Well, I've tried some CTE at the table.

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stick to sticking your finger up your ass. There is no gamble here from my side because unlike you I have already taken this to the table.

You will never take any of my monetary challenges precisely because you would be gambling because you don't know if you're right or wrong. I already know that I am right before I make the challenge.

And yes, pool shooting devices have been and are easy to make. So are you ready to do the test?
There's your problem right there. Anybody interested in a legitimate and objective scientific examination would never say that.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Lol....That's what I mean.... For every shot you choose to play, however you decide to play it, be it center pocket or where ever you choose to aim the ball, there is only one tangent line that relates to the shot line you choose.
Yes that is true but when a comment is simply one tangent line per shot it can read like only one way to play a shot. I like to think of it as one center pocket line and one center ball shot line per shot with every other way to make the shot being based off that baseline aim.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
There's your problem right there. Anybody interested in a legitimate and objective scientific examination would never say that.
Oh I am interested. More in proving that practicality trumps theory though.

I am not interested in your quest to plaster subconscious-adjustment all over real results because you don't understand a mechanism.

If I were interested in persuing a scientific paper covering CTE then I wouldn't be here talking with you. I would have secured a grant and done whatever experiments that the funding would pay for.

I use aiming systems for just one reason, they are part of why I enjoy playing. The better I aim the more shots I make and the more shots I make the more fun that I have. That's it. Insofar as I feel an obligation to advocate for aiming systems I am far more interested in the practical application than the theoretical constraints.

So no Dan, the only thing I am interested in between you and myself is using your posts to continue to discuss and promote cte aiming. At one time I thought you were sincerely interested in learning cte and having substantive discussion about it. But you proved that you àre disingenuous and dishonest in my estimation.
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
On chapter one page one the "natural" roll of the 2x1 table is explained for the three angles. On the second angle it is indicated that the cue ball will go multiple rails into the corner pocket as it's "natural" path "if" a person uses a "little" running english and the "proper stroke".

I am still working on mastering that aspect of the aiming system.

This is my comprehensive review of the book. Take it for what it's worth.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
... they're meaningless nonsense.

And you deny obvious reality, so would never admit losing.

pj
chgo
LOL, my challenges ALL state a mechanism of measurement quite clearly. So, the performance and resulting scores would be done in the pubic eye with no way to manipulate the outcome.

In other words the test done in public and live and the scoring being simple and objective. Whether anyone agreed or not based on whatever philosophies they ascribe to would not be pertinent as no individual's judgement call would be involved in the scoring mechanism.

So no Patrick, you've again incorrectly described that which appears to be beyond your intellect to grasp.
 

JoeyInCali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
CTE works better when you use a ghost ball template .

That should be in the book .
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
On chapter one page one the "natural" roll of the 2x1 table is explained for the three angles. On the second angle it is indicated that the cue ball will go multiple rails into the corner pocket as it's "natural" path "if" a person uses a "little" running english and the "proper stroke".

I am still working on mastering that aspect of the aiming system.

This is my comprehensive review of the book. Take it for what it's worth.
So for this we need to understand the difference between lines within a perfectly divided rectangle (two squares abutted) that resolve to the 90 degree points and the conditions on a pool table.

The cloth friction and the rebound condition of the rails alter the path of the ball from the perfect lines that would result in a perfect outcome if the surface were frictionless and rebound angles also frictionless. (this thought brings up another question and I only write this here to remind myself of that later when I read this again). Anyway.... thus the way I see it is that the line given by CTE (Or any system) that is accurate in terms of the "perfect condition" table is a solid baseline constant. From that constant I can use whatever knowledge or "pool sense" that I have to adjust as I think is needed to achieve the desired outcome. The more that I have solid data in the form of ingrained knowledge that x does y the better I can apply the correct approach to the task in front of me.

So for the information you have questions about Stan describes the "perfect condition" lines at first and then the "adjusted for conditions from the perfect conditions line" later. This is to be expected just as every instructor teaches their student about variables in conditions and how they think to adjust for those variables.
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
So for this we need to understand the difference between lines within a perfectly divided rectangle (two squares abutted) that resolve to the 90 degree points and the conditions on a pool table.

The cloth friction and the rebound condition of the rails alter the path of the ball from the perfect lines that would result in a perfect outcome if the surface were frictionless and rebound angles also frictionless. (this thought brings up another question and I only write this here to remind myself of that later when I read this again). Anyway.... thus the way I see it is that the line given by CTE (Or any system) that is accurate in terms of the "perfect condition" table is a solid baseline constant. From that constant I can use whatever knowledge or "pool sense" that I have to adjust as I think is needed to achieve the desired outcome. The more that I have solid data in the form of ingrained knowledge that x does y the better I can apply the correct approach to the task in front of me.

So for the information you have questions about Stan describes the "perfect condition" lines at first and then the "adjusted for conditions from the perfect conditions line" later. This is to be expected just as every instructor teaches their student about variables in conditions and how they think to adjust for those variables.
I find much to debate about your statements but will not do so.

I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Thank you for resolving my case order
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I find much to debate about your statements but will not do so.

I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Thank you for resolving my case order
Your choice. One does not need to engage or rebut but without it I guess that for many my points will stand uncontested. I gave my opinion of what you said you are unclear about and the readers can digest that as they will.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Oh I am interested. More in proving that practicality trumps theory though.

I am not interested in your quest to plaster subconscious-adjustment all over real results because you don't understand a mechanism.

If I were interested in persuing a scientific paper covering CTE then I wouldn't be here talking with you. I would have secured a grant and done whatever experiments that the funding would pay for.

I use aiming systems for just one reason, they are part of why I enjoy playing. The better I aim the more shots I make and the more shots I make the more fun that I have. That's it. Insofar as I feel an obligation to advocate for aiming systems I am far more interested in the practical application than the theoretical constraints.

So no Dan, the only thing I am interested in between you and myself is using your posts to continue to discuss and promote cte aiming. At one time I thought you were sincerely interested in learning cte and having substantive discussion about it. But you proved that you àre disingenuous and dishonest in my estimation.
I know. You've called me a liar many times in the past as well. Let's see how that works... I pretend to be interested in finding out how CTE works but in reality I am trying to manipulate the conversation in order to make CTE look bad. This is apparently because I've already made my mind up that it doesn't work and all I'm doing is knocking a system I hate. That makes me a liar -- not a skeptical observer as science would demand, but a liar. OK, then there is you who has already admitted that you believe CTE works (finds the shot line for you) and you are using these discussions/investigations to spread the word. So my agenda is to knock a system I don't understand and that makes me a liar. Your agenda is to promote CTE despite the science, something you clearly don't understand, and that makes you Saint John? That seems odd, doesn't it?

As far as securing a grant to figure out how CTE works, I'd say lol. After twenty years of nothing you'd think the answer is obvious. The player is making it work. Twenty years. They found the Higgs Boson particle while you guys are still trying to reinvent physics.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I know. You've called me a liar many times in the past as well. Let's see how that works... I pretend to be interested in finding out how CTE works but in reality I am trying to manipulate the conversation in order to make CTE look bad. This is apparently because I've already made my mind up that it doesn't work and all I'm doing is knocking a system I hate. That makes me a liar -- not a skeptical observer as science would demand, but a liar. OK, then there is you who has already admitted that you believe CTE works (finds the shot line for you) and you are using these discussions/investigations to spread the word. So my agenda is to knock a system I don't understand and that makes me a liar. Your agenda is to promote CTE despite the science, something you clearly don't understand, and that makes you Saint John? That seems odd, doesn't it?

As far as securing a grant to figure out how CTE works, I'd say lol. After twenty years of nothing you'd think the answer is obvious. The player is making it work. Twenty years. They found the Higgs Boson particle while you guys are still trying to reinvent physics.
LOL - you should really stop using the word science in conjunction with your antics. 20 years of nothing? For a topic that produces no answers you like it sure does keep you knocking doesn't it?

Liar? Nah, I think you've convinced yourself that CTE can't work even though you can't demonstrate that you understand how to use it and so you have an agenda to try and convince others of the same. Only that the way you go about it isn't scientific at all and is severely lacking in competent methodology and dripping with bias.

You are a skeptic but not a competent one. And you are clearly scared to do any sort of testing that might prove to you that CTE is more accurate than ghost ball or feel or even brute force practice. You certainly don't want to put any money where your mouth is.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Doesn't matter, if you ignore the points made then the reader is left with the claims made without a rebuttal. I am ok with that as it saves typing.
A reader is quite capable of coming to a conclusion about your ramblings without our replies.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
A reader is quite capable of coming to a conclusion about your ramblings without our replies.
Really? Then that conclusion seems to be that CTE is worth exploring. Feel free to ignore anything I say about it then and trust the readers. I am good with that given your actions on this subject thus far.
 
Top