I'd shoot this test with enthusiasm. But, like I said... only if you're gonna crawl outta your hole and do the test too. Post a video of you running through the paces and I'll reply with my second video.
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
I'd shoot this test with enthusiasm. But, like I said... only if you're gonna crawl outta your hole and do the test too. Post a video of you running through the paces and I'll reply with my second video.
I'm in - with both of you. I'll post that video when you post a video too. Unless you post, I'm not jumping through hoops when ALL I ever do is post videos and all you do is critique. Let see PJ do his OWN test as well.
Otherwise, I'm done being the only guy with nuts big enough to post a video.
I hypothesize you can't win (or come close), PJ won't post a video because he can't come CLOSE to winning either.
So, the BIG question is.... where does this leave the knockers? I think it ends the thread because the guys like GMT and PJ will have to admit there's a LOT more going on than religion.
Where is GMT anyways? Let's see his video, right?
If I can see 1 rail of the table and hide the other 3, I have enough data for my "relationship." So, I go into these little challenges with enthusiasm. Unless you can shrink me down to 6" tall and surround me in a curtain or box--- none of the detractors in this thread can get there.
I believe this is 100% accurate, If you had a blind that the shooter could only see the cue ball, object ball and table bed, the end rail and pockets at the shooters positon where hidden so there was no availiable reference as to length of table or angle to the pocket It would be impossible to pocket balls consistently.
SO using the above test would prove that all systems use the pocket as a reference.
SO using the above test would prove that all systems use the pocket as a reference.
We've been saying that all along. The pocket is important ONLY to the extent of realizing if a shot is thick, thin or thinner. It's NOT important to find "the line to the pocket" in that respect, as others have claimed.
What I DO know is it's not impossible as you claim. If you take any one shot (within reason - not something TOUGH even if you could see everything) and shot that shot 20x, I'm gonna make it way more than the next guy because within 3 shots, I'll lock-in to what shot it is and start popping them in.
So, be careful with saying something is impossible. If it's impossible, we'll each put $100 in escrow with someone here on azb and I'll setup the test. Just something friendly. "Impossible" means you shouldn't get 20% of the shots you shoot. I say I can. You should prob pay me odds when I get over 50%.
Okay, I'm really getting confused now!!! We've got people on here that can make cut shots 80% of the time (even a predicted higher percentage if allowed to warm up first) without being able to see the pockets. They're covering up large portions of the table. They're going to do it one-handed.
I've seen claims with 100% attached to them.
Geez, why haven't we ever seen these people hoisting up a trophy from a major tournament? You'd think someone who can perform these claims would never miss. Then again, maybe these people would shoot just as well no matter what aiming method they use. I don't know. It just seems weird to me that those who claim that CTE is 100% foolproof have never used it to win a U.S. Open, DCC, or some other big tournament here in the States.
In all the pool I've watched live, streamed, or televised, I haven't yet seen any two players in the finals that are pivoting their cues before the final stroke. Maybe I just haven't watched enough pool yet. I can only comment on MY experiences.
Once again folks, I remain neutral on the subject of CTE. I'm just confused that we do not see more touring professionals using it if it is as great as it is proclaimed to be. That said, if someone thinks that CTE is the best thing since sliced bread, then more power to them.
Good shooting to all, no matter what aiming method you use!!!
Maniac
I've seen claims with 100% attached to them.
Geez, why haven't we ever seen these people hoisting up a trophy from a major tournament? You'd think someone who can perform these claims would never miss. Then again, maybe these people would shoot just as well no matter what aiming method they use. I don't know. It just seems weird to me that those who claim that CTE is 100% foolproof have never used it to win a U.S. Open, DCC, or some other big tournament here in the States.
In all the pool I've watched live, streamed, or televised, I haven't yet seen any two players in the finals that are pivoting their cues before the final stroke. Maybe I just haven't watched enough pool yet. I can only comment on MY experiences.
Once again folks, I remain neutral on the subject of CTE. I'm just confused that we do not see more touring professionals using it if it is as great as it is proclaimed to be. That said, if someone thinks that CTE is the best thing since sliced bread, then more power to them.
Good shooting to all, no matter what aiming method you use!!!
Maniac
Surely you know that there is a WHOLE lot more to pool than just getting on the correct line to pocket the ball! And, for what it's worth, there were several people in the recent U.S. Open that were using CTE. One of them was in the final 6 players. So, it's just a matter of time, as it becomes more well known, you will see champions using it. (Several world champs do use it, by the way. And, I'm not going to name them, because they have been named already, and the usual detractors want to deny it. So, no point going down that road again.)
Last edited:
Bustamante pivots from the left on every shot.
All I play is 14.1. I run out well; however, the reason why I don't run tons of balls (my high run is 62) is because my position play sucks. It's nowhere near the "short-position" speed of Steve Lipsky or Lou. So, there's TONS more to playing pool than making the ball. I stroke pretty bad in the grand scheme of things. If I stroked a notch better, my game would jump 5 notches.
But, I work a real job for a living so practicing is tough. I rarely play in tournaments -- between a full time job, out of town gf, and other stuff (like hitting up wineries, etc), there's no time to travel an hour or more to a tournament. I'm a funsy-player.
Last edited:
It is not about money or betting it is about claiming that you do not need to know where the pocket is in order to make a ball. I am not saying pro one, CTE, does not work. I just think that YOU know where the pocket is because you have played alot, if you did not know if you were on a 7,8 or 9 ft table, and could only see as per my previous post then you cannot aim without the reference point..(pocket)
"If you take any one shot (within reason - not something TOUGH even if you could see everything) and shot that shot 20x, I'm gonna make it way more than the next guy because within 3 shots, I'll lock-in to what shot it is and start popping them in."
That statement might be true if you had feedback as to whether the ball went or not.
If you did not know if you pocketed the ball (lock in on the target) I do not think you could consistently pocket balls. That in my opinion is a true blind test. You could cover the whole table and still point to the corner pocket because you know where it is once you have reference point to start.
I await the DVD, I am sure there is something to CTE as well as any other system, and what works for 1 may not work for another, just as some people can't see the ghostball for whatever reason, some will never see CTE, that does not make 1 better than the other..
"If you take any one shot (within reason - not something TOUGH even if you could see everything) and shot that shot 20x, I'm gonna make it way more than the next guy because within 3 shots, I'll lock-in to what shot it is and start popping them in."
That statement might be true if you had feedback as to whether the ball went or not.
If you did not know if you pocketed the ball (lock in on the target) I do not think you could consistently pocket balls. That in my opinion is a true blind test. You could cover the whole table and still point to the corner pocket because you know where it is once you have reference point to start.
I await the DVD, I am sure there is something to CTE as well as any other system, and what works for 1 may not work for another, just as some people can't see the ghostball for whatever reason, some will never see CTE, that does not make 1 better than the other..
The GINGER BREAD MAN is coming.
Neil,
I think that some professional players already use Pro One and don't even know it. I'm not a glutton for punishment and hesitated to make this post as I know some might way, "Oh here we go again". Regardless, I was talking to a pro player in the last year who was telling me how they aimed on certain shots and it sounded remarkably like Pro One. He and I did not discuss CTE or Pro One. He also doesn't use BHE or FHE. I was listening, watching and trying to learn but as evidenced in my consistent poor play at the BIG MONEY White Diamonds Tournament this past weekend, I didn't learn very much. :grin:
Neil,
I think that some professional players already use Pro One and don't even know it. I'm not a glutton for punishment and hesitated to make this post as I know some might way, "Oh here we go again". Regardless, I was talking to a pro player in the last year who was telling me how they aimed on certain shots and it sounded remarkably like Pro One. He and I did not discuss CTE or Pro One. He also doesn't use BHE or FHE. I was listening, watching and trying to learn but as evidenced in my consistent poor play at the BIG MONEY White Diamonds Tournament this past weekend, I didn't learn very much. :grin:
It wouldn't surprise me at all Joey. I know that it is so similar enough to how I used to aim that it is scary! But, reading the threads on it, I have picked up enough to know more of what I was actually doing, and make it much more consistent than I used to be. (If that makes any sense, it does in my head, but not to sure of the words.
)I would say for you to try it yourself, but I have no idea of your current skill level, which would matter. So, go to your local room, find the best player you can, set up the table like Spidey had it, and have him shoot the same shots. I know you will be surprised on how few he makes, if any.:wink:
The points being addressed are contrived and irrelevant.
The general question is whether or not CTE can improve YOUR game.
The specific question is whether you want to risk $40 to find out.
I've certainly spent more than than that on horses that I knew were slow, so I will probably give it a shot. I have several pool instructional DVDs, and I only consider one of them to be lost money.
It astounds me that people who have invested substantial amounts of time in the analysis of this technique have already announced that they won't spring for the disc. That, I don't get. It is like a music critic who writes the review without listening to album.
The general question is whether or not CTE can improve YOUR game.
The specific question is whether you want to risk $40 to find out.
I've certainly spent more than than that on horses that I knew were slow, so I will probably give it a shot. I have several pool instructional DVDs, and I only consider one of them to be lost money.
It astounds me that people who have invested substantial amounts of time in the analysis of this technique have already announced that they won't spring for the disc. That, I don't get. It is like a music critic who writes the review without listening to album.
It's not a shooting test. It's a simple question designed to show you that "thick", "thin" and "thinner" isn't enough information.
Frankly, I shouldn't have to draw pictures for you. All any 6th grade graduate should have to hear is...
1. CTE is an exact "center-pocket" system, and
2. there are only three exact ways to aim it
... to know there's something missing. That "something" is the subconscious aiming adjustment you make in order to hit an exact target within one of the wide areas defined by "thick", "thin" or "thinner".
And, by the way, this 3-angle nonsense is the same Hal Houle nonsense that's been debunked for more than a decade on these pool forums (and my apologies to GetMeThere for thinking this was something new). Twelve or fifteen years later it's still not rocket surgery, and it's still obvious nonsense.
Oh, shut up. You'll never post a real test and we both know it.
Now for my standard disclaimer: this doesn't mean CTE isn't helpful for some players; it only means it doesn't work the way it's described to work (i.e., "exactly"). No aiming systems were harmed in the making of this post.
pj
chgo
There's only one point being addressed, and it's contrived (strenuously) by CTE users. They say it's how CTE aiming is done. If you think that's irrelevant, then I guess CTE might be for you.
It astounds me that, after all the times CTE users have been herded into a corner, only to reveal that what they "know" is utter nonsense, you still think there's something to learn. We've been "listening to the album" for years, and there's obviously nothing in the slip cover. But, hey, it's your $40.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
I was just saying don't call me out on a second video and not participate. We know you never do.
Here we go with the subconscious adjustments. How can you subconsciously adjust if you're not looking at the OB as I suggested earlier. Your story is breaking down, P.J. You remind me of someone who swore the world was flat in the 1400's. When Magellan went around the world in his 1519 voyage, you remind me of someone who would have still insisted the world was flat - and that Megallan HAD to have sailed around the flat ocean and cheated somehow. You'd present mathematical proof by showing everyone "the flat land" and state that it's a "mathematical impossibility" to have a round world while the ground was flat.
Your mind is so closed to a system being mathematically correct - that you fail to get a lesson and try yourself to see how/why it works. I'm so sure it's a mathematically correct system, I'd shoot at blind OBs/pockets.... something you or Dr. Dave would NEVER dare to do.... not EVEN with the mighty DAM.
You can argue that's because I shoot straight -- but shooting straight with crap aim means missing the ball. If you make a blind OB shot, your aim/alignment must be perfect as no subconscious adjustment can be made.
So, the circumstantial evidence points STRONGLY to the fact this is a math-based system without me posting a diagram.
p.s. I'd never post a "real" test? You're the one who suggested THE LAST test. Remember? Seems like a broken record. Keep suggesting tests until you find an impossible one and then scream, "SEE!?!?! I TOLD YOU!!!" ...... Meanwhile, you never stick your OWN neck out. WEAK
Last edited:
For awhile Pj you were actually helping the discussion about cte. Then you revert to your same old, same old, bullshit.
The record says otherwise:
You suggested it; you designed it; it didn't "test" anything.
You'll never shoot a test I suggest. If I'm wrong about that, let me know and I'll suggest one.
pj <- holding my breath
chgo
P.S.
Last edited:
You mean as long as I was defending the fact that it seems to work. But now that we're back to stuff you don't understand, like how it works, you don't like me anymore. I'll just have to learn to live with that.
pj
chgo
I for one am looking forward to PJ's unbiased review of Stans video. I'd bet he's already wrote it just has to copy and paste and post it on here like he knows what he's talking about. Should be interesting
- Status