Why CTE is silly

[Patrick Johnson]

GetMeThere:
...they're not actually USING CTE to pocket balls, they're using it...some other way, and pocketing balls probably by feel/experience.

I think you're splitting hairs. CTE, in whatever way, is helping them to pocket balls. It may be the psychological key that unlocks their shotmaking intuition or an aid to their visualization or their physical alignment or a combination of these things (or something else). I think all of these are legitimate benefits, whether or not they're your or my choice.

All we can really know is what it isn't - it can't be simply and clearly described, so it's not a series of simple programmed steps that a robot could follow to a correct aim solution (this is the point of usual contention in these threads). That tells us a lot, and even suggests what its general usefulness may be, but we're guessing beyond that.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

You try to come off as some sort of authority on the subject.

Nope. My claim is in knowing how to think. I've read MANY comments and discussion from people who advocate CTE, and all, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, are PAINFULLY vague about it--even when they claim to be trying to be forthcoming.

After seeing enough of that, it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that there's no basis for what they're saying--and that they have no specific idea WHAT it is they think they're doing. Aiming is the ANTITHESIS of vagueness. A vague aiming system can't possibly be precise--it's a logical impossibility.

Several people on here make at least part of their income teaching the system.

Uh, yeah. This may come as a shock to you, but some people sell snake oil--and make a good buck doing it. Were you raised in a convent or something?

For you to come on here with nothing more than a ridiculous spread sheet to say what you have, is in extremely poor taste.

Please point out what is ridiculous about the spread sheet. Now THAT, I would find interesting. It's always possible to muck up spreadsheets! Please point out my errors and I'll fix them.

I have yet to hear of a single person that truly learned the system and then had anything bad to say about it.

Actually, the world is full of cult members who say EXACTLY the same thing: If you "really understood" it would be perfectly clear; and people who knock it just don't understand.

An awful lot of pockets have been emptied--and linen eagerly dropped --from that kind of cult-like attitude.

Instead of giving that kind of defense of CTE, why not give a CONCRETE, LOGICAL, ANALYTICAL one? One that could convince anyone who could read, write, and do 'rithmetic?

Again, I have to wonder why a RATIONAL defense is never offered for CTE. Instead only emotional, "cult" defenses are forthcoming. A reasonable person has to wonder why that is...

 

[Neil]

I think you're splitting hairs. CTE, in whatever way, is helping them to pocket balls. It may be the psychological key that unlocks their shotmaking intuition or an aid to their visualization or their physical alignment or a combination of these things (or something else). I think all of these are legitimate benefits, whether or not they're your or my choice.

All we can really know is what it isn't - it can't be simply and clearly described, so it's not a series of simple programmed steps that a robot could follow to a correct aim solution (this is the point of usual contention in these threads). That tells us a lot, and even suggests what its general usefulness may be, but we're guessing beyond that.

pj
chgo

You can't get a robot to aim at the ghost ball either. It can aim at something that isn't even there!

 

[GetMeThere]

I think you're splitting hairs. CTE, in whatever way, is helping them to pocket balls.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, as a matter of fact. I HAVE heard THOUSANDS of people claim that JESUS miraculously healed them--even though objective studies of the efficacy of prayer have demonstrated otherwise.

There's simply no limit to people's ability to delude themselves.

 

[JB Cases]

lol.

A convenient bit of revisionism. Going back at least 10 years, Hal Houle, the godfather of CTE, clearly and on many ocassions called it an aiming system.

Careful, John. You're gonna get your aluminum foil cap and decoder ring taken away

Lou Figueroa

"system" or "method" are semantically interchangeable for the purpose of these discussions. I prefer method because humans are incapable in general of great precision. Some humans are of course which generally equates to them becoming the best at what they apply their ability to be precise to. But in general humans are imprecise creatures who function just fine without millimeter precision.

Efren Reyes hits the rail at the first and second diamond A LOT when he plays pool. Is he AIMING to hit the rail that high on the way into the pocket? Doubtful. I think he is aiming as he aims where he knows the ball will go in and he can apply whatever he needs to the cueball to make it go where he wants it.

Strickland on the other hand rarely hits the rails on the way in. Two highly contrasted METHODS of aiming which both players use extremely well to play at world class levels.

Is CTE systematic? Yes it is. It's a 1-2-3 follow the instructions kind of thing. But there is a certain feel element to it and that feel element is how far back to be from the cue ball so that you can use CTE and swing into the right line.

Is CTE needed to play great pool? No not at all. Neither is Ghost Ball.

You can take a hundred novices and let them play for a week with zero instruction of any kind and after that week some will be completely helpless and others will show aptitude for seeing the correct lines.

I am revising nothing. I have and continue to use Hal Houle's methods since ten years with success.

Since learning and adopting Hal's and other similar methods I pocket more balls and make tougher shots. That's all I need to know.

When I see charts like the one that started this thread I think back to the recent discovery of why acupuncture works. The Chinese published detailed charts of how to apply acupuncture thousands of years ago. Western scientists and doctors in general dismissed it as baloney and certainly a great many charts were probably devised showing that it could not work.

However recently some scientists have discovered that in fact acupuncture needles stimulate the release of a chemical in the muscle that is a pain killer. Now that they have identified what is happening they can work to isolate and reproduce the chemical for all sorts of medical uses.

2000 years for science to catch up to Chinese medicine. I am not too worried about CTE and Hal's other methods. Someday someone will get tired of just being contrary and one of you will figure out why it works for real rather than publishing charts to disprove it.

Through history it's pretty much consistent that phenomena occur and science then has to figure out how it happened and more how to reproduce it.

So to me it's not a big deal any more. CTE, ETE, quarters, shadows, ghost ball, numbers, b.o.b., fractions as taught in snooker, 90/90, etc...are all methods to attempt to help the player find the right aiming line. OBVIOUSLY it's not the simplest thing in the world or there wouldn't be endless threads about it.

If you all think it's simple then do this experiment for yourself. Draw a chalk line from the pocket to the object ball. Then draw one from the dead perfect ghost ball position to the cue ball.

Now shoot with your OPPOSITE hand. With all that you know about aiming, stance and stroke you should be able to pocket most relatively simple shots easily right? Come back and tell us your results. You will find that your perception and motor skills are different when you switch hands. Most of you will feel helpless. Some of you will be better than others and some of you might find that you play almost as good with either hand. This is how it is for the population at large.

Neither a chart of vectors nor ghost ball will help you until you can confidently shoot the ball to a spot you aim at along a line you can choose. Once you master that THEN you can start thinking about ball to ball to pocket lines. And if you find that you can find and get down on this line easily then congratulations, you're ahead of most people.

If you need "help" then there are a ton of methods out there to help you find and visualize that line.

I prefer to live in a world that is broad in scope and which offers many ways to get the proper results.

 

[Neil]

I haven't seen any evidence of that, as a matter of fact. I HAVE heard THOUSANDS of people claim that JESUS miraculously healed them--even though objective studies of the efficacy of prayer have demonstrated otherwise.

There's simply no limit to people's ability to delude themselves.

What, you have nothing to say about my other post, so you think you can win some points by now knocking my religion??

 

[softshot]

I haven't seen any evidence of that, as a matter of fact. I HAVE heard THOUSANDS of people claim that JESUS miraculously healed them--even though objective studies of the efficacy of prayer have demonstrated otherwise.

There's simply no limit to people's ability to delude themselves.

uh oh now you did it....CTE + Religion... this is going to be EPIC!!!!


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[GetMeThere]

uh oh now you did it....CTE + Religion... this is going to be EPIC!!!!


:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Well...everything about it IS like a religion. First, seekers went to Hal Houle's hermitage to seek his wisdom. And OH that light shone brightly in their eyes--so much so that they came back mumbling! Not much specific to say, but it's just so WONDERFUL when you BELIEVE--and it solves ALL your problems when you really GET IT!

 

[GetMeThere]

What, you have nothing to say about my other post, so you think you can win some points by now knocking my religion??

I responded to your post with this post.

If there's another post you want me to respond to, let me know.

I have no comments about your religion, and I certainly don't think that here is the place to discuss it.

 

[JB Cases]

There's simply no limit to people's ability to delude themselves.

And I think true scientists are the first ones to tell you that there is nothing finite, only measurable to current capabilities.

The acid test for any aiming system/method is does pocketing percentage go up, stay the same, or go down?

For most of us who actually study and try them the answer is that pocketing percentage goes up.

I can't delude myself into gaining measurable improvement which has remained consistent over a decade.

Of course it's always possible to pysche oneself up for short term performance. But over the course of a tournament, a long gambling session, years of competition, any system which does not work should lead to poorer individual results not better ones.

But most people on this board who have incorporated these non-GB methods into their games have reported improvement.

So either they are all self-deluded individually despite being separated by distance and time and having individual approaches to the material OR maybe there is something to these methods that actually works.

Given that many people report success after trying them I tend to go with the "something to them" approach rather than the "lying to myself and everyone else" approach.

 

[GetMeThere]

And I think true scientists are the first ones to tell you that there is nothing finite, only measurable to current capabilities.

The acid test for any aiming system/method is does pocketing percentage go up, stay the same, or go down?

For most of us who actually study and try them the answer is that pocketing percentage goes up.

I can't delude myself into gaining measurable improvement which has remained consistent over a decade.

Of course it's always possible to pysche oneself up for short term performance. But over the course of a tournament, a long gambling session, years of competition, any system which does not work should lead to poorer individual results not better ones.

But most people on this board who have incorporated these non-GB methods into their games have reported improvement.

So either they are all self-deluded individually despite being separated by distance and time and having individual approaches to the material OR maybe there is something to these methods that actually works.

Given that many people report success after trying them I tend to go with the "something to them" approach rather than the "lying to myself and everyone else" approach.

What you've written is a STUDY in vagueness--and it is the ONLY type of defense of CTE that I have EVER READ.

WHY IS THAT???

Please don't tell me that you have played for a decade and you've gotten better, so therefore it was CTE that helped you. That, I'm afraid, wouldn't be vague...but only silly. A chimp would probably get better at pool after ten years

....whether or not he was using CTE (hehehe)

 

[Maniac]

I'll continue to point out that CTE Aiming Elixir is really just alcohol, food coloring and a sales pitch, but I won't try to discourage anybody from buying it or trying it. It may be just what they need.

pj
chgo

You ought to be a POLITICIAN :thumbup:!!!

Maniac

 

[Neil]

I responded to your post with this post.

If there's another post you want me to respond to, let me know.
Somehow I missed this one.
I have no comments about your religion, and I certainly don't think that here is the place to discuss it.

Then you shouldn't have brought it up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
For you to come on here with nothing more than a ridiculous spread sheet to say what you have, is in extremely poor taste.
Please point out what is ridiculous about the spread sheet. Now THAT, I would find interesting. It's always possible to muck up spreadsheets! Please point out my errors and I'll fix them.

What's ridiculous about it, is that anyone would even bother to come up with it. If you can't figure out that you have a smaller aiming point on any type of cut than you do on a full hit, you shouldn't be playing pool. Plus, it only shows the margins of error admissable for making the ball. It does not compare ghost ball, or whatever you use, to any other aiming system. Your chart is the same for EVERY aiming method, and is nothing but a red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil
I have yet to hear of a single person that truly learned the system and then had anything bad to say about it.
Actually, the world is full of cult members who say EXACTLY the same thing: If you "really understood" it would be perfectly clear; and people who knock it just don't understand.

An awful lot of pockets have been emptied--and linen eagerly dropped --from that kind of cult-like attitude.
True, but what has that got to do with CTE??? What makes you an authority to judge something you know nothing about??

Instead of giving that kind of defense of CTE, why not give a CONCRETE, LOGICAL, ANALYTICAL one? One that could convince anyone who could read, write, and do 'rithmetic?

Again, I have to wonder why a RATIONAL defense is never offered for CTE. Instead only emotional, "cult" defenses are forthcoming. A reasonable person has to wonder why that is...
Maybe because people don't want to give away for free what the do for a living. For what it's worth, I only know what I do know about it from this forum. That has been enough to convince me that their is a lot of merit to it.

 

[Dagwoodz]

The main reason why CTE is COMPLETE BULLSHIT (and, I’m sure, made up as somebody’s joke to show how dumb people are), is that there’s no discussion in it whatsoever about the PRECISION needed to pocket balls.

A recent thread has opened more discussion about it, and one post pointed further to a discussion about the error range in shot-making

I was surprised to see in that last post the claim that a fine cut shot could have an error range of only about a TENTH OF A MILLIMETER! Personally, I’m a little reluctant to just take people’s word for such things—and I had always intended to someday have a look at just this issue myself—so I thought I would figure out this information myself and see what it looked like. Below is the data I worked out. FIRST, please note, the info below says NOTHING about the need to adjust for throw or English—but those issues change only the aiming POINT, not the error range in aiming and making a shot.

To figure out how to calculate these I drew the diagram below, and quickly realized it was simple: I only needed to calculate the distance of point “a” from the origin—for balls of 2.25 inches in diameter.

The first bit of info is from Excel. The columns are:

1) The angle (in degrees) off the straight line down which the CB is shot. So, for example, a “1” is one degree off from a straight-in shot. An “89” is the finest cut shot.

2) Distance of CB edge (at equator) from OB edge (at equator). For example, to shoot the OB 1 degree to the left (from the straight line path of the CB), align the CB so that it’s left edge is 0.039 inches to the right of the OB edge. (Note: There is some rounding error in the figures, to make them easier to look at).

3) This difference between the measurement for this angle, and the preceding angle. This figure shows the difference in aim needed to change ONE DEGREE of angle, AT the angle being shot at. Note that this changes depending on the thickness of the cut.

4) Just for fun, I noted in this column how many “64ths of the OB” the aim point (col 2) would be at. If you’re going to use an edge aiming system, obviously you can’t estimate to aim “1.354 inches” from the OB edge. You have to have some method for estimating. It seems to me that the only reasonable way would be to divide the OB into fractions, and to aim at a certain fraction. The FINEST possible fraction system I could imagine would be practical would be into 64ths of the OB—making each fraction about 1/28th of an inch (2.25"/64).

If you want to try these calculations yourself, here are the Excel formulas for each column:

2 (aim): “=2.25*COS(RADIANS(90-RC[-1]))”
3 (Diff): “=RC[-1]-R[-1]C[-1]”
4 (sixty-fourths): “=ROUND(RC[-2]/(2.25/64),0)”

The main thing to note about these columns is toward the bottom of the last column: As cuts get thinner and thinner, more “1 degree angles” are included in each 64th fraction of the object ball.

Btw, an interesting feature showed up by using 64ths as the aiming point fractions: The actual ANGLE is pretty close to the “64th number.” To show it more clearly, I also included the eight fractions as well. Of course, after 50-60 or so degrees, this doesn’t work anymore—as shown above: Fine cuts become VERY precise.

Below is a table with a selection of error ranges for shots. To calculate this I used an effective pocket size of two inches –for the CENTER of the object balls. This is a reasonable pocket size (about 4 ½" pocket), for most angle shots—even along the rail, if they’re slow enough. It’s not PERFECT, however—but a good estimate for the purposes of the discussion.

Please note that the figures in the table represent RANGES of aim point necessary to make the shot. They show how PRECISE your aim needs to be. To express how accurate your aim point has to be in the “plus or minus” manner, divide the figures by 2! So, even for the easiest shots of only a 1 foot shot, straight in, requires that you hit the OB with the CB over a range of about 3/8ths inch centered over the PERFECT spot.
Fine cut shots over four feet or so allow an aiming area only the size of TWO OR THREE HUMAN HAIRS in order to pocket the OB.

I also noted a “spot shot” made from near the head spot: The CB must hit the right spot on the OB within a range of 1/16th inch—i.e., +/- 1/32 inch. Not easy—and CERTAINLY no discussion of that kind of precision is mentioned in any way in any CTE method I’ve heard about

Formulas (if you’re interested):
Angles:

“=2*ATAN(1/12)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/24)*(180/PI())”
“=2*ATAN(1/36)*(180/PI())”
…etc.

0 deg cut: “=0.039*RC11”
30 deg cut: “=0.034*RC11”
45 deg cut: “=0.028*RC11”
60 deg cut: “=0.02*RC11”
80 deg cut: “=0.007*RC11”

Dude...if it don't work for YOU, don't use it. Pretty easy if you ask me. I don't use it per se either, but at the same time, if this system is working for someone else, great, more power to them.

 

[JB Cases]

Well...everything about it IS like a religion. First, seekers went to Hal Houle's hermitage to seek his wisdom. And OH that light shone brightly in their eyes--so much so that they came back mumbling! Not much specific to say, but it's just so WONDERFUL when you BELIEVE--and it solves ALL your problems when you really GET IT!

Yeah, it's actually kind of like that. Because when it comes to playing pool nothing is more ecstatic than pocketing balls. Especially those shots which gave you so much trouble despite years of practicing them.

Finding a way to treat all shots the same is like a religious experience.

Making tough shots for the cash and getting out under pressure is divine. Getting applause from the rail and accolades for great shots and great shooting is heavenly.

It doesn't solve all my problems. But when facing that long 9 ball in the hill-hill game it sure helps to have something I can rely on to help me find the right aiming line. And when I use it and pull the trigger and the object ball splits the pocket and everyone is cheering I say a silent prayer to Saint Hal Houle giving thanks for sharing his creations with me.

---------------------------------

You know what's really funny though. That people knock these aiming systems and seek to label the people who "believe" in them as religious kooks and gullible while at the same promoting a method which relies on seeing and imaginary object called a "ghost" ball.

Well I really need to get out of this thread.

Put me down in the convert category.

Like all good Chinese martial arts movies, if we ever play then we shall see if your Ghost Ball Excel Sheet style can defeat my Houle-CTE style. ;-)

 

[JB Cases]

What you've written is a STUDY in vagueness--and it is the ONLY type of defense of CTE that I have EVER READ.

WHY IS THAT???

Please don't tell me that you have played for a decade and you've gotten better, so therefore it was CTE that helped you. That, I'm afraid, wouldn't be vague...but only silly. A chimp would probably get better at pool after ten years

....whether or not he was using CTE (hehehe)

Why don't you propose the way to conduct controlled experiments to prove or disprove your contentions?

Obviously testimony has no credibility with you. So you now have your chart and from there you should be able to find a way using human subjects to prove your assertions.

I mean it's sort of silly to think that you can reduce all the variables inherent in shooting a pool shot into an excel table don't you?

For all the calculations you and others do can you even make a ball? I mean when it comes down to it you aren't at the table measuring angles in 100th of an inch increments. You see, you assess, you get down and you shoot. If your perception is right and your execution is fairly good then you make the ball. If not then you miss. It's called judgment.

An aiming system gets you either very close or right on the line. At least this is my contention and the contention of others who have tried it as well as the contention of some others who haven't tried them.

If you want a precise definition of CTE then learn it. Then you can come here and give the details. Nothing but your conscience is between you and that.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Neil:
You can't get a robot to aim at the ghost ball either.

You can tell it to aim 1 1/8" from the OB's surface on a line from the pocket. Sure, there's some estimating to do, but the instruction about what to estimate is simple, clear and precise.

Let's hear the equivalent instruction in CTEse.

pj
chgo

 

[Neil]

You can tell it to aim 1 1/8" from the OB's surface on a line from the pocket. Sure, there's some estimating to do, but the instruction about what to estimate is simple, clear and precise.

Let's hear the equivalent instruction in CTEse.

pj
chgo

That has been posted many times already, I'm not wasting my time to look it up.

 

[GetMeThere]

Why don't you propose the way to conduct controlled experiments to prove or disprove your contentions?

It's necessary to have concrete facts or data to test. CTE advocates have never offered any. My only--or most substantial--contention is that CTE offers nothing to test or consider.

Obviously testimony has no credibility with you. So you now have your chart and from there you should be able to find a way using human subjects to prove your assertions.

Ah!! Now we're talking about something I like! Assertions! CTE has stepped on the stage and MADE ASSERTIONS. One very simple one is that it is an AIMING SYSTEM. It's up to the advocates of CTE to offer EVIDENCE for their assertions. If everything CTE advocates say is totally VAGUE, then their assertions are impossible to test...essentially, because they DON'T EXIST.

I mean it's sort of silly to think that you can reduce all the variables inherent in shooting a pool shot into an excel table don't you?

Reduce variables? Sorry, I wasn't reducing any variables. I was stating OBJECTIVE, ABSOLUTE FACTS about the breadth of area in which a ball MUST be hit in order to be pocketed. Or do you wish to suggest that balls can be pocketed by just hitting them any old place? Aiming represents an intention to be PRECISE. The calculations I offered showed exactly HOW precise aiming must be. It only remains for you to demonstrate that CTE can offer that precision. If it can't, then what does it have to do with "aiming?"

For all the calculations you and others do can you even make a ball? I mean when it comes down to it you aren't at the table measuring angles in 100th of an inch increments. You see, you assess, you get down and you shoot. If your perception is right and your execution is fairly good then you make the ball. If not then you miss. It's called judgment.

Judgment? Not aiming? So, are you saying now that CTE is a judgment system? Well, that's different. What does it judge? (Don't say "Where to aim" )

If you want a precise definition of CTE then learn it. Then you can come here and give the details. Nothing but your conscience is between you and that.

So then....it's just indescribable?

I could hear someone describe the value of a straight stroke, and it would be immediately clear that it was WORTH LEARNING--even if I hadn't yet learned it.

It's up to you, or other CTE advocates to give even a HINT that CTE is WORTH learning. No such hint is to be found.

 

[GetMeThere]

Patrick Johnson:
You can tell it to aim 1 1/8" from the OB's surface on a line from the pocket. Sure, there's some estimating to do, but the instruction about what to estimate is simple, clear and precise.

Let's hear the equivalent instruction in CTEse.

That has been posted many times already, I'm not wasting my time to look it up.

Well, if you've already read it many times (and presumably use it yourself), then you don't have to bother looking it up--you can just write it down for us now...