Naysayers Unnite pt2

[JB Cases]

The problem with CTE users is their believing their perception of the shot is the only right one.

Like using the edge of the ball......in their perception of the shot, there is a edge to use so they do.....in their mind. Another person, in their perception, there are no edges to use.

This difference in perception by each person of the same shot is why all aiming systems are subjective.

Perception is on a person by person basis.

I stated a long time ago that CTE was useless because it is limited in shots it can be used on, regardless what is stated, is not a accurate aiming system, to hard to learn and provides no means to help in adjusting.

I've been proven right numberous times. Like every time there is a CTE thread.

It's the worst system out there.

How would you know what a CTE perception is? There is only one shot line so it's not a matter of one system being better than another but instead whether or not the method gets you to the shot more consistently or not. Ghostball with Arrow Assistance might actually be the best method for you. You might not be wired to understand CTE.

But your statements on the accuracy of CTE are simply wrong. As for adjusting, what do you mean?

You mean like adjusting for spin? Already covered numerous times.

Adjusting for cheating the pocket? Why would you think that a player can't move his aim a touch left or right of the dead nuts perfect center ball shot line to account for shooting into a particular part of the pocket.

Safeties? We use ghost ball for that or feel or whatever method works.

Banking? Forgetabout it CTE kills Ghost Ball. I would sponsor a bank contest between you and any decent CTE user for $500 a shot any day of the week. You have no chance. I might even let you use the Arrow.

Caroms? We can use the edges of the balls to figure out caroms. As you were told numerous times CTE is used where it's the best tool and other methods where those are best.

Kick shots? There are numerous methods for kick shots which are effective. In the imagination department - for one rail shots double the distance with ghost ball and CTE aiming to the ghost ball is pretty cool - let that sink in for a moment........

Jump Shots? Line up with CTE, figure the angle, speed and spin and nail it.

Combinations? Here Tor has pretty good tips for them. https://youtu.be/qzjousgGLjU?t=2342

so although you don't understand this CTE is just one tool in a complete player's toolbox. It isn't the only aiming system. But it is accurate for the shots it is useful for.

And those shots comprise the vast majority of shots a player will be faced with.

Let me repeat that, in every game in every set and every match forever the majority of shots a player will face are shots directly to a pocket or banks and for those shots CTE is EXTREMELY ACCURATE.

 

[duckie]

Its apparent that those thinking a robot CTE machine can be built are totally clueless about what it takes to go from concept to real world.

First.....its got to be able to be put on paper.

Second.....since CTE is visual perception based......whose perception is gonna be used?

CTE has no bases to work....none. Saying it works with no facts to back it up is just mental masturbation.

 

[Neil]

The problem with CTE users is their believing their perception of the shot is the only right one.

Like using the edge of the ball......in their perception of the shot, there is a edge to use so they do.....in their mind. Another person, in their perception, there are no edges to use.

This difference in perception by each person of the same shot is why all aiming systems are subjective.

Perception is on a person by person basis.

I stated a long time ago that CTE was useless because it is limited in shots it can be used on, regardless what is stated, is not a accurate aiming system, to hard to learn and provides no means to help in adjusting.

I've been proven right numberous times. Like every time there is a CTE thread.

It's the worst system out there.

If you believe all that, then why not just follow YOUR signature line? Why do you feel the need to keep harping about that which you don't use, never will use, and don't understand in the least?

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

Its apparent that those thinking a robot CTE machine can be built are totally clueless about what it takes to go from concept to real world.

First.....its got to be able to be put on paper.

Second.....since CTE is visual perception based......whose perception is gonna be used?

CTE has no bases to work....none. Saying it works with no facts to back it up is just mental masturbation.

I have no clue why you put so much effort into this. If an aiming method works for someone, but not YOU, the only statement that can logically be made is that the system doesn't work FOR YOU.

Second, can you tell me any aiming system that isn't visual? When you find such a system, I'd like you to create the first blind world champion with it.

You need to find a new hobby besides slagging CTE.

 

[GoldenFlash]

On and on it goes.....I love it.

The problem with CTE users is their believing their perception of the shot is the only right one.
Like using the edge of the ball......in their perception of the shot, there is a edge to use so they do.....in their mind. Another person, in their perception, there are no edges to use.
This difference in perception by each person of the same shot is why all aiming systems are subjective.
Perception is on a person by person basis.
I stated a long time ago that CTE was useless because it is limited in shots it can be used on, regardless what is stated, is not a accurate aiming system, to hard to learn and provides no means to help in adjusting.
I've been proven right numberous times. Like every time there is a CTE thread.
It's the worst system out there.

Assuming you have a straight stroke, if the ball goes in the pocket, then your personal perception of the shot was accurate.
Furthermore, as much as you will hate this......your perception of the shot was either a 15-30-45-60, no matter what you THINK it was. Otherwise, the ball wouldn't have gone in the pocket in the first place.
The 'title' of your process or procedure for reaching your perception, alignment, and watching the ball go into the pocket does not matter. Like it or not, how you arrived at making the shot has no bearing on the outcome.
You STILL used a 15-30-45-60 degree shot to make the ball. You have no choice in the matter. You cannot help it. If the ball went into the hole that is what you did, one of those perceptions is right out of CTE. CTE merely offers a higher percentage process for attaining all of it.
On the other hand if you have stroke problems or vision problems or no nerves, all the CTE in the world won't help you. (or any other 'system' either)

 

[stan shuffett]

Assuming you have a straight stroke, if the ball goes in the pocket, then your personal perception of the shot was accurate.
Furthermore, as much as you will hate this......your perception of the shot was either a 15-30-45-60, no matter what you THINK it was. Otherwise, the ball wouldn't have gone in the pocket in the first place.
The 'title' of your process or procedure for reaching your perception, alignment, and watching the ball go into the pocket does not matter. Like it or not, how you arrived at making the shot has no bearing on the outcome.
You STILL used a 15-30-45-60 degree shot to make the ball. You have no choice in the matter. You cannot help it. If the ball went into the hole that is what you did, one of those perceptions is right out of CTE. CTE merely offers a higher percentage process for attaining all of it.
On the other hand if you have stroke problems or vision problems or no nerves, all the CTE in the world won't help you. (or any other 'system' either)

If one aims their old way, they'll be close.

Stan Shuffett

 

[duckie]

Perception and accuracy are not the same thing. I was not discussing accuracy but the attitude of CTE user about their perception. It appears to me they think its the only perception that can be used to place balls where needed.

Accuracy does not come from the system but from how well someone uses the system.

I try to stay out of threads that the topic is clearly about CTE and how to use it. So, I use this thread to state my thoughts in order to stay out of CTE related threads.

Maybe my hobby is pointing inconsistencies in so called systems. Pointing out the differences between fact and marketing jargon.

" Like it or not, how you arrived at making the shot has no bearing on the outcome. "

Now this is some bullshit. If I arrived at the wrong shooting position for the shot this will affect the outcome. If I arrive at the wrong spot on the table to put the CB, this will affect the outcome.

Everything you do before a shot affects the outcome of the shot. Now, your perception may lead you to believe other wise.

 

[Neil]

Perception and accuracy are not the same thing. I was not discussing accuracy but the attitude of CTE user about their perception. It appears to me they think its the only perception that can be used to place balls where needed.

Accuracy does not come from the system but from how well someone uses the system.

I try to stay out of threads that the topic is clearly about CTE and how to use it. So, I use this thread to state my thoughts in order to stay out of CTE related threads.

Maybe my hobby is pointing inconsistencies in so called systems. Pointing out the differences between fact and marketing jargon.

" Like it or not, how you arrived at making the shot has no bearing on the outcome. "

Now this is some bullshit. If I arrived at the wrong shooting position for the shot this will affect the outcome. If I arrive at the wrong spot on the table to put the CB, this will affect the outcome.

Everything you do before a shot affects the outcome of the shot. Now, your perception may lead you to believe other wise.

Greg, the part I put in red is just not true in the least. Not one CTE user has ever said that. Which means, despite you saying you are against marketing claims, you have no problem making up your own to sell your opinion on the subject.

If you don't like the system, don't use it. If there are incorrect actual physical statements made about it, then correct them. ( like Sigel stating that spin can't be transferred to an ob) If it's just marketing, so what. Name one product that doesn't embellish a little. (not saying CTE does) But, to just make up false claims just to fan the flames, or put people against something you don't like or know about, is just plain wrong.

 

[GoldenFlash]

Perception and accuracy are not the same thing. I was not discussing accuracy but the attitude of CTE user about their perception. It appears to me they think its the only perception that can be used to place balls where needed.
Accuracy does not come from the system but from how well someone uses the system.
I try to stay out of threads that the topic is clearly about CTE and how to use it. So, I use this thread to state my thoughts in order to stay out of CTE related threads.
Maybe my hobby is pointing inconsistencies in so called systems. Pointing out the differences between fact and marketing jargon.
" Like it or not, how you arrived at making the shot has no bearing on the outcome. "
Now this is some bullshit. If I arrived at the wrong shooting position for the shot this will affect the outcome. If I arrive at the wrong spot on the table to put the CB, this will affect the outcome.
Everything you do before a shot affects the outcome of the shot. Now, your perception may lead you to believe other wise.

*sigh*
Your reading comprehension skills seem a bit slow.
I was trying to get you to understand that IF YOU MAKE THE SHOT....repeat IF YOU MAKE THE SHOT. How you arrived at the correct angle has no bearing on the outcome...assuming you have no stroke problems, vision problems, or no courage.
If the ball went in the pocket, you were shooting at an alignment straight from CTE or the shot would not have gone in the pocket in the first place.
You can call it "feel", hoo-doo voodoo, 123 system, xyz system or whatever you choose to call it.........you were still on one of those 4 angles whether you like it or not. You can stand on your head if you want to do so, but IF THE BALL GOES IN THE POCKET....you shot it from one of those angles whether you like it or not.
CTE gives a higher percentage and a REPEATABLE process to work with. Otherwise everything you're doing is guesswork.
There is no escape from this reality

 

[duckie]

I have been on the explanation trail for many years as evidenced by my AZ posts, DVDs and YouTube videos.......I will put it ALL together in text book form.....

I have put in nearly one full decade of perceptual work at a table......all of my work is coming out in 2016.

You are unable at this point to last with me even 5 minutes at a table concerning CTE........you are 8 years behind in perceptual experience.

I am going to share with the WHOLE WORLD what to look at and how to align to it.....CTE CTE CTE CTE......

If I had to approach pool conventionally...I'd quit today....YOU are teaching the game incorrectly just as PJ is doing....he is teaching the game the wrong way......

Stan Shuffett

And to prove my point about CTE users believing their perceptions are the only correct ones.

Kinda a insult to instructors that do not teach CTE....

 

[stan shuffett]

And to prove my point about CTE users believing their perceptions are the only correct ones.

Kinda a insult to instructors that do not teach CTE....

Pros do NOT use ghost ball. Ghost ball is joke for pro players.....if someone is teaching Gb to to any serious player.....read this.....it is wrong!
PERIOD!!

Stan Shuffett

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Doesn't insult me and I don't teach CTE.

One thing I have learned, is that if I have not worked on something "on the table" I don't comment on it.

I wish others would learn that lesson.

And to prove my point about CTE users believing their perceptions are the only correct ones.

Kinda a insult to instructors that do not teach CTE....

 

[HawaiianEye]

Doesn't insult me and I don't teach CTE.

One thing I have learned, is that if I have not worked on something "on the table" I don't comment on it.

I wish others would learn that lesson.

I agree with you.

I don't teach anything other than what I understand and works for me.

I am more than willing to try any other system that may improve my game if someone is willing to teach me.

If I try a particular system and am doing it correctly (as per the teacher's instruction) and it doesn't beat my particular method (whatever that may be), I will continue using my method until another one comes along.

For ME, ghost ball ISN'T that method. I am sure "ghost ball" is somehow equated into the solution I come up with for hitting the ball, I don't think it is the primary means my brain used to come up with the calculation I decided is the right way for me for the shot.

I have played pool for 50 years...I think I use a blend of things. If you haven't played that long, then your blend may not have as many elements as mine does. I'm not saying my blend is better than yours, I'm just telling you what I think.

 

[duckie]

The ole 2x1 ratio bit about CTE again......where's that math thread about proving this concept.

More nonsense that can not be proven but is just whole hearty accepted as fact.

Amazing how gullible some people are.

 

[cookie man]

The ole 2x1 ratio bit about CTE again......where's that math thread about proving this concept.

More nonsense that can not be proven but is just whole hearty accepted as fact.

Amazing how gullible some people are.

Amazing how people with zero knowledge of a subject push there opinion down peoples throats.

 

[Neil]

The ole 2x1 ratio bit about CTE again......where's that math thread about proving this concept.

More nonsense that can not be proven but is just whole hearty accepted as fact.

Amazing how gullible some people are.

Equally amazing is how some can't take what is useful and develop from there.

 

[duckie]

If you state that something works because of certain dimensions, there has to be some basis for that conclusion.

The pocket locations are known.

So that leaves the CB and OB locations which will be random.

Draw a scale drawing of a table, using dots to locate the pockets. Place two scale circles on the drawing and show the 2x1 relationship using this drawing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cant be done. The 2x1 is a myth used to rationalized why CTE works.

Wasn't there a math thread at some point in the past that got pulled?
There is no math, no geometry at all in CTE. There is no way using any form of math or geometry to prove how CTE works.

The only reason it "works" is that it users have convinced themselves it does. "Gee I made a shot thinking this way, so it must work". And they repeat this cycle long enough, they are convinced, even though their is no way for it to work as described.

People that use it don't know how it works so they come up with these myths like this 2x1 myth in order to rationalize why it works.

 

[GoldenFlash]

If you state that something works because of certain dimensions, there has to be some basis for that conclusion.

The pocket locations are known.

So that leaves the CB and OB locations which will be random.

Draw a scale drawing of a table, using dots to locate the pockets. Place two scale circles on the drawing and show the 2x1 relationship using this drawing.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cant be done. The 2x1 is a myth used to rationalized why CTE works.

Wasn't there a math thread at some point in the past that got pulled?
There is no math, no geometry at all in CTE. There is no way using any form of math or geometry to prove how CTE works.

The only reason it "works" is that it users have convinced themselves it does. "Gee I made a shot thinking this way, so it must work". And they repeat this cycle long enough, they are convinced, even though their is no way for it to work as described.

People that use it don't know how it works so they come up with these myths like this 2x1 myth in order to rationalize why it works.

"It doesn't work"..."it's a hoax"...."it's a myth"...etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Yet, thousands of players all over the world are using it and watching balls go into the pockets more consistently.
Can you at least accept the possibility that it does work?