I don't care. The proof is ON THE TABLE. I don't care what you do or don't believe. I play pool for money and for my money CTE gets me the right shot line consistently.
Of course you want to argue about it. The point for me is that if someone tells me to do something, like Brian telling me to figure this and subtract that and the resulting fractional overlap is the shot line and I do it and I get on the shot line consistently then I don't CARE about the inscribed angle therom. Why not?
BECAUSE it doesn't matter.
If you tell me to imagine a phantom ball and I am able to get on the shot line accurately and consistently then I don't need to care if there is anything better or if there is an equation that covers it.
The point, FOR THIS DISCUSSION, is that a system user WILL, IN FACT, learn shots faster than a non-system user. Assuming that the system works by virtue of the shooter getting on the CORRECT shot line faster.
You want to talk about hamb, and muscle memory and teaching yourself to remember to "aim a little fuller" on this or that shot, which is ALL FEEL, and then tell me that CTE isn't accurate because you simply don't believe that it is while then trying to use poology as your example of a system that you believe is accurate and thus would give a user an advantage for a while until the feel player catches up. I don't get how you can't see that every method that produces consistently correct shot lines must be valid regardless of whether you believe in it or not.
Whether the inscribed angle theorem gets you close enough to the fraction that allows your brain to make whatever microadjustment might be needed or whether it's dead nuts perfect the point is that it's a tool that works and by virtue of it working it means that the user has a HUGE advantage over the feel player at all levels of competition. Because if you think of the number of shots taken in a tournament contrasted with the number of made shots and the number of missed shots and go from the premise that some percentage of the misses will be because of faulty aim and some will be stroke errors and some will be a mix of both, then it should be clear that a player with a straight stroke and a valid aiming system is LIKELY to have a lower percentage of shots missed due to faulty aiming. And the inverse to that is a higher percentage of shots made due to accurate aiming.
I told you that the proof is on the table. It's super easy to test.
set up a shot and use a laser line to mark the ghost ball center shot line to a gb template. Then remove the template and turn the laser off. Have the shooter put their cue down on the line they think is the shot line. If I say I use CTE and Brian uses Poolology and you use feel then it's highly likely that Brian and I will get on the right shot line far more consistently than you will.
And if so then that means we are likely to also then make more shots than you, win more than you, form better memories of successful shots faster than you, get into the zone faster than you, be in the right headspace to learn through observation more often than you....all because we aim better than you.
As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own beliefs but not to your own facts. The fact is that CTE produces the correct shot line just as well as poolology does by the virtue of the FACT that it produces the correct shot line every time and poolology can't possibly be better than that. That you choose not to believe that is not in any way material to the fact that a CTE user is getting on the shot line accurately and has every advantage that a system user has over a non-system user.
Experience (table time) is good. Experience using the right tools with the same table time is better.
