Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
Probably because I've actually been trying to get some real work done for a change.You sure are doing a LOT of talking for dr_dave...I wonder why that is.
Dave
Well, obviously, I don't speak for Dr. Dave.
It's my impression, however, is that people like Dr. Dave, Mike Page, Patrick Johnson, Lou Figueroa, and others (including myself) perceive LARGE INCONSISTENCIES in the reasoning and theories behind the IDEA of CTE and how CTE is claimed to work.
Regarding TAR presentations: surely you must be aware that many very IMPORTANT and complex matters have been decided in ways other than BETS. (It's funny to recall when you described yourself as an "old school" guy: what you're offering almost has the sound of a challenge to a DUEL).
The simple fact remains that challenges of IDEAS have been made to the principles underlying CTE (as far as CTE is understood, that is. Most of what is understood and discussed comes from the seminal posts of Hal Houle a long time ago). Those challenges have been made, and those challenges have NOT BEEN MET.
I would imagine that it has not escaped Dr. Dave's notice that, at least in this thread, you have not arose to try to meet those challenges. What Dr. Dave thinks of that is his business--as is his choice regarding whether to share what he thinks.
As for your case, I'm interested in giving a close reading of posts right here of your case for how the place to hit balls into pockets can be determined without taking into account the exact LOCATION of the pockets in relation to the balls. It's my understanding that the CTE system claims that it's NOT necessary to know the exact location of the pockets in relation to the balls being pocketed--and I personally think that anyone who believes that has their "geometric screw" severely loosened (or missing). If you can MAKE a sensible case against my challenge I'm pretty confident I would be able to UNDERSTAND IT, and if I could understand it, I can completely and easily assure you that I would SAY SO--and be very HAPPY about it. I am ALWAYS happy to learn new things, and, as many have pointed out--since my screen name is an anonymous one, I could "disappear" from the forum, and nobody in real life would ever have to know how WRONG I was to challenge the ideas underlying CTE--if worry about being wrong was a concern to me.
Once again, the pocket is there and I know that it is there, but I do not have to engage in contact points or lines or whatever..........CTE is a highly objective aiming system and in time will be recognized as such. No other system has the objectivity that CTE has.....PRO ONE is the natural version with no manual pivot, just see and shoot. You will see in time......hopefully.
Vague.
Everybody knows the "pocket is there" Stan. CTE claims to be a SYSTEM. The claim advocates make is that CTE is able to EXACTLY pocket balls, yet it does NOT "systematically" use EXACT information about the relative positions of ball and pocket to do so. The claim, or implication, is that the aiming "information" in CTE comes only from the CB and OB.
It's my contention that is nonsense. I've not yet heard evidence against my contention.
btw, I'm going to step away from the computer for a couple of hours at this point--that should give you plenty of time to explain how CTE pockets balls into pockets that CTE (as a system) doesn't know exist!
We're seeing this in this thread and the other thread, Stan.
Good evidence that the discussion has NOT HURT potential DVD sales.
AtLarge
The shot I showed was a random set up. Just rolled a ball out and hit it. I'm not an expert at CTE primarily because I don't play pocket games but the subject interests me to the point that I had a couple of conversations with Hal and got the very basics. When I took my first 5 minute lesson (no conversation with Hal is just 5 minutes) I only did what he told me to do because I wanted to know if there was anything to this. I didn't care about the outcome. I had nothing to prove. On top of that I'm on a 3C table. I agree, on the face of it the system makes no sense. I also agree that with the little knowledge I have of this there are shots I cannot make using it but that's lack of the complete picture. Very thin cuts is one of these shots I've had trouble with but just learned how those are supposed to go. At least in a fundamental way.
Your argument about a perfect (for me) setup would hold for BHE or FHE. These methods don't make sense to me but they seem to work. Although you must find the pivot point for your particular shaft. All shafts are different. And by the way on some shots there's adjustments. These can be remembered or done instinctively. Oh and by the way if you're using a LD shaft it might be better to use FHE but don't forget to figure out the adjustments. I don't see CTE type arguments about these methods. In light of the discussion here there needs to be a scientific dissertation proving the validity.
From PJ off Dr. Daves site. http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/English.html
Does all these factors plus no published scientific explanation (at least I'm not aware of it)as to why it works negate the fact that it does?
I'm here to tell you if I aimed the shot I posted in my normal way I would maybe have made 1 out of the 5 if I were lucky. I cannot consistently pocket balls.
Quite obviously, CTE works by MAGIC--and you have proved it.
People have waited for MILLENNIA for proof that magic works. You've proved it. Great work! I'm sure Stan and Spidey will consider your "1 shot" experience as great support for the veracity of CTE!
......I can pocket balls without looking at the pockets. The CB/OB relationship always present the shooter with specific system variables. I know the variables and I rarely make much ado about the pocket.
I do not intend to teach you the system over the internet. I have never done so and will not start doing so now. But it would be a mistake to think that I could not present CTE in its exactness by word.
Stan,
I know you realize their modus operandi is to instigate a reaction from Cte users to gain some insight or tidbit. It's a smokescreen.
Best,
Mike
Are you mocking another well respected member?
That's the way I read that as well. 3K wasn't even talking to him.
LOL. We're anti-CTE secret agents sworn to do our duty. How else are we supposed to bring the vast worldwide CTE conspiracy of secrecy to its knees and save mankind from a fate worse than Houliganism?
pj <- agent 000 (licensed to mock)
chgo
OMG! Overt mocking?!!?
What's next, blatant teasing? Where will it end?? Can AzB as we know it survive this frontal assault on its delicate sensibilities??? Will I run out of question marks before I finish this post
Damn!
pj
chgo
Go eat your fish!
Anything with "Die" in the title sounds healthy! Is the translation, "Dead Carp"? And what are those brown things crawling all around it? Any response Agent Zero Zero Zero?:grin-square:
Best,
Mike
I was one of the fortunate ones that got a phone call from Hal back in the late 90s. I have used CTE in the past, as well as Ghost Ball, as well as fractional aiming, Equal/Opposite method, etc..
The method he taught me, which still works to this day with no adjustments, is different than what has been posted (or I haven't seen the correct version yet). You need to know which way you're cutting the ball, and there are a few magic starting points you need to know. You, first off, need to be able to identify a half ball hit.
The direction of the pivot, and the starting point, are determined by the angle of the cut. This is why you need to know the half ball hit angle. The alignment point on the object ball is always the outer edge. The starting point on the cueball is always the edge. However, it can be the inside or outside edge. That is determined by the cut angle.
For shots less than 30 degrees, line up the centre of the cueball with the edge of the object ball. Start with the outside edge of your cue tip lined up with the outside edge of the cueball. Pivot towards centre. Your pivot should be leading you towards the centre of the object ball.
For cuts greater than 30 degrees, but less than 65, the pivot comes from the inside edge of the cueball. When you pivot to centre, you should be going towards the outside edge of the object ball, away from the centre.
For thin cuts, the pivots are edge to edge. Thinner than 80, pivot from outside edge to centre on the cueball, with the starting alignment being cutting edge of cueball to the cutting edge of the object ball. For razor cuts, line up outside edge to outside edge, and pivot away from the edge.
Feel free to hack and slash the system. I thought Hal was completely full of shit when he was on the phone with me. However, this version takes into account the angle of the shot, and gives you reference starting points for each cut. Do I use this system today? Sometimes. I've got most of these shots in my memory bank. However, I struggle with some thinner cuts, seeing the right point of contact. So, I go back to this system, and I rarely miss.
Certain things cannot be explained on paper. If you need a diagram to show you a system works, stick with Virtual Pool. You will have a chance of winning there, but not on a real table that has elements like chalk dust, humidity, and friction between surfaces. If I was to draw all the vector diagrams associated with a pool shot, I'd have to account for rotational force transferred to the object ball, jump/bounce affecting the aim on shots struck with force, and a multitude of others.
I struggled with the mathematical explanation for why it works. Then, you reach an age where you really don't care about the why, and come to grips with the fact that it seems to work.
Hmmm...well. This is where some might find cause to needle you. You haven't addressed the challenge sufficiently (not by a LONG SHOT). In fact, quite candidly, I have doubts that you really understand it (if you did you would at least say that you UNDERSTAND the source of the GREAT DOUBTS about CTE).
Now you're saying you WON'T. That's fine.
You say you can present CTE in its "exactness," but you won't now. That's fine.
But you MUST realize that you've thereby made unsupported and apparently BASELESS claims--and refuse to address them when they're pointed out.
And so we come in a HUGE CIRCLE: CTE advocates make claims which on their surface seem silly, CTE deniers point them out, and challenge the advocates to reconcile the inconsistencies, and the advocates say they COULD, but they WON'T.
And so the source for CTE needling remains unchanged: baseless assertions that advocates WON'T even try to defend.
Last edited:
CTE may or may not be silly (I'm not sure, because I've been told I still don't know what CTE is). All I know for sure is that the situation you describe, which has been going on for many, many years, is most definitely silly. I hope Stan's DVD changes this by filling in all (or at least some) of the missing details.
Regards,
Dave
- Status