You needed to go from the side then pivot to center
Some Rational, Reasonable, Truthfully Logical, Cognitive Thought Regarding CTE
- Thread starter French Roots
- Start date
Dang, Joey, that's good stuff! Reminds me of a joke!
I ran into an Ol' Bud of mine the other day who I hadn't seen in a while. He looks at me and says, "Hey man, you gettin' any on the side?"
I said, "Shit man, it's been so long since I've had any, I didn't know they moved it."
I ran into an Ol' Bud of mine the other day who I hadn't seen in a while. He looks at me and says, "Hey man, you gettin' any on the side?"
I said, "Shit man, it's been so long since I've had any, I didn't know they moved it."
I don't understand. I mean, a center to edge aim produces one angle every time... 30°.
If on shot 1 the distance between the cb and ob on is a foot, and on shot 2 it's 3ft, a halfball aim will still produce a 30° cut for both shots. The actual contact point on the ob for each shot will be different (3.6° difference to exact, which means the contact point for shot 2 is about 7mm (on the ob circumference) away from the contact point for shot 1. This 3.6° difference would cause a 3.6° shift in the 30° angles. In other words, if a halfball aim sends shot 1 into the pocket, the same halfball aim for shot 2 would send the ball 3.6° away from the pocket.
Great advice Joey, when all else fails and it certainly does appear that way in this situation, go with what's proven to work best.
well, either the problem was you or her and neither reason is of any use here. When I don't value a person's content it doesn't mean they are wrong. Nor does it mean that they are right. It simply means that conversation with them, time spent with them or on them is not desired.
I think cookie’s talking about the angle in relation to the CB/OB centerline. You’re talking about the angle in relation to the CB/ghostball centerline. A distinction that’s often overlooked.
pj
chgo
Yes, and it just occurred to me that this thread title may be the most perfect oxymoron ever written. Thanks Frenchie! You da' man!
It could have banned him.
Yes, I'm simply talking about the angle created with a halfball aim. It's always 30°, as you know.
As far as the actual shot angle, if we have a halfball shot that goes center pocket when the cb-ob distance is 1ft, it'll require aiming 1/16 of a ball thinner than halfball to pocket the same ob if the cb is moved back to a 3ft distance along the same cb-ob centerline.
No, that's not it at all. It's that you are, in my opinion, a dishonest person whom I do not wish to converse with on any subject. As for looking for the mechanical/pyschological reasons why something works I have told you many times that my position is that it works because I can see that it does through testing it on the table and because of that the PRACTICAL value of the aiming system outweighs the ABSTRACT value of what mechanics and/or subconscious MIGHT be in play.
Listen carefully. I have NEVER EVER "cried to Mike" about anyone not believing in anything. What I have said to Mike is that SOME people have gone far beyond stating their objections and have engaged in character attacks. You have done this. And from what I understand you have called the publisher of Stan's book for some reason and caused some sort of issue that caused them to notify Stan of your call. I have ZERO idea about your placebo chart and have not seen it or any post about it.
No, i haven't given it serious thought because as I stated many times before when anyone has brought up placebos is that placebos don't cure wounds or disease. A person can report feeling better after taking a placebo but a placebo will not eliminate a confirmed tumor. A player who has a shotmaking success of x-percentage isn't going to increase that shotmaking percentage dramatically because of the placebo effect when in fact they have taken the ACTUAL medicine in terms of learning a method of visual alignment - MECHANICAL STEPS - which then results in a dramatic increase in pocketing success. In other words the medicine, an aiming system, produces clear measureable results. However JUST LIKE WITH MEDICINE, your results may vary.
As for Mohrt, yes he IS interested in the underlying mechanics and he is SINCERE about it. However his first concern is DOES IT WORK? Because he plays pool and has a great blog about pool and the information he shares is intended to be beneficial to pool players. The secondary concern is HOW does it work and whether or not that question is resolved to anyone's satisfaction is not material to the applied usage at present. In other words learning and implementing CTE is not harmful to a person's game and therefore one can confidently reccomend it. Mohrt has helped tons of people with understanding how to apply CTE and because of that he has given something of great value and benefit to them. You use "selling" in a negative context as if the "salesperson" is trying to SWINDLE the customer. It isn't a negative when the seller is selling something with actual value even if SOME PEOPLE profess disbelief in that value.
I am also interested in the mechanics and underlying math/physics/psychology, just NOT interested in talking about it with you.
Correlation is not causation. Just because someone claims that they see a similarity doesn't mean that the two things are really similar in more than a few characteristics. Furthermore if you are going to present one person's anecdotal account of their experience and draw conclusions then it only seems fair that you accept other anecdotes about system usage and take them ALSO at face value.
You haven't been skewered Dan. Your own actions have revealed your intent and insincereity. Maybe you are sincere but incompetent but dumping and dogging look the same.
The "debate" about CTE is only really important to you and a handful of people like you. For the rest of us the proof is on the table. That means we try things and if they work well we keep using them and if they don't we stop using them. The only skewering happening is by you and those like you who want to call Stan a snake-oil salesman in round-a-bout ways. When you call me a religious zealot who is indoctrinated into a cult then you are doing the skewering. When you ascribe motivation to me as if it is fact, when you insinuate that I am scientifically illiterate, when you insinuate that I am participating in the perpetuation of fraud, then you are "skewering" me. And all of that is why I don't wish to converse with you. This reply is ONLY because your accusations and speculations ABOUT me demand it.
Don't flatter yourself into thinking that you have presented ANY argument that hasn't been presented before. It's not that you have a different "idea" than me, it is how you have chosen to go about presenting your idea, with snide remarks and inaccurate speculative personal slurs, that is my problem with you.
So in conclusion let me summarize for you.
CTE works great and I know this because I can measure results.
If you find out why it works so great then that's great.
I don't care how you feel about CTE because your opinion doesn't matter to me. If you like it then great for you. If you don't then also great for you. Do what works for you. Whatever that is will not turn you into a great player but it might help you to become a better player. I sincerely hope that you are having fun when you play and infecting others with the pool bug.
Yep, works great! Not going to share the testimonials from the satisfied users though.
The sighting and hit in CTE are not the same.
Right. A halfball aim, or Center to Edge aim, has nothing to do with CTE Pro1.
Right, when aiming for fractional hit there is a specific half ball aim. The other night I used that to win 600$ from a kid who wanted to do spot shots for $100 a shot. I was surprised that he didn't know the aim and I couldn't keep the money so I taught him the aim and did mine behind the back until he got even
So a mechanical method leads to measurable improvement and since of you want to say it's the placebo effect. Ok then it's a ridiculously effective one.
Any pharmaceutical may or may not work for the individual.
Bottom line.... My beginner with 3 months of cte training beats your beginner with 3 months of ghost ball training.
My student scores higher than yours on every shotmaking test that you can create.
I would say that I would bet on it but nobody likes it when I say that. So, maybe some day I will figure out a way to run that test and see what happens. Preferably though it would be much better if the mechanics were figured out and we could all focus on that instead.
For now I will continue to depend on cte over any other method of aiming and be confident that there is no other method that I have found that works as well.
When any one can demonstrate the shot making that Stan has shown me and describe their method then I will concede that their method is as good or maybe better. At that point I will be interested enough to adopt that method if it is easier to use than cte.
When a placebo eliminates a tumor I will consider that cte might act like a placebo. But for me cte brings me to the shot line and that is the exact task I use an aiming system for.
Also I don't know where the definition of placebo should include mental methods that clearly are always going to be dependent on a person communicating their feelings rather than a pill that, if real, would normally have an actual chemical reaction.
Seems to me that someone somewhere is stretching the definition of placebo. You might as well call meditation a placebo when people report feeling calmer after learning to meditate.
The method is the placebo. It must function as a psychological buffer for those who fear shooting an actual shot.
Certainly you can now claim ProCT is particularly suited to shooting behind the back?
How does a '3 months in' trial validate a lifelong pursuit?
Some people see the world through a unique prism. That's how you validate it.
Rose colored I presume...