Some Rational, Reasonable, Truthfully Logical, Cognitive Thought Regarding CTE

[JB Cases]

It takes imagination to see the GB aim point. Try putting the tip of the cue in it, then sight down the cue to the rail and imagine a point there to aim at if that's easier.

Been there done that. Doesn't work consistently. I would be willing to bet at least $1000 that most people cannot put their tip on the GB center consistently. By most I will say that 7 out of 10 random players cannot get it right on at least 6 of ten random shots from 3 groups, "easy", "Midrange" and "tough"

If that's he case for you then you're application of ghost ball methodology is wrong.

I also didn't say that you claim ghost ball doesn't work, but you have a comparison video between GB and CTE in which you somehow start missing the OB when using a GB template (whatever that is). Can't recall if you state in that video that it doesn't work, but the message is sure implied.

Are you implying that me missing when a template is involved was on purpose?

Secondly please tell me how you think ghost ball should be done. In my research I have found that there are many ways people are told to use use it and dozens of ghost ball training devices out there.

 

[JB Cases]

Or you could be hyping a system that AUTOMATICALLY takes you to the shot line , then keep missing with it by a lot .
Then say, you don't know why you are missing .
Then pull out a ghost ball template and while directly looking at the template, claim the pivot takes you to the center of the ghost ball template . But, it didn't while you were missing often before without the template .
How magical is that ?
Then claim the ghost ball does not work .

Oh I get it, you don't understand the difference between aiming and execution.

Furthermore you think that I am the only person who uses CTE aiming and because I miss some shots during my videos cte aiming doesn't really work.

So when other people demonstrate cte aiming you are calling them liars too?

 

[The_JV]

It takes imagination to see the GB aim point.

It takes the ability to look at the OB and extrapolate it's image 2.whatever" away from the OB via the shot line. If that's too daunting a task, then I struggle to believe any system that requires eyes and the use of your brain being much better.

 

[The_JV]

Been there done that. Doesn't work consistently.

That's the fault of your ability, not the methodology.

I would be willing to bet....

Surprise suprise...

Are you implying that me missing when a template is involved was on purpose?

I'm saying that if your template and it's placement was accurate and you possess the ability to consistently hit whatever template target point is required for it to work, then the GB location will hit the OB everytime. We'll all know it will not drop the OB in the pocket once CIT becomes a factor, but CIT doesn't make the CB miss the OB.

Secondly please tell me how you think ghost ball should be done. In my research I have found that there are many ways people are told to use use it and dozens of ghost ball training devices out there.

I can tell you how I do it as it was explained to me in my youth.

1. Stand behind the OB and determine the OB to pocket line.
2. Focus on the OB and extend (extrapolate) it's image (GB) toward yourself following the shot line.
3. Remain focused on the GB as you walk behind the CB
4. Extend the aim line from the center of the GB into the center of the CB
5. Place you back foot (right) on the aim line and address the CB
6. As you address the CB ensure the cue is on the aim line.
7. Practice

Once again, GB is not a one stop aiming method. It gets you nearly all the way to the point of accurate potting until the complexities are introduced. That's when practice gets involved. I'd hazard to say all systems suffer from that last element.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

We'll all know [hitting the ghost ball] will not drop the OB in the pocket once CIT becomes a factor

Shouldn't the ghost ball position be wherever it needs to be in order to account for throw? If it can be accurately visualized on the center pocket line, then it can be accurately visualized on the overcut-for-throw line, right?

pj
chgo

 

[The_JV]

Shouldn't the ghost ball position be wherever it needs to be in order to account for throw? If it can be accurately visualized on the center pocket line, then it can be accurately visualized on the overcut-for-throw line, right?

pj
chgo

Yes it can be where ever you want. In fact I adjust the natural GB location to compensate for squirt/throw. However in my break down of how to develop the initial GB location and subsequent aim it does not account for those dynamics.

Edit: I wanted to add to the above that I'm also one of those weird pool players that openly admits to the reality of adjusting one's aim while down on the shot. When I address the CB I will have a preconception of how I will strike the CB to apply english. However I start off with center ball cueing and adjust when down.

 

[JB Cases]

Anyone willing to prove that they can accurately put their tip on gb center consistently can win a lot of money from me. This challenge is open to every person reading this and anyone else breathing.

I don't mind being wrong but I can't stand being told I am wrong without the other side being willing to prove it.

I promise that if I had the money and more importantly the time I work or have already put these questions to rest.

Some of you want to make this about me. It's not about me. I am a 610 which means I am an average player. I will never be a 700 or 800 speed and neither will most of the members here.

So you all can nitpick my words and try to trip me up but you don't seem to be able to prove your claims. Prove to me that you can consistently put your cue down on the ghostball center line.

I get it, I am a sorry terrible player. But are you better? Are you really? Are you really able to use ghost ball as you think you are or do you just think that you are?

The test is easy. Take a bunch of different shots and put a laser line on gb center to cb center. Turn it off. The shooter comes in and goes to ball address and the laser is turned on. Is the gb line splitting the cue? If not then place the gb template adjacent to the ob along the line the cue is on to measure how far off it is and to plot whether the object ball would be be pocketed if that vector is used.

All this is not easy to do by yourself. Takes some amount of effort to set it up from shot to shot. But if any of you are willing to do it I am willing to bet that you cannot, using ghost ball actually get to the ghost ball shot line consistently.

Actually I would not like to bet at all. I would like it if we were looking for answers together but as it is I am communicating what I know so far and some of you just want to make it about me and what you think of my abilities/intellect/spatial acuity.....

I have zero problem telling cte users to take the exact same test. I just won't bet against them.

If gb was so accurate then the odds are very good that we wouldn't be here talking about aiming. There simply wouldn't have ever been any need for anything else.

Now, I will concede that it's possible that people do learn GB and move away from deliberately using it to more of "just see it" and perhaps if they made more of a deliberate effort then they would be more accurate.

That too is testable I think. Instead of arguing about unproven speculation why don't we figure out together ways to test our ideas and hopefully gain a better mutual understanding of this part of the sport.

 

[The_JV]

Anyone willing to prove that they can accurately put their tip on gb center consistently can win a lot of money from me. This challenge is open to every person reading this and anyone else breathing.

I don't mind being wrong but I can't stand being told I am wrong without the other side being willing to prove it.

I promise that if I had the money and more importantly the time I work or have already put these questions to rest.

Some of you want to make this about me. It's not about me. I am a 610 which means I am an average player. I will never be a 700 or 800 speed and neither will most of the members here.

So you all can nitpick my words and try to trip me up but you don't seem to be able to prove your claims. Prove to me that you can consistently put your cue down on the ghostball center line.

I get it, I am a sorry terrible player. But are you better? Are you really? Are you really able to use ghost ball as you think you are or do you just think that you are?

The test is easy. Take a bunch of different shots and put a laser line on gb center to cb center. Turn it off. The shooter comes in and goes to ball address and the laser is turned on. Is the gb line splitting the cue? If not then place the gb template adjacent to the ob along the line the cue is on to measure how far off it is and to plot whether the object ball would be be pocketed if that vector is used.

All this is not easy to do by yourself. Takes some amount of effort to set it up from shot to shot. But if any of you are willing to do it I am willing to bet that you cannot, using ghost ball actually get to the ghost ball shot line consistently.

Actually I would not like to bet at all. I would like it if we were looking for answers together but as it is I am communicating what I know so far and some of you just want to make it about me and what you think of my abilities/intellect/spatial acuity.....

I have zero problem telling cte users to take the exact same test. I just won't bet against them.

If gb was so accurate then the odds are very good that we wouldn't be here talking about aiming. There simply wouldn't have ever been any need for anything else.

Now, I will concede that it's possible that people do learn GB and move away from deliberately using it to more of "just see it" and perhaps if they made more of a deliberate effort then they would be more accurate.

That too is testable I think. Instead of arguing about unproven speculation why don't we figure out together ways to test our ideas and hopefully gain a better mutual understanding of this part of the sport.

Here's the thing..., speaking for myself...

I really don't have any inclination to prove anything to you or anyone else on the forum. I have nothing to prove, no theory that I feel needs validating. I'm more than willing to punch at some keys on my laptop in an effort to explain how I approach playing the game. I'm even willing to entertain attempting other people's shots, patterns, systems, in an effort to have common ground for sake of conversation. I'm even willing to post videos of my general play for peer review. However I have my methods that I fully understand, and which I have had enough success with that I know it works. On this side of the internet, that's good enough for me.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe my method doesn't work, or I'm doing something else completely different then all the power to you/them. This really isn't any different then someone asking you to prove CTE works.

I'll say it again, Ghost Ball will get the user ~90% of the way to the aim required. Beyond that point, experience takes over. Is Ghost Ball accurate enough that other aiming systems don't need to exist...? Certainly, but you need to be willing to concede that no system gets you to 100% of what's required. If you can't muster that reality then discussing aiming isn't something you should take part in.

 

[duckie]

Here's the thing..., speaking for myself...

I really don't have any inclination to prove anything to you or anyone else on the forum. I have nothing to prove, no theory that I feel needs validating. I'm more than willing to punch at some keys on my laptop in an effort to explain how I approach playing the game. I'm even willing to entertain attempting other people's shots, patterns, systems, in an effort to have common ground for sake of conversation. I'm even willing to post videos of my general play for peer review. However I have my methods that I fully understand, and which I have had enough success with that I know it works. On this side of the internet, that's good enough for me.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe my method doesn't work, or I'm doing something else completely different then all the power to you/them. This really isn't any different then someone asking you to prove CTE works.

I'll say it again, Ghost Ball will get the user ~90% of the way to the aim required. Beyond that point, experience takes over. Is Ghost Ball accurate enough that other aiming systems don't need to exist...? Certainly, but you need to be willing to concede that no system gets you to 100% of what's required. If you can't muster that reality then discussing aiming isn't something you should take part in.

My method does........the inaccuracies comes from the person, not my method. And it works for every known shot on the table.

 

[The_JV]

My method does........the inaccuracies comes from the person, not my method. And it works for every known shot on the table.

Same here, imagine that... My 'method' is without flaw as well.

1. Look at shot
2. Make shot

Anything that prevents the completion of step two, is user error

 

[BC21]

My method does........the inaccuracies comes from the person, not my method. And it works for every known shot on the table.

Same here, imagine that... My 'method' is without flaw as well.

1. Look at shot
2. Make shot

Anything that prevents the completion of step two, is user error

Of course, in every experienced player's mind their method is flawless, except for those times when it's not. Lol. That's when they blame mechanics or distractions.

More often than not, with experienced players, there's nothing wrong with the mechanics. If you've been using the same stance and stroke for years and years, with success, that is automatic, like tying your shoes. It's pure muscle memory, which isn't reliant on visual input.

Many don't like to admit or acknowledge it, but usually we miss shots because what we think is the dead nuts aim is actually not. The mind operates in a much more complex fashion than most people realize. Every shot performed requires the perfect blend of 3 elements: Muscle memory (the stroke), subconscious associations (memory), and real-time conscious thought (analysis of subconscious associations compared to real-time sensory input).

Once you've repeated your stroke thousands of times, it becomes the most consistent of these 3 elements. The subconscious simply pulls the best association it can find to match the shot you're looking at, then the conscious mind doublechecks to make sure it looks right before calling the stroke into action. If the conscious mind is preoccupied or distracted, it does a poor job working well with the subconscious, and it calls for the stroke to be performed when the aim might not be as dead on as we think. And then other times it works so well that you can play "in the zone" for hours at a time.

 

[The_JV]

Of course, in every experienced player's mind their method is flawless, except for those times when it's not. Lol. That's when they blame mechanics or distractions.

More often than not, with experienced players, there's nothing wrong with the mechanics. If you've been using the same stance and stroke for years and years, with success, that is automatic, like tying your shoes. It's pure muscle memory, which isn't reliant on visual input.

Many don't like to admit or acknowledge it, but usually we miss shots because what we think is the dead nuts aim is actually not. The mind operates in a much more complex fashion than most people realize. Every shot performed requires the perfect blend of 3 elements: Muscle memory (the stroke), subconscious associations (memory), and real-time conscious thought (analysis of subconscious associations compared to real-time sensory input).

Once you've repeated your stroke thousands of times, it becomes most consistent of these 3 elements. The subconscious simply pulls the best association it can find to match the shot you're looking at, then the conscious mind doublechecks to make sure it looks right before calling the stroke into action. If the conscious mind is preoccupied or distracted, it does a poor job working well with the subconscious, and it calls for the stroke to be performed when the aim might not be as dead on as we think. And then other times it works so well that you can play "in the zone" for hours at a time.

Unlike Duckie, I will admit flaw in my method(s). I'll even go as far as to say that even my beloved fundamentals/stroke fail me from on occassion.

In match play I'll freely say my biggest obstacle is pressure, and subsequently how my consicous mind forces doubt into my subconsicous efforts.

All that said, all players suffer from the above. I don't care if you're the APA 3 'banger' or SVB.

More often than not, my misses are the result of the lack of concentration. Which swings me back to my original thoughts about preferring consicous thought over being in "the zone"

 

[JB Cases]

Here's the thing..., speaking for myself...

I really don't have any inclination to prove anything to you or anyone else on the forum. I have nothing to prove, no theory that I feel needs validating. I'm more than willing to punch at some keys on my laptop in an effort to explain how I approach playing the game. I'm even willing to entertain attempting other people's shots, patterns, systems, in an effort to have common ground for sake of conversation. I'm even willing to post videos of my general play for peer review. However I have my methods that I fully understand, and which I have had enough success with that I know it works. On this side of the internet, that's good enough for me.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe my method doesn't work, or I'm doing something else completely different then all the power to you/them. This really isn't any different then someone asking you to prove CTE works.

I'll say it again, Ghost Ball will get the user ~90% of the way to the aim required. Beyond that point, experience takes over. Is Ghost Ball accurate enough that other aiming systems don't need to exist...? Certainly, but you need to be willing to concede that no system gets you to 100% of what's required. If you can't muster that reality then discussing aiming isn't something you should take part in.

90% is not 100%. People throw out numbers like they have data to back it up. We love to talk about the precision required to pocket a ball while playing for shape but then we pooh-pooh that when we talk about actually aiming.

This is a sport which requires consistently high levels of precision. Every game multiple times per game. There is literally no other sport that requires the same precision with the same amount of variation in targets. Yes I know that someone will bring up croquet, cornhole, shuffleboard but not only do they not have the same precision requirements they also don't have the variation of possible moves and outcomes.

We are asked to aim a rounded, grippy tip at a small sphere and send it into another sphere and control the outcome of both spheres while navigating a playing field full of other spheres and six holes. And we have to do this many times a game and dozens of times a match if we want to win. And sometimes you play perfect and don't win.

So all I am saying is that aiming can't be neatly put into a simplistic subconscious-brain activity where we say oh, such and such system/method gets you 90/95/99% there and then the magic brain makes you either get to 100% or leave you aimed incorrectly.

I think we can do a much better job of figuring out exactly what's happening and when and why but we seem to prefer arguing and spouting numbers for which we have nothing but guessing to back up.

It's frustrating to be on one of the premier pool forums and see people be more interested in thought-experiment arguing over what might be rather than collaborating together to find out what is and go from there.

 

[The_JV]

90% is not 100%. People throw out numbers like they have data to back it up. We love to talk about the precision required to pocket a ball while playing for shape but then we pooh-pooh that when we talk about actually aiming.

This is a sport which requires consistently high levels of precision. Every game multiple times per game. There is literally no other sport that requires the same precision with the same amount of variation in targets. Yes I know that someone will bring up croquet, cornhole, shuffleboard but not only do they not have the same precision requirements they also don't have the variation of possible moves and outcomes.

We are asked to aim a rounded, grippy tip at a small sphere and send it into another sphere and control the outcome of both spheres while navigating a playing field full of other spheres and six holes. And we have to do this many times a game and dozens of times a match if we want to win. And sometimes you play perfect and don't win.

So all I am saying is that aiming can't be neatly put into a simplistic subconscious-brain activity where we say oh, such and such system/method gets you 90/95/99% there and then the magic brain makes you either get to 100% or leave you aimed incorrectly.

I think we can do a much better job of figuring out exactly what's happening and when and why but we seem to prefer arguing and spouting numbers for which we have nothing but guessing to back up.

It's frustrating to be on one of the premier pool forums and see people be more interested in thought-experiment arguing over what might be rather than collaborating together to find out what is and go from there.

Nope 90% isn't 100%.... And there's a reason I use a number less then 100. It's because a system cannot compensate for all the variables that are possible when you consider that "We are asked to aim a rounded, grippy tip at a small sphere and send it into another sphere and control the outcome of both spheres".

You are of course correct that I don't have any measured data to back up my allowance of 10% which gets me from rudamentary GB to fine tuned aim line. What I can guesstimate is how much phyical/mental effort I use to get to that rudamentary GB target, and then the subsequent fine tuning before pulling the trigger. I don't think I'm very far off, if much at all.

I don't care for the most part which way the discussion goes. I just prefer to have an open mind, and not assume my thoughts or practices are the end all to be all. You say that my use of percentages is unfounded. I could get my panties in a knot and argue over it, or I can say that you're right and move on with my day. How about I split the difference and say you have no way of knowing if my percentages are accurate or not, but I know my game/mind better then you do so accept those numbers or prove them wrong.

If you want have a real conversation about aiming then 'systems' can't be apart or even a consideration of the discussion. Systems just add bias. Objectivity and bias can not co-exist

 

[JB Cases]

Here's the thing..., speaking for myself...

I really don't have any inclination to prove anything to you or anyone else on the forum. I have nothing to prove, no theory that I feel needs validating. I'm more than willing to punch at some keys on my laptop in an effort to explain how I approach playing the game. I'm even willing to entertain attempting other people's shots, patterns, systems, in an effort to have common ground for sake of conversation. I'm even willing to post videos of my general play for peer review. However I have my methods that I fully understand, and which I have had enough success with that I know it works. On this side of the internet, that's good enough for me.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe my method doesn't work, or I'm doing something else completely different then all the power to you/them. This really isn't any different then someone asking you to prove CTE works.

I'll say it again, Ghost Ball will get the user ~90% of the way to the aim required. Beyond that point, experience takes over. Is Ghost Ball accurate enough that other aiming systems don't need to exist...? Certainly, but you need to be willing to concede that no system gets you to 100% of what's required. If you can't muster that reality then discussing aiming isn't something you should take part in.

LoL, I am pretty secure in my guess that I know more about aiming in pool than 99 % of the 40k members on azb. Probably more than 99.9%.

There is literally nothing about ghost ball aiming that is conventionally taught that I don't know.

I have spent a lot of unhealthy time learning about aiming in pool and otherwise.

So I am fully qualified to talk about anything that pertains to aiming in pool.

Why are you asking me to concede something that you don't know to be true. You don't know that there is not an aiming system that doesn't get the user to ghost ball center close enough to be practically 100% when the margin of error is factored in? When I say that CTE gets me to gb then I am saying for the PRACTICAL purpose of getting to a shot line that is within the margin of error that CTE (when the correct perception/sweep is chosen) will get me there 100% of the time.

Of course we could wrap ALL aiming into a blanket "when done right" cover but I would HOPE that most of us here would understand that OF COURSE if the outcome desired is achieved then whatever method was used to get there was done "correctly" if the process was fully conscious choice. And furthermore I would HOPE that it is understood that we are discussing the relative accuracy provided as an average of attempts made with shot difficulty factored in. I would hope that we all understand that no human will apply any aiming system 100% correctly everytime.

And because of that we speak in terms of which methods lead to getting on the shot line accurately over the spectrum of shots faced. And this I believe is fairly easy to test for individually and would not be that hard to test for in a controlled experiment. But any such experiment should involve folks on all sides of the questions OR the results will be tainted by accusations of bias and implications if not outright accusations of lying.

I guess I have to go my own way on this with my own money. The sad part is that if the results confirm that "our side" is correct then folks here will totally dismiss the results. And IF I do it and my thoughts are confirmed then I will MARKET the shit out of those results and the end result is that the "opposition" (shouldn't be anyone but people collaborating), will lose the "aiming war" because they didn't bother to be part of the fact-finding and consensus-building. Now you might ask what if the findings don't confirm my thoughts on this topic? Would I release it? Would they be accepted by the opposition if I did? I bet they would be. That's a hard one because of the deluge of insults and animosities dropped on me by this small group BUT the reality is that I am in this to find answers to what bugs me. From a practical standpoint I don't need to be here at all discussing this because I have what works for me. But from an honor standpoint I have to be here because I truly believe that Hal Houle has done an important service to pool by introducing practically objective aiming systems into the lexicon.

I can do as he asked and just pass it on individually OR I can be a voice to a larger audience in support of them. And since Hal never told me that his methods were 100% objective and nor did he tell me that every shooter would always get 100% on the shot line when using his methods I wouldn't be disproving ANYTHING if the findings showed that the shooter only gets to the shot line within the margin of error 97% of the time. I wouldn't be disproving anything IF the results indicated that the shooter objectively and consciously gets to within a HALF-MILLIMETER of the correct shot line and the brain automagically through the subconscious instantly at that moment closes the half-millimeter teeny gap to direct the shooter to adopt the correct shot line. I would be proving what I said hundreds of times, the CTE method of aiming is then practically objective.

What would be surprising to me and what I ABSOLUTELY would publish is a finding that using ghost ball is as accurate as CTE. I am of the opinion that if GB is really all a person needs then no need to try other methods. But it is my findings so far that it is not. And to date no person has been able to show me that they get the same consistent accuracy over a broad range of shots using GB that is achievable through the usage of CTE. Not one single person in these past twenty years has given me a way to use GB that provides me with the same level of accuracy as the methods taught to me by Hal Houle, Ron Vitello and Stan Shuffett. By now someone should have figured out a way to use GB that does that for the "simple minded" like me.

 

[JB Cases]

Or you could be hyping a system that AUTOMATICALLY takes you to the shot line , then keep missing with it by a lot .
Then say, you don't know why you are missing .
Then pull out a ghost ball template and while directly looking at the template, claim the pivot takes you to the center of the ghost ball template . But, it didn't while you were missing often before without the template .
How magical is that ?
Then claim the ghost ball does not work .

So you don't want to bet? You don't want to bust me in public in front of the whole world? Take a pile of cash from the belligerent liar (your insinuation) Barton and drive him out in shame?

I gave you the opportunity to do that and it seems you would rather be here whining for free in a space that few actually see. Tell you what, I will put up $3000 against a simple plain jane cue. I will bring the cash and you bring the cue with two shafts. I am confident that you have enough pride in your work not to give me a piece of crap from your scrap wood bin.

I will pay all the expenses for the setup and logistics. There will be an interview before and after stating the premise and with your words to and about me displayed prominently. IF you are found to be wrong then you will apologize to me on live video. And if not then you can deride me on live video. I might be mistaken but I am not a liar and when a super-nobody decides to target me and claim that I am lying by implication is too far for me. You're another of those people whom I thought was cool but who turned out to be very very very uncool. So I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Can you afford to do the same even when I am giving you odds? Can you afford to lose face if you're proven wrong?

I don't think you can. I think you're scared of being publicly humiliated when your words are contrasted with the results showing I am right. But in case I am wrong about you on this the offer stands. Understand that I don't need to be here at all. I can go to forums with more viewers and discuss these things where I just boot people like you. Not because what you say has merit or doesn't but because you're a truly toxic individual whose contributions on this topic are ONLY negative. You're not interested in fact-finding but only interested in trolling. In the entire time I have known you I have never seen you make one positive post on the topic of aiming. Granted I go stretches where I don't even log in here. But when I come back your posts are exactly the same which leads me to believe that nothing about you changed when I wasn't here.

Anyway.......you have my offer. Which I am confident will not be accepted but I would be pleased to be surprised.

 

[JB Cases]

Nope 90% isn't 100%.... And there's a reason I use a number less then 100. It's because a system cannot compensate for all the variables that are possible when you consider that "We are asked to aim a rounded, grippy tip at a small sphere and send it into another sphere and control the outcome of both spheres".

You are of course correct that I don't have any measured data to back up my allowance of 10% which gets me from rudamentary GB to fine tuned aim line. What I can guesstimate is how much phyical/mental effort I use to get to that rudamentary GB target, and then the subsequent fine tuning before pulling the trigger. I don't think I'm very far off, if much at all.

I don't care for the most part which way the discussion goes. I just prefer to have an open mind, and not assume my thoughts or practices are the end all to be all. You say that my use of percentages is unfounded. I could get my panties in a knot and argue over it, or I can say that you're right and move on with my day. How about I split the difference and say you have no way of knowing if my percentages are accurate or not, but I know my game/mind better then you do so accept those numbers or prove them wrong.

If you want have a real conversation about aiming then 'systems' can't be apart or even a consideration of the discussion. Systems just add bias. Objectivity and bias can not co-exist

"Objectivity and bias cannot co-exist" and yet they do. Ghost ball is a system. So much so that computers use it to accurately plot ball baths in pool software. The computer however plots the entire table and knows the relative coordinates of each object. So the computer can objectively use the ghost ball system and place a phantom ball with 100% accuracy every time without any bias. Humans can't but they can certainly USE GB as instructed and as you noted it gets them into the right general space.

Systems REDUCE bias. Sometimes to the point where no bias is felt by the user and is not observable by observers.

Understand that I do not care about your personal results. I don't because you and I don't really matter. We are imperfect producers of anecdotal experience and not fountains of repeatable data that is tracked consistently. If you claim to get better results with Phantom Ball than with the GeoSpatial Location method then I have no choice but to believe you and file it under doesn't matter. Just as you can do the same with me claiming I get better results with GSL......two nodes that cancel each other out so to speak. I am interested in seeing lots of people compare the two and what their aggregated averages are. I am interested in experimentation that is thoughtfully constructed and gives us the opportunity to get real data and find the real trends. And lastly I am interested in HOW everything in this sport that I personally love can be better.

I think that pool is handicapped by a lot of "olden times were better" attitudes that ignore the facts that clearly show that things were not better for this sport in the past. And to me this is the driver for the "ghost ball is all you ever need" crowd. GB is what they first learned in pool aiming and so it holds a revered spot and dare not be knocked in any way is what I feel when I read posts that pretty much declare that.

People like Bautista are thrilled when someone like Niels makes a video saying there is no magic pill. As if others are saying that there are magic pills. No, there are no magic pills for aiming but there are better tools than GB for the human mind to use as far as I can tell through my experience and primitive experiments.

 

[The_JV]

Understand that I do not care about your personal results. I don't because you and I don't really matter. We are imperfect producers of anecdotal experience and not fountains of repeatable data that is tracked consistently. If you claim to get better results with Phantom Ball than with the GeoSpatial Location method then I have no choice but to believe you and file it under doesn't matter. Just as you can do the same with me claiming I get better results with GSL......

Exactly....

..and if I say that GB gets me 90% to an accurate aim line, then that's the way it is. If CTE somehow gets you to 100% of an aim line, well I can have my doubts that are easily justifiable in my mind, but that doesn't change your reality.

I have zero money to throw at the illusion of aiming systems. I say illusion, because in my humble opinion in the end regardless of how long it takes to plateau, it all comes down to trial'n'error via HAMB. That's the way humans have been learning tasks since the dawn of time. Somehow I don't think pool is some cosmic outlier that defies that reality.

I would love to see your findings if you ever gain definitive proof of anything other than what I consider the obvious answer.

 

[The_JV]

No, there are no magic pills for aiming but there are better tools than GB for the human mind to use as far as I can tell through my experience and primitive experiments.

If your failures with GB have lead you to that belief then I'm glad you found something that works. GB is easy for me. Maybe because I don't have a problem looking at an object and then recreating it mere inches away from the source. I find the concept of developing the mulitple preceptions of CTE cumbersome. I didn't get far with CTE before the comments here (from both sides) deterred me from really experimenting. I wasn't interested enough to chase dragons to other parts of the internet.

Honeslty, and please don't take this as negatively as I think you most likely going to default to. Spend more time on your fundamentals and stroke mechanics. I believe you'll see a greater return for your efforts then any aiming system could provide.

 

[JB Cases]

If that's he case for you then you're application of ghost ball methodology is wrong.

I also didn't say that you claim ghost ball doesn't work, but you have a comparison video between GB and CTE in which you somehow start missing the OB when using a GB template (whatever that is). Can't recall if you state in that video that it doesn't work, but the message is sure implied.

Also, I would NEVER EVER NEVER NEVER say that GB doesn't work. I use GB all the time when I play. Just not for shots that I can shoot directly to the pocket or those which I can bank. I use it for kick shots, for safety shots and for carom shots. I have never said or implied on any video that GB doesn't work.

What I have said is that it's difficult to implement consistently and precisely due to the inherent nature of trying to imagine fully formed spheres or holding a 1.125" distance from the edge of the object ball from 2-3 feet above the table and many feet away.

So I firmly and absolutely REJECT the idea that I have ever implied that GB doesn't work at all. I have stated and even titled a video Why Ghost Ball Aiming is Bad for Good Players. I stand by what I said and I stand by the fact that I am terrible at taking an extra moment to be sure I am fully aligned to the GB center in the templates. I will work on that. I think, however, that the premise I present is sound.