The only video you need about aiming.

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
There are however ways to aim the majority of pool shots that are so objective that they are very close to 100% objective from the shooter's perspective.
Nonsense. If it's objective then it can be clearly described so anybody can immediately duplicate it - without months of "learning".

pj
chgo
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nonsense. If it's objective then it can be clearly described so anybody can immediately duplicate it - without months of "learning".

pj
chgo
That's not what objective means. Simple instructions for one person are often confusing for others.

I have taught people using the same instructions and seen one person get it right away and another struggle. When I taught people to jump I had about five different ways to explain the same action because I discovered early that one way didn't fit every person.

A good example is the blue/gold dress phenomena. Same image but some people only see it as gold and others swear it is blue.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
That's not what objective means. Simple instructions for one person are often confusing for others.

I have taught people using the same instructions and seen one person get it right away and another struggle. When I taught people to jump I had about five different ways to explain the same action because I discovered early that one way didn't fit every person.

A good example is the blue/gold dress phenomena. Same image but some people only see it as gold and others swear it is blue.

There is a difference between objective instructions that physically teach someone how to do something and subjective visual perception (the way our mind perceives the world, such as with colors).
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
lol

I think we've established over the years that you have a personal definition of objective.

pj
chgo
No, we have established that you don't understand the role that objectivity plays in aiming. Nor do you understand the subjectivity-objectivity spectrum.

You begin to look at aiming systems from a certain perspective and one that appears to be unchangeable. That perspective appears to be rooted in 2 dimensional geometry.

Folks like me are interested in results. So our perspective in determining what works is founded upon the results we get.

We don't need to know why something works in order to see that it works. And when it comes to objectivity if the instructions are followed and the results are satisfactory then that's enough.

Subjectively, your feelings about a method might hinder your ability to follow directions and thus your results may vary.

The real test is practicality vs. effort. If the method requires a lot of effort for little to no gain then then it isn't practical. If the gain is significant enough to offset the effort then it is practical.

And IF the user follows a set of directions objectively, without prejudice or emotion clouding the process, and gets on the shot line correctly and consistently, then the user is right in describing that process as objectively followed.

If I tell a user that a shot is 30 inside and with only that information they are able to go through several clear steps and land on the shot line then that is objective. If I told that same user that the shot is 45 outside and I knew that it isn't then I could put a dot on the rail to indicate, unbeknownst to the user, where the object ball would hit the rail and it does, that is objective.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
There is a difference between objective instructions that physically teach someone how to do something and subjective visual perception (the way our mind perceives the world, such as with colors).
yes of course, we have to learn the common names for objects and then we can see if we agree on how well those objects match those names. For example there are dozens of hammer types. But the basic shape of a hammer is common knowledge to adults. So much so that that a computer can translate electrical impulses generated by a person told to think of a hammer into a picture of a hammer.

Clearly if I tell a person to push the red button and that person is color blind they might have trouble to figure out which is the red button. If however they have learned to distinguish between shades enough to get it right most of the time so that "red" has a particular look to them then they are effectively able to follow the instruction and find and hit the red button. To make it more objective the button could be labeled "this is the red button".

If I tell you to divide a sphere in half you might get it almost perfect the first time. Or you might not. But with subsequent attempts you will get better and better at dividing that sphere into equal halves, not because you're guessing but because you are refining your senses to that particular task.

If I told you to start where the sphere meets the surface it is resting on then you would immediately have an objective reference to assist you in the task.

And any such reference is likely to get you more accurate in a shorter time and keep you accurate in subsequent attempts. In diving we used to call it spotting, where we pick out a fixed landmark and orient to it so as not to get lost when twisting and spinning. It works and those who don't do it often find themselves hitting the water hard in ways that they didn't expect.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
And IF the user follows a set of directions objectively, without prejudice or emotion clouding the process, and gets on the shot line correctly and consistently, then the user is right in describing that process as objectively followed.

If I tell a user that a shot is 30 inside and with only that information they are able to go through several clear steps and land on the shot line then that is objective. If I told that same user that the shot is 45 outside and I knew that it isn't then I could put a dot on the rail to indicate, unbeknownst to the user, where the object ball would hit the rail and it does, that is objective.
So based on your video performance posted in another thread wherein you miss 11 of 14 attempts. Are you suggesting that you in that demostration of CTE are performing the instructions subjectively...? How long have you been using the CTE method..? I would think if the method holds water and is actually an objective model, then the success rate should have been much higher. Certainly not without flaw mind you. We are human...
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
So based on your video performance posted in another thread wherein you miss 11 of 14 attempts. Are you suggesting that you in that demostration of CTE are performing the instructions subjectively...? How long have you been using the CTE method..? I would think if the method holds water and is actually an objective model, then the success rate should have been much higher. Certainly not without flaw mind you. We are human...
What video what attempts?

Is there anything you give credibility to when people demonstrate things successfully?

I would need to see what video you are referring to in order to know what the context was.
 

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
If I tell a user that a shot is 30 inside and with only that information they are able to go through several clear steps and land on the shot line then that is objective.
Except that you (obviously) can't do that.

And clearly don't know what you're saying.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
So based on your video performance posted in another thread wherein you miss 11 of 14 attempts. Are you suggesting that you in that demostration of CTE are performing the instructions subjectively...? How long have you been using the CTE method..? I would think if the method holds water and is actually an objective model, then the success rate should have been much higher. Certainly not without flaw mind you. We are human...
I would say that I am aiming incorrectly or I am executing incorrectly any time I miss.

I happen to be both lazy and suffering from declining vision. So when I am discussing aiming on video I am not trying to only show successfully pocketed shots.

Successfully pocketed shots do not matter to you or anyone who is opposed to aiming systems. How do I know this?

Easy. No matter how many pocketed balls that proficient cte users demonstrate you all always pick on someone like me to declare that it doesn't work based on my missed shots.

Once again, I am more of a cheerleader for the concept of objective aiming than I am the best example of using them. I don't make edited videos. I make videos on the fly without any sort of script. So sometimes I will have spurts where I am really reaching on shots that I shouldn't be trying without taking a little more time to be sure I have done the steps correctly. However if you can't provide the video then it would be hard to discuss it. How many shots did I take, what type of shots, what conditions? Was I using toy balls on the tiny table? Were the shots bank shots?

Just be real and admit that if I made everything I tried that it wouldn't make one tiny bit of difference in how you or anyone else views aiming systems.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I would say that I am aiming incorrectly or I am executing incorrectly any time I miss.
Well I think that much is obvious. If you weren't doing anything wrong then you better not be missing.
Successfully pocketed shots do not matter to you or anyone who is opposed to aiming systems. How do I know this?

Easy. No matter how many pocketed balls that proficient cte users demonstrate you all always pick on someone like me to declare that it doesn't work based on my missed shots.
Ah, you're way off base here. While I freely admit I believe that CTE appears on the surface to be overly complicated, and requires me to alter the one thing I choose not to (my PSR). I am not opposed to aiming systems. In fact I think they can be of great value to those starting out, or who haven't gained any strong proficiency with HAMB.

I understand it appears as though I'm picking on you. As it seems everyone in this section of the forum is either a CTE enthusiastist or perceived as a hater by those enthusiastists.

What I witnessed in your video was a CTE enthusiastist that has been using the system for what >10yrs..?..., and missed the heavy majority of his demonstration attempts. These attempts did not include any CB control in an effort to play shape. Just straight up missed shots wherein the focus was merely potting the ball. Not easy shots granted, but still the only consideration.

I'm not saying that CTE does not work. I'm saying that if the system is truly objective as you claim, then the misses are either due to a subjective interpretation of what you're suppose to do, or horrible fundamentals in stroke. I did not see any glaring errors in your stroke, so I was inquiring about the other possibility.
Just be real and admit that if I made everything I tried that it wouldn't make one tiny bit of difference in how you or anyone else views aiming systems.
It would have made an incredible difference in my opinion. Based on what I've seen in your videos, I don't consider you an overly strong player. Not that you have claimed to be. However if you made the majority of those demo shots rather than missed them, it would add credence to the power of the CTE method.

When I attempted a handful of shots with Poolology system. They all went straight in the pocket without even looking at it. Didn't miss a single one. It did exactly what it was supposed to do right out of the box. No whoops, but look how close I got.
 
Last edited:

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And yet I do that. As do others. Don't worry nothing you say matters. I will mention you liberally in an upcoming video.
The gripers, the skeptics, and the whiners are good at dishing it out.
But when they get some of it dished back into their smug little lives they're the first to scream loudly about "he broke the rules"...."he isn't playing fairly" and other such bull.
They remind me of the Hall Monitors in high school standing around with a notepad and pencil ready to "get" someone for sneaking a smoke in the stairwells.
I loved tormenting hall monitors. Catching one (who strayed out near the ball field) and then taking his Levis off to the jeers of everyone and running the Levis up the flagpole was delightful. Didn't take much of that humiliation to teach them to live and let live.
Sic 'em….(y)(y)
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well I think that much is obvious. If you weren't doing anything wrong then you better not be missing.

Ah, you're way off base here. While I freely admit I believe that CTE appears on the surface to be overly complicated, and requires me to alter the one thing I choose not to (my PSR). I am not opposed to aiming systems. In fact I think they can be of great value to those starting out, or who haven't gained any strong proficiency with HAMB.

I understand it appears as though I'm picking on you. As it seems everyone in this section of the forum is either a CTE enthusiastist or perceived as a hater by those enthusiastists.

What I witnessed in your video was a CTE enthusiastist that has been using the system for what >10yrs..?..., and missed the heavy majority of his demonstration attempts. These attempts did not include any CB control in an effort to play shape. Just straight up missed shots wherein the focus was merely potting the ball. Not easy shots granted, but still the only consideration.

I'm not saying that CTE does not work. I'm saying that if the system is truly objective as you claim, then the misses are either due to a subjective interpretation of what you're suppose to do, or horrible fundamentals in stroke. I did not see any glaring errors in your stroke, so I was inquiring about the other possibility.

It would have made an incredible difference in my opinion. Based on what I've seen in your videos, I don't consider you an overly strong player. Not that you have claimed to be. However if you made the majority of those demo shots rather than missed them, it would add credence to the power of the CTE method.

When I attempted a handful of shots with Poolology system. They all went straight in the pocket without even looking at it. Didn't miss a single one. It did exactly what it was supposed to do right out of the box. No whoops, but look how close I got.
Then use poolology. I had an opposite experience where I didn't make a lot of the shots I tried with poolology. Did that that mean that poolology doesn't work? Of course not.

What about the rest of my questions? The fact is that for you all it's only about me. No one else.

Not once has a person arguing against aiming systems or against specific systems ever said wow look at these guys running racks and making incredible banks. Nah, they pick out someone like me and go see it didn't work or that guy should be a champion.

So last night I played a guy named Bill Snider at Chesters pool room in OKC. I say this so anyone reading can confirm that I was there.

As an experiment I played the first game with no aiming system, just feel. The pockets are about 4". I missed a lot, like not close to the pocket.

The second game I used CTE. I immediately made several banks with the of them from severe angles. I made three full table shots in the heart of the pocket. I still lost because Bill is a tough player who is better than me but my little experiment just further confirmed what I already knew. For me, using this particular aiming system means I can make more shots accurately and miss a lot smaller.

And really that's the bottom line for me. The overriding question I have for myself and my game is whether anything presented to me is beneficial to me and increases my enjoyment when I play. Notice I didn't say increases my skill because that which doesn't increase my skill doesn't bring me joy when I play. How much my skill increases though is more a product of my effort to master whatever method or technique I decide to adopt.

Take kicking systems.... Like poolology many of them require simple identification of starting points and simple math to determine the shot line into the rail. They are accurate mathematically. I can't gel to the math-based ones despite having tried a bunch of times. My friends who do get them are very accurate.

I prefer different methods for kicking that don't require math and I am fairly accurate but I know that I could be even more accurate.

But I get a lot of joy out of being pretty accurate when I kick and I have discovered how to use one of those kicking systems to play safe and to play caroms. In other words when I am interested in something that both works and I personally understand how to use then I explore all the ways to use it consistently. And because of that I have been able to share what I know with others.

At times people I have shown things to have come back later and showed me an innovation/improvement that they figured out with the technique. This happened to me a couple months ago when I gave a clinic on jumping to the students at the pool dojo. Together, with five people learning to jump, Sean King had a good insight on form and aiming that improved my own ability to execute and teach.

And honestly this is my bottom line when it comes to all of these knocking posts. I subscribe to the Bruce Lee philosophy that goes try everything and keep what works. Bruce learned from boxers, from wrestlers, from martial artists and he incorporated many techniques into his arsenal of skills.

I understand that not every person is going to understand every method right out of the gate. People often can't follow simple instructions to assemble a bed so it's clear that no matter how good the instructions are there are individuals who see gibberish on the page.

But with cooperation people can take simple instructions and make them even better for a broader range of people. When aiming systems started to get lots of broad notice I honestly hoped for lots of collaboration and discovery and refinement of the methods. I am actually sickened by the amount of vitriol and knocking that poisons the minds of readers and viewers into believing that systems in general are not very good tools and the knocking of system users as cult indoctrinated players who are being held back by the adoption of systems in their games.

To me these people who do this are only interested in seeing pool die. Oh they have other "stated" reasons, such as challenging claims, consumer protection, etc.... But the end result is that every person they successfully turn against systems is another person condemned to more frustration and less joy and less knowledge in their game in my opinion.

Instead of a dynamic and broad exploration of aiming systems that could result in even better methods and better insight into why they work we have people who never tried them who derive great satisfaction from repeating the knocking
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Well I think that much is obvious. If you weren't doing anything wrong then you better not be missing.
Even pros miss when they did everything right. Check out Dr. Dave's video on how chalk at the contract point distorts shot outcomes.
Ah, you're way off base here. While I freely admit I believe that CTE appears on the surface to be overly complicated, and requires me to alter the one thing I choose not to (my PSR). I am not opposed to aiming systems. In fact I think they can be of great value to those starting out, or who haven't gained any strong proficiency with HAMB.

They are of great value to players at any level.

I understand it appears as though I'm picking on you. As it seems everyone in this section of the forum is either a CTE enthusiastist or perceived as a hater by those enthusiastists.
Seems like? Ok point me please to any post you have made where you acknowledge that mother, Gerry Williams, Tyler Steyer, Landon Shuffett, Stan Shuffett and others are performing shots amazingly using cte.

You are participating in pile-on trying to discredit CTE using me. People interested in cte who are not trying to discredit it simply ask pertinent questions on technique rather than target particular discussion participants.

For example you said missed 14 shots and I asked you for the exact video so that we could discuss that video and the shots taken. I asked several times and instead of looking for it you simply ignored me and continued talking about me personally.

What I witnessed in your video was a CTE enthusiastist that has been using the system for what >10yrs..?..., and missed the heavy majority of his demonstration attempts. These attempts did not include any CB control in an effort to play shape. Just straight up missed shots wherein the focus was merely potting the ball. Not easy shots granted, but still the only consideration.

Once again, your comments about my performance are just personal attacks without context if none of us can know what exactly you are referring to. You can make any commentary/accusation/claim that you want when you refuse to give us a link to the exact video.
I'm not saying that CTE does not work. I'm saying that if the system is truly objective as you claim, then the misses are either due to a subjective interpretation of what you're suppose to do, or horrible fundamentals in stroke. I did not see any glaring errors in your stroke, so I was inquiring about the other possibility.

Why subjective? Why not simply the wrong button pushed? If it comes down to two choices then one is likely to be right and the other wrong. I have often in my videos said that I think that this shot is x or y and let's try x. Then when x misses I say let's try it again to be sure. Then I try y and the ball goes or rattles in the pocket and I do it again with the same result.


It would have made an incredible difference in my opinion. Based on what I've seen in your videos, I don't consider you an overly strong player. Not that you have claimed to be. However if you made the majority of those demo shots rather than missed them, it would add credence to the power of the CTE method.

Really? Then why have you never ever that I have seen given any credence to CTE when others have shown clear skill in pocketing?

When I attempted a handful of shots with Poolology system. They all went straight in the pocket without even looking at it. Didn't miss a single one. It did exactly what it was supposed to do right out of the box. No whoops, but look how close I got.

You say that and I can believe you but people can say anything they want when they are pursuing an agenda. Does it make sense to you that I would do videos talking about cte and aiming systems and leave the misses in if I were touting something that doesn't work?

I have received tons of comments where people say that they have gained insight from my videos and that they appreciate that I seem real and genuine by making uncut videos.

These people understand that I am not trying to demonstrate perfect shot making but instead am discussing the concept of objective aiming and why it is important.

That's how I see my contribution to this topic and it will continue exactly the same. If you want to focus on me instead of the usefulness of the content you are wasting your energy.

If your objective here is to learn something that helps your game then cte might not be something you should pursue because it sounds as if you are going to base your opinion of it on me alone. I would suggest you focus on poolology and have fun playing.

If you are here to discuss cte and would ever like to actually try to learn it then there are very good instructors who can help you. But until you actually learn it your comments on how the process works are not informed by experience and are based on assumption.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Then use poolology. I had an opposite experience where I didn't make a lot of the shots I tried with poolology. Did that that mean that poolology doesn't work? Of course not.
...and i don't recall claiming CTE doesn't work. I'm surprised you struggled with Poolology. It very cut and dry. I'll assume it must have been cue delivery issues. Which of course no system can help with.
What about the rest of my questions? The fact is that for you all it's only about me. No one else.
What questions...? The ones where you asking for equipment types and shot selections..? It's your video so you'd be the best person to answer your own questions. ...and just so you can't continue to be naive about which we're speaking. Here's a link to your video. Hopefully this will jog your memory.

I care about you about a little bit less then you care about me. The fact is, you've made yourself a front man for the CTE system. If Cookie was doing it rather than you, then my inquiries would be directed toward him.
Not once has a person arguing against aiming systems or against specific systems ever said wow look at these guys running racks and making incredible banks. Nah, they pick out someone like me and go see it didn't work or that guy should be a champion.
I haven't seen a video demonstration of CTE that has me saying wow yet. I'm currently viewing Stan's "Truth Series" on You Tube. Maybe I'll reach a part that will stir that type of reaction. That said, a strong player making shots isn't impressive. A weak player applying a system and experiencing a high success rate on difficult shots is something worth seeing.

This is why I purposely ignored the target pocket when initially trying out Poolology. If the system worked then the ball placement is what matters, not the pocket. I don't mean to compare CTE to Poolology. Just my extremely short experience and 100% success with Poolology and your extensive experience with CTE and rather poor results in video linked earlier.
And honestly this is my bottom line when it comes to all of these knocking posts. I subscribe to the Bruce Lee philosophy that goes try everything and keep what works. Bruce learned from boxers, from wrestlers, from martial artists and he incorporated many techniques into his arsenal of skills.
Right on... ...and the only reason you believe I'm knocking you is because your internet skin has been beaten to a pulp by others on this forum. You're simply conditioned to assuming you're being attacked if someone either doesn't agree or simply questions your choosen system. I'm not knocking you. I'm trying to get a sense of your choosen system.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Even pros miss when they did everything right. Check out Dr. Dave's video on how chalk at the contract point distorts shot outcomes.
I miss too... Looks like I'm closer to being a pro then I realize.
They are of great value to some players at any level.
I fixed that for you.
Seems like? Ok point me please to any post you have made where you acknowledge that mother, Gerry Williams, Tyler Steyer, Landon Shuffett, Stan Shuffett and others are performing shots amazingly using cte.
Show me one...? To flip your argument back on you. You have yet to show me a video that has evidence of a player making an "amazing" shot while purposely using the CTE system. You can claim they are, just like I can claim they're using ghost ball.
You are participating in pile-on trying to discredit CTE using me. People interested in cte who are not trying to discredit it simply ask pertinent questions on technique rather than target particular discussion participants.
No I'm not. Once again I'll point out that you have made yourself a front man for the system. Whether that was your intent, I do not know. However you are, and subsequently you going to have to expect comments directed to you.
For example you said missed 14 shots and I asked you for the exact video so that we could discuss that video and the shots taken. I asked several times and instead of looking for it you simply ignored me and continued talking about me personally.
You asked once, and although you're obviously pretending to be naive, I have included the link to the video in question that can also be found in the one CTE thread you seem not to be paying attention to.
Once again, your comments about my performance are just personal attacks without context if none of us can know what exactly you are referring to. You can make any commentary/accusation/claim that you want when you refuse to give us a link to the exact video.
See above...
Why subjective? Why not simply the wrong button pushed? If it comes down to two choices then one is likely to be right and the other wrong. I have often in my videos said that I think that this shot is x or y and let's try x. Then when x misses I say let's try it again to be sure. Then I try y and the ball goes or rattles in the pocket and I do it again with the same result.
You're right. Could simply be the wrong button pressed. I'm ok with that answer. However I still would not have expected such a large failure rate. Even with basic HAMB trial and error I would have expected at least 50% success.
Really? Then why have you never ever that I have seen given any credence to CTE when others have shown clear skill in pocketing?
Haven't seen an example. I have zero doubt it exists. Just haven't seen it yet. I have watched Dave Parks play very well in the past and I know he subscribes to CTE. Never do ntoice him applying the system though.
You say that and I can believe you but people can say anything they want when they are pursuing an agenda. Does it make sense to you that I would do videos talking about cte and aiming systems and leave the misses in if I were touting something that doesn't work?
I know it's hard for you to come to terms with it, but I like many others don't have an agenda.
I have received tons of comments where people say that they have gained insight from my videos and that they appreciate that I seem real and genuine by making uncut videos.
Then mission complete... Well done... When you finally stumble across the one thread in the aiming forum that you haven't opened. You'll find I give you props for posting a less than excellent example of CTE.
If your objective here is to learn something that helps your game then cte might not be something you should pursue because it sounds as if you are going to base your opinion of it on me alone. I would suggest you focus on poolology and have fun playing.
Not at all... Again, your just the fellow kind enough to post content.
If you are here to discuss cte and would ever like to actually try to learn it then there are very good instructors who can help you. But until you actually learn it your comments on how the process works are not informed by experience and are based on assumption.
Well I doubt I'll ever have a valid opinion then. I'm willing and currently watching Stan's YT vids, and doing my best to follow along. As I have said prior. I'm not willing to alter my PSR to the extent I would have to, to use CTE. However that does not mean I won't make an effort to understand the method. Even if you think it's pointless.
 
Last edited:
Top