.

For example, shooting down the long rail is the zero (0) shot line. Shooting down the short rail is the nine (9) shot line. These actual shots correspond to the numbers on the balls. The training balls have a 0-9 designation that are placed in a specific way in relation to the table. Each of the 10 different shots are identified by the user and the corresponding number on the cue ball and object ball is used to pocket the ball.

Until I actually looked at the system, I thought it was an overlap or CP2CP system, too. It's more and a good training aid for getting your eyes used to looking at the correct shot line.

Best,
Mike
Click to expand...

Mike,

I can understand how shots might be numbered if the ball is on the same line like moving parallel across the table 0= straight in down the rail, 1/2 diamond over = 1, full diamond over = 2 , etc, but what happens when the OB is on the line but the CB is not?

Is it not right back to subjective determination of which numbers to use.

Best 2 Ya.
 
The following is a quote of Patrick Johnson from another thread. I think, it explains, rather well, how those of us that have an objection to the descriptions surrounding CTE & the implications that they present think & feel.

Naturally almost immediately he was basically called a liar as though he has some motive that would benefit him if the truth is told about CTE, but none is offered other than he could not stand to be wrong. I find that very very ironic.

I don't think anyone has said that CTE is not beneficial to those that are using it.

We've just said that the descriptions about the how & why of it's operation is inaccurate. What we have determined & are saying is that it is not 'an objective aiming system' that is not dependent on 'feel' which is subjectively based.

Those that are playing well while utilizing the CTE preshot routine simply seem to be incapable of understanding under what parameter the final selection of the shot line encompasses. Either that are they refise to do so as they are Fans & Fanatical in regards to it.

That is because 'feel' is basically a subconscious parameter. If it is SUBconscious, it is under the radar of one's conscious mind.

The ONLY way to determine the truth of this matter is through a non science bending, rational, reasonable, logical, critically thought out analysis & then an explanation of such.

It seems that the Fanatical CTE clan, at least the vocal ones here, are not capable of doing that where this subject is concerned.

That is sort of the definition of a Fan or Being Fanatical.

Since there are 75 distinct individual angled shots that can come up while playing this game, it is totally illogical to think that ANY aiming method could possibly be so systematic as to be an objective one & still be usable by us human beings, or at least us average human beings.

CTE only has a few objective markers as do all other aiming methods.

Does that mean that CTE is not better than most of them? NO.
Does it mean that CTE is not beneficial as a method? NO.
Does it mean that CTE should not be bought & tried by anyone? NO.

It just means that anyone considering CTE should know & understand that the description regarding it's nature is inaccurate as determined by logical thinking. Does that mean that it will not work nor be an aid & benefit for one if they follow the direction? No.

It may or it may not, depending on whether or not one also employs their own subjectivity that will be necessary when it comes to ariving at the final line of the cue stick & how good one's subjectivity in that regard is. Can CTE be an aid in that application? I would certainly think so & it has apparently been so for some that certainly seem to be rather successful with it's use.

Knowing THAT... one should proceed how ever one wishes regarding it.

Basically Patrick Johnson, myself & others are like a buyers remorse 'disclaimer'. If one is looking for an objective aiming system that is void of subjective feel as an 'ingredient', then be aware that this is not it, as no such animal exists, at least not at this time & probably never will exist.

If one is looking for a method that can help them with the alignment process, knowing that it will still require their subjective input as to the final line of the cue stick then CTE can certainly qualify as one of those means.

As with almost all relatively new products, there will be a surge of use, & then over time the users will decide & an ultimate 'crowd' opinion will be made. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, as long as one knows the truth about what is being purchased or at least that the truth is not universally believed & is under scrutiny & at least hears both sides of the dispute.

Best Wishes to ALL.



Patrick Johnson said:
As I explain whenever asked (and apparently no CTE user is capable of understanding), I only object to the fanciful, non-factual and illogical way CTE users claim it works - primarily the claim that it's "feel free". Houle claimed the same thing for his "3 Angles" nonsense (despite your laughable claims that he was just "pranking" everybody - where have I heard that lie before?), and now Stan and his merry band of clueless acolytes are carrying the torch.

Despite that, I'm happy if players use it and benefit from it and if Stan does well with it. I'll just keep pointing out the factual inaccuracies in its marketing claims when I notice them being pushed.

Thanks again for asking.

pj
Click to expand...
Patrick Johnson said:
chgo
Click to expand...

PS Definitions of
fanatic
1
n a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause)

Synonyms:
fiend
 
Last edited:
Rick, I do not like your practice of cut/paste to draw people into your thread.

This is not in the spirit of the original allowance.

Post your own. Do not cross link.
 
ENGLISH! said:
The following is a quote of Patrick Johnson from another thread. I think, it explains, rather well, how those of us that have an objection to the descriptions surrounding CTE & the implications that they present think & feel.

Naturally almost immediately he was basically called a liar as though he has some motive that would benefit him if the truth is told about CTE, but none is offered other than he could not stand to be wrong. I find that very very ironic.

I don't think anyone has said that CTE is not beneficial to those that are using it.

We've just said that the descriptions about the how & why of it's operation is inaccurate. What we have determined & are saying is that it is not 'an objective aiming system' that is not dependent on 'feel' which is subjectively based.

Those that are playing well while utilizing the CTE preshot routine simply seem to be incapable of understanding under what parameter the final selection of the shot line encompasses. Either that are they refise to do so as they are Fans & Fanatical in regards to it.

That is because 'feel' is basically a subconscious parameter. If it is SUBconscious, it is under the radar of one's conscious mind.

The ONLY way to determine the truth of this matter is through a non science bending, rational, reasonable, logical, critically thought out analysis & then an explanation of such.

It seems that the Fanatical CTE clan, at least the vocal ones here, are not capable of doing that where this subject is concerned.

That is sort of the definition of a Fan or Being Fanatical.

Since there are 75 distinct individual angled shots that can come up while playing this game, it is totally illogical to think that ANY aiming method could possibly be so systematic as to be an objective one & still be usable by us human beings, or at least us average human beings.

CTE only has a few objective markers as do all other aiming methods.

Does that mean that CTE is not better than most of them? NO.
Does it mean that CTE is not beneficial as a method? NO.
Does it mean that CTE should not be bought & tried by anyone? NO.

It just means that anyone considering CTE should know & understand that the description regarding it's nature is inaccurate as determined by logical thinking. Does that mean that it will not work nor be an aid & benefit for one if they follow the direction? No.

It may or it may not, depending on whether or not one also employs their own subjectivity that will be necessary when it comes to ariving at the final line of the cue stick & how good one's subjectivity in that regard is. Can CTE be an aid in that application? I would certainly think so & it has apparently been so for some that certainly seem to be rather successful with it's use.

Knowing THAT... one should proceed how ever one wishes regarding it.

Basically Patrick Johnson, myself & others are like a buyers remorse 'disclaimer'. If one is looking for an objective aiming system that is void of subjective feel as an 'ingredient', then be aware that this is not it, as no such animal exists, at least not at this time & probably never will exist.

If one is looking for a method that can help them with the alignment process, knowing that it will still require their subjective input as to the final line of the cue stick then CTE can certainly qualify as one of those means.

As with almost all relatively new products, there will be a surge of use, & then over time the users will decide & an ultimate 'crowd' opinion will be made. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, as long as one knows the truth about what is being purchased or at least that the truth is not universally believed & is under scrutiny & at least hears both sides of the dispute.

Best Wishes to ALL.





PS Definitions of
fanatic
1
n a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause)

Synonyms:
fiend
Click to expand...


More warnings for posting incorrect information.
 
Mr. Wilson said:
Rick, I do not like your practice of cut/paste to draw people into your thread.

This is not in the spirit of the original allowance.

Post your own. Do not cross link.
Click to expand...

Sorry.

I was not aware. I thought the issue was over posting & being 'imposing' in the threads of others.

I don't really understand how quoting what someone says in another thread is drawing them into my thread... but you're the Boss & I have no choice but to follow orders.

Thanks for the advisement.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top