Last edited:
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
:killingme::killingme::killingme:
Just because you feel that way doesn't mean that everyone does.
Argue the facts and prove or disprove CTE on it's own merit.
ID has nothing to do with it.
ID just makes for ad hominem garbage where someone will eventually say you don't know what you are talking about because you can't play, or something similar like i can make everything using CTE and you can't, therefore CTE must work.
By saying that you can't ignore him means that you WON'T ignore him.
Who's fault is that?
Playing the ghost I see, We know who you are now .
Spidey posted your picture.
I dont need to interact with you, I enjoy watching
other people make a fool out of you
Last edited:
Nightly contribution.
I am making a record. What we write here is a record of our interaction.
You: Self-proclaimed Berkely trained molecular biologist who hangs out with Nobel prize winners and the best scientists in the country......who seemingly has tons of time to carry on an argument against a system he knows very little about and cannot himself describe, nor execute.
Me: Pool player turned case maker, college dropout, who has played pool for 30 years all over the world in tournaments big and small and who has plenty of experience gambling for long sessions.
You: CTE is silly and cannot work because no one will tell me HOW it works. Since no one WILL tell me then I conclude using my superior logic that it cannot work, AND it's silly.
Me: I have been playing for a long time, am a decent player and Hal's systems including CTE have made me a better player.
You: I am super smart and you are delusional.
Me: I am making balls and am happy.
Center of CB and OB vs. edge of OB.
Many people shoot spot shot (rare now-a-days) aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB.
With the CB in the kitchen, line up a straight in shot with the OB near the spot....2 dots from the far short rail.
What would the results be if you shot until you missed or the % makes vs. misses over, say 20 attempts?
:smile:
Many people shoot spot shot (rare now-a-days) aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB.
With the CB in the kitchen, line up a straight in shot with the OB near the spot....2 dots from the far short rail.
What would the results be if you shot until you missed or the % makes vs. misses over, say 20 attempts?
:smile:
Exactly what points have not been addressed?
Take Dr. Dave's three shots?
How would you describe them using the GB method of aiming?
Here's how I would do it.
I stand behind the object ball and imagine another ball sitting in line with the intended pocket and then I identify the approximate center of that imaginary ball on the table and also where the contact point would be if the imaginary ball were real. Not that I need the contact point but I note it anyway.
Then keeping those spots I identified by the use of my phantom ball firmly fixed I walk back to the cue ball and align my body so that I can put my bridge hand and the cue down on a line that runs through the center of the phantom ball.
Then I bend down and shoot the shot.
----------------------------------------------
Notice I haven't said anything about adjusting for throw or skid. I haven't said anything about measuring a 1 1/8th distance from the edge of the object ball. I haven't said a word about figuring the angles in any way.
--------------------------------------------------
Now if someone follows those directions above then SOME people will get it right away and others won't. Eventually someone will come along and explain the nuance. Or someone will hand them a GB trainer. Or someone like Duckie will show them a method he developed that eliminates the need to imagine a "ghost ball". In any event the 'validity' of the system doesn't rely on how well it's described. It's valid whether people understand it or not. I don't understand higher level physics. No one can explain them to me in any way which makes sense to me.
However the definitions governing higher level physics have been peer reviewed to the point that they are accepted by the people who matter, those people being the ones who NEED to use that information and rely on it.
-----------------------------------------------------
CTE has been PEER reviewed by enough people who matter in pool to be found to work regardless of whether any set of instructions is provided for free on the internet or not.
Is it the be all end all of pool techniques? Hardly. It's one method to align one's self to the shot. Some people like me find it to be a great method. Other's like Maniac didn't find it so helpful to them.
No harm, no foul. If something's working then keep it, if it's not then fix it or let it go.
Pretty simple.
-----------------------------------------------------
Everything that has been asked about CTE has been answered.
What IS it? A method to align the player to the proper aiming line.
How does it work? By starting the shooter out in the correct direction and then fine tuning the aim through a few steps.
What exactly are those steps? Best is to go to someone who knows in order for them to show you. But the basic steps are, find the center to edge line and align yourself to that, then put your cue down aligned to the edge of the cueball, then pivot to center cueball and you should be on the proper aiming line.
Can you be more specific? No.
Why not? Because this method is better shown than described. Each player has their own style and it's much better for the player to learn it from another player so that the student can adapt his style to the method or vice versa. There is no set distance from the cue ball which works every time for every shot, there is no set pivot amount that is the same for every shot. These are things that the student must work out through the learning process. Once the system is demonstrated and the steps are learned then the personal adjustment begins, just as with any other technique.
Well if it's a "system" can a computer be programmed to do it? Maybe not as it requires some judgment of course to lock into the target. BUT if a computer were to possess all of the spatial awareness qualities of a human then I have no doubt that one can be programmed to do it.
Can it be used to send the object ball to places other than a pocket? That's how I use it. But again I "see" the shot starting with the edge of the object ball. I understand that PURE CTE is supposed to be used just for pocketing. However I use it to send the object ball to anywhere on the table. What I am doing there is not technically CTE but instead an outgrowth of learning the CTE method.
Can it be used to make combinations and caroms? Yes in a limited fashion using the same method I speak of above. Pure CTE specialists say no. Hal Houle says yes that his other systems can be used for combos and caroms - I am not really qualified to answer the question authoratively as I have not studied that aspect thoroughly.
Is CTE precise? Yes, used properly it brings the user precisely to the right aiming line.
Does CTE account for contact induced throw? In my experience it does to a point. Given that pockets on pool tables are much larger than the balls I find that I can most times line up using CTE and shoot without thinking about throw. However there are shots where throw MUST be compensated for on a very conscious level. On those shots I use CTE to get the line and then adjust for the throw ever so slightly. This is a part of the game where experience comes into play.
How is it possible to start with the same alignment for different shots and still get the proper aiming line? I don't know. That's for someone else to work out. I am sure at some point someone like Jack Koehler, Bob Jewett, Dave Alciatore, or someone else will figure out the right amount of geometry and physics and perception/intuition that covers it. Until then it will just have to be one of things that has people like me using it without knowing the underlying physics. Ghost Ball is something I understand completely but cannot use reliably. CTE is something I don't understand completely but can use reliably. One small paradox in a universe full of them.
Any other questions that haven't been answered?
--------------------------------------------------------
And I don't know how you can't see that this just can't work without individual adjustments for every shot that are not covered by CTE. It's really simple math. Everybody can see that. Yet you ignore it and go "well it just seems to work, look I made all these tough shots!" But that's not really CTE, right? I don't fully understand it, so it just looks to me like it's flawed. How clever... And nobody is willing to explain, even after 150 pages of BS (again). It's the perfect excuse.
e: btw, this hasn't been answered.
Well then WHY don't YOU show us what those adjustments are?
If it's SO simple for you to know what CTE is NOT doing why don't you simply prove it.
Show us the CTE steps and where the "adjustments" are taking place.
The point that I made for the 1000th time is that I can't explain it but that someone who teaches CTE can show you in person.
How do you know what's "really CTE" and what isn't when you don't even know what CTE is.
Do you use simple math when you play pool?
I understand your simple math logic as you are trying to apply it here but do YOU use simple math when playing pool?
Do you ever truly say to yourself that a shot is x-angle at x-distance and therefore requires x-amount of offset?
Of course you do not and if you say you do then I call you a liar.
No one does that. Everyone estimates.
However with CTE - FOR ME - it allows me to start with a known relationship that is solid and concrete - the Center to Edge line.
From there it's two more steps and I am on the proper aiming line.
Now you can make all the charts and calculations you want to and claim it doesn't work, cannot work etc....but it works - FOR ME - and plenty of others.
YOU don't even know the proper steps to doing CTE.
GMT doesn't know them.
Pat doesn't know them.
Mike doesn't know them.
Because if they did then they would publish them. They would publish them and point out the exact point in the instructions where this adjustment must happen.
But you don't and they don't. So you are denouncing something that you cannot describe or do.
That's quite a bigger leap than me not adhering to your simple math admonitions.
So come back when you know the steps and can demonstrate them. I can do EVERY aiming method you know and you cannot do the ones I know.
So again, practical experience trumps theory in this case.
Actually, while i appreciate the answer, all i was pointing out was that when Spidey gets frustrated by someone who does not drop their name, all of a sudden, that becomes the issue.
I still maintain that CTE is more of a pre-shot routine that puts someone in the generalized right starting point, and then they use "FEEL" to fine tune it, with someone's adjustments and feel being subjective.
Much in the same way that a high end player FEELS like they are lined up wrong, based on their visual feedback and then verify that feedback by rifling a ball into the rail, The same goes for when a player is lined up correctly and they fire the ball into the hole.
It becomes second nature.
And at this point, i really don't care about CTE.
Regardless of if it is the greatest or not.
All that has been shown in this thread is that amongst the people that "know" CTE, there is no agreement, and a reluctance to be forthcoming with information.
Doesn't bother me though. That's pool.
As for the info, it used to cost me a boatload of money before the guy pounding on me would give me a pointer or two about the secrets of pool.
The fact that it is being marketed, packaged, and sold, isn't really something i agree with simply because there is no tangible proof to me.
Some of us, especially those that are already pretty capable, need more proof then the words of a few people saying that it works.
If there was a group of CTE reps, going around and pounding everyone into a pulp gambling pivoting on every shot, THEN i might think that there is something to it, but that's not happening.
But that's just me. I don't just buy into something because someone said it works, and believe me, i have absolutely no interest in trying to restructure my game even if there was proof that CTE is the end of the world of aiming.
I know people who have gone for individual lessons who use CTE and they play high end pool.
I also know far more people who don't and they also play high end pool. So i don't particularly feel that it is the be all to end all of aiming, but that's just me.
It has it's applications, just not for everyone.
The snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory.
Cold fusion would make the world's energy problems melt away. No wonder the Department of Energy is interested
That doesn't matter, according to David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. "The experimental case is bulletproof," he says. "You can't make it go away."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=1
Cold fusion would make the world's energy problems melt away. No wonder the Department of Energy is interested
That doesn't matter, according to David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. "The experimental case is bulletproof," he says. "You can't make it go away."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html?page=1
Apparently.
Really though what I wanted to say is that I think the bigger brains on this forum who are wasting their time trying to disprove CTE have bigger things that they could be going after.
We are at what can rightfully be called an impasse here.
I got this same idea about CTE more than a few days ago (@1,000 post ago :grin
.Maniac
- Status