Why CTE is silly

[GetMeThere]

Here is a superb example of the BS that permeates this topic.

The first poster EXPLAINS the system to everyone...and then about five posts later admits he doesn't know the system or understand it AT ALL, but that he has FRIENDS who use it to WONDERFUL advantage and understand it (but, mysteriously, never seemed to get their help in understanding it)--even though "Bustamante and Reyes" use it, too.

Another poster says he "got the system" and tried to figure it out on the table, but simply couldn't fathom it through it's vagueness. He quotes something about "If the shot is 15 degrees, then aim at the quarter ball point." Of course, that IS where you would aim for a 15 degree shot--you don't need a "system" to know that!

What an unbelievably pathetic joke CTE is!

Here's more baloney for those interested.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Why did the instructors change the name of CTE to Pro One and Same Aim? Do they not want to give Hal the credit? Does Hal deserve the credit (did he invent it)?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...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:
That has been posted many times already

LOL. I'll take that as "I don't know what you're asking for."

pj
chgo

 

[8pack]

Here is a superb example of the BS that permeates this topic.

The first poster EXPLAINS the system to everyone...and then about five posts later admits he doesn't know the system or understand it AT ALL, but that he has FRIENDS who use it to WONDERFUL advantage and understand it (but, mysteriously, never seemed to get their help in understanding it)--even though "Bustamante and Reyes" use it, too.

Another poster says he "got the system" and tried to figure it out on the table, but simply couldn't fathom it through it's vagueness. He quotes something about "If the shot is 15 degrees, then aim at the quarter ball point." Of course, that IS where you would aim for a 15 degree shot--you don't need a "system" to know that!

What an unbelievably pathetic joke CTE is!

Here's more baloney for those interested.

It's not your fault that you don't no what your talking about,but is your fault to say the things your saying.
Believe me people are using all sorts of ways to make ball's and cte is one of them.

 

[cleary]

This is a silly. If you think CTE doesn't work, you learned it wrong. Its really that simple. Talk with an instructor that teaches it, you will quickly change your mind.

 

[Neil]

LOL. I'll take that as "I don't know what you're asking for."

pj
chgo

Go ahead, I guess it's easier for you to try and make someone look stupid than to actually do a little work yourself and look it up. I already have, I'm not going to spoon feed you just because you want to be lazy.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'm not going to spoon feed you

LOL. The CTE anthem. I feel like I should stand up.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

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.

Although you know nothing of CTE other than what has been relayed on here. So because you don't have the right information then it must be useless. Hmmm, that's kind of like me saying that physics is useless because no one will spoon feed it to me.

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.

The evidence exists. There is a video where the main proponent of CTE on this forum is shooting 48 balls in using CTE, and other videos where he is using it to shoot shots, one where he shoots a difficult pocketing test devised by Colin Colenso and makes something like 17 or 18 shots. He shows himself using CTE for banking.

What he does not do is offer an instructional video with ABC steps. If you want the ABC steps then you can get them. But not on AZ.

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?"

Yes and Pat Johnson put up a similar chart years ago. The point is that we are all clear that the pocket does not move and does not change size. The balls lay where they are. All that is clear. What is also clear is that I can draw a PERFECT line for you from the pocket to the object ball and then a perfect line from teh cueball to the object ball and still you may not make it each time.

The fact is that how PRECISE aiming must be depends on the location of the balls in relation to the pocket, the cut of the pocket, the speed of the shot, the condition of the pocket facings, the condition of the cloth, the the and climate in the room.

Despite that for SOME REASON, CTE and like aiming systems seem to help a good number of people to get to the aiming line which works.

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" )

No, the judgment that has to do with picking a spot to stand on and picking reference points. When you are standing there it's just YOU and your cue - no laser lines, no protractors. You have to make a choice as to where to lay your cue down to address the cue ball. The process which you use to render that judgment is the "system".

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

No it's describable. What you want is a free, spoon-fed ABC set of instructions. That's not going to happen anytime soon. If you want that then the places to get them are well known on this forum.

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.

Really? Well the VALUE of an aiming system is that it gives the user a consistent and repeatable method to align themselves to the shot. I'd try anything that offers that premise. And if it works then great, if not then I have lost a little time but I am that much wiser for having tried 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.

Well that's your opinion. Apparently the many testimonials of people on this forum who have learned CTE and similar systems and who have found success with them means nothing.

You see when you label everyone who says that they have success with CTE as self-delusional then it's obvious that you really are not one bit interested in learning it. At least you aren't interested in going to someone who can really show you. MAYBE if someone took the time to write the Idiot's Guide to CTE then you might try it. But it's much easier and more satisfying to be a detractor without knowing the system. That's like taking the low hanging fruit and getting some cheap attaboys.

So welcome to the bandwagon, there is a spot open in the corner and here's a tamborine. The louder you bang it the more attention you bring to the system and that encourages more people to investigate it. Some of those people will take the steps they need to really learn it and THEN those people will be able to make an informed decision for themselves as to the value.

 

[GetMeThere]

It's not your fault that you don't no what your talking about,but is your fault to say the things your saying.
Believe me people are using all sorts of ways to make ball's and cte is one of them.

See...the problem is that I have no REASON to believe you. I don't believe people just because they insist that I do. Do you?

 

[GetMeThere]

This is a silly. If you think CTE doesn't work, you learned it wrong. Its really that simple. Talk with an instructor that teaches it, you will quickly change your mind.

Empty assurances. Why don't YOU convince us that CTE "works?"

Since you're making the statement, we can only assume that YOU know what CTE is, AND that it works. So why do we need to "Talk with an instructor that teaches it" when we have you here already who can tell us?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
...it's describable.

This is where credibility ends. We all know if it was describable it would have been described long since, John. This "we won't spoon feed you" nonsense only makes you guys sound either disingenuous or clueless.

pj
chgo

 

[GetMeThere]

So because you don't have the right information then it must be useless. Hmmm, that's kind of like me saying that physics is useless because no one will spoon feed it to me.

No. People's ADVOCACY of CTE is useless because they fail to provide information. If nobody shared their information about physics, then hearing someone babble on about it would have NO MEANING OR VALUE to anyone other than the babbler.

"OH, this physics is just GREAT!!!" "Really? What is it, what does it do?" "Hey! What do you want me to do, SPOONFEED IT to you? I already TOLD you, it's GREAT! Find out for yourself!"

The evidence exists. There is a video where the main proponent of CTE on this forum is shooting 48 balls in using CTE, and other videos where he is using it to shoot shots, one where he shoots a difficult pocketing test devised by Colin Colenso and makes something like 17 or 18 shots. He shows himself using CTE for banking.

First, your claim ignores the fact that there are people who HAVE "learned it" and WISH to describe it to others on the forum--yet are apparently unable to do so. Second, from the above, we have reason to doubt that a man pocketing balls is using an inexplicable (but instructable, for a fee) method to pocket them.

Yes and Pat Johnson put up a similar chart years ago. The point is that we are all clear that the pocket does not move and does not change size. The balls lay where they are. All that is clear. What is also clear is that I can draw a PERFECT line for you from the pocket to the object ball and then a perfect line from teh cueball to the object ball and still you may not make it each time.

And that means what, exactly?

The fact is that how PRECISE aiming must be depends on the location of the balls in relation to the pocket, the cut of the pocket, the speed of the shot, the condition of the pocket facings, the condition of the cloth, the the and climate in the room.

Despite that for SOME REASON, CTE and like aiming systems seem to help a good number of people to get to the aiming line which works.

Huh? So CTE works with climate issues too!! We may have to alert the government about this! This could be bigger than I thought! This is NOT just some AIMING system! Why didn't you tell me?!?!

No, the judgment that has to do with picking a spot to stand on and picking reference points. When you are standing there it's just YOU and your cue - no laser lines, no protractors. You have to make a choice as to where to lay your cue down to address the cue ball. The process which you use to render that judgment is the "system."

The system is judgment. The judgment is the system. Repeat that 500 times. $500 please.

No it's describable. What you want is a free, spoon-fed ABC set of instructions. That's not going to happen anytime soon. If you want that then the places to get them are well known on this forum.

No. What I want is a HINT that it's something that makes any sense or, absent that, perhaps someone with a NAME and REPUTATION to lose coming forward and saying "Yeah, this is great."

Are there any other plausible reasons to purchase something from a seller?

Apparently the many testimonials of people on this forum who have learned CTE and similar systems and who have found success with them means nothing.

You see when you label everyone who says that they have success with CTE as self-delusional then it's obvious that you really are not one bit interested in learning it. At least you aren't interested in going to someone who can really show you. MAYBE if someone took the time to write the Idiot's Guide to CTE then you might try it. But it's much easier and more satisfying to be a detractor without knowing the system. That's like taking the low hanging fruit and getting some cheap attaboys.

Testimonials? Sorry but, even the TESTIMONIALS are hopelessly vague. Show me even one person who says "I can usually only run about a rack a week. The day after learning CTE I ran FOUR RACKS!"

As for my labels, they come from my (long) experience. When people are vague about something, then that something is usually ineffective or non-substantial. At least, that's the way I've found things to be on THIS planet. What planet are you from?

 

[GetMeThere]

Johnny Archer's obviously tongue-in-cheek comment about CTE here (scroll about halfway down):

When players write to you, asking how to aim, your pat answer is to say that you get three feet back from the shot, then you shoot parallel lines. That is all hogwash. That is not how you aim. Why don't you level with these recreational players? You use the aiming system whereby you aim the center of the cue ball at the edge of the object ball for any and all shots. You know exactly what I am talking about. We both know about placing the cue tip either left or right of cue ball center, and you know why we do that. Get honest for a change. These recreational players are no threat. Tell them the truth. - Hal Houle

I really don't know why you keep writing about my aiming system. Everybody that is listening, IT IS MY AIMING SYSTEM. I hope this would relieve some pressure that you have. Thanks, Johnny

 

[8pack]

GetMeThere leave cte alone.If you dont it might turn you into a madman!lol

 

[Dagwoodz]

GetMeThere leave cte alone.If you dont it might turn you into a madman!lol

too late...

 

[JB Cases]

This is where credibility ends. We all know if it was describable it would have been described long since, John. This "we won't spoon feed you" nonsense only makes you guys sound either disingenuous or clueless.

pj
chgo

I would go with both. The ones who are clueless like me don't know enough to describe it in ABC terms and the ones who do aren't giving it up.

Obviously people like Randy G. and Stan feel that it's describable enough to charge people to learn it. All I have heard on here is positive testimonials from people who have been to those guys.

Sorry, the best things in life are not always free. In this case the cost is to go to a qualified instructor who will teach it to you for a fee, or go to someone like Dave or Hal who will show you for free.

I can't do either one. So it will just have to remain a mystery to most and a good source of debate on forums.

When we meet I will be happy to show you what I do and you can make your observations to me on what you see. I will bring the video camera and we can whatever we can on it. Unless I learn CTE the EXACT way that Dave knows it between now and then I won't be able to show you that. But I can show you Hal's Quarters system, that one I feel I have down pretty good.

See you in a few.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Wow. I've read a lot of this thread, and I see a consistent theme. People who normally have posts that seem reasonable are just a little off the rails here. The thing it seems almost everyone in this thread is missing is this:

*It isn't about whether CTE works or not. It is about whether it can be explained logically and supported with rational evidence*

There are many things that people believe in without demonstrable evidence or logical analysis. The idea in question may be true or false. If it is true, then it likely helps the person with the belief. If it is false, *it* doesn't help them, however the *belief* might help them in a different psychological way.

I can't see a good reason to argue about whether or not CTE works. Honestly, that doesn't really matter to me. I've never tried it personally. However, I've also never tried to fire a satellite into orbit around the earth. Yet I still have some very good reasons to believe that it works, can be done, has been done, and it can be explained exactly why and how. I don't need to actually do it to believe that it is physically possible, and there is a host of underlying scientific, rational analysis that supports this belief.

The obstacle that most people seem to have with CTE is that thus far, no one has offered the scientific, rational underlying analysis that demonstrates how and why it works with adequate rigor that one need not actually do it to believe in it. The conversation is NOT about whether it works or whether it is valuable. If I have it explained to me and I try it and use it and it works for me, that would not in any way satisfy my curiosity to understand it on a rational, scientifically demonstrable level.

SO...I guess you guys can go back and forth with "why should I use a system that no one can explain" and "how can you dismiss it as useless if you haven't tried it". If any statement you are making boils down to one of these, I think you might not see the real issue at hand.

Great entertainment though. Kinda like the movie on the Discovery Channel I watched where the wildebeests are migrating and come to a river. There are crocodiles in the river. They are compelled to cross, yet when they get to the other side the banks are muddy and high and they can't easily get up out of the muck. There are more and more coming behind them, trampling them, stomping each other down into the muck, and all the while the crocodiles are picking off the ones still in the water...yet they just keep piling into the mud...

Yeah this thread seems just like that lol!

KMRUNOUT

(PS. Some wildebeests make it though...perhaps there is hope)

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Actually we aren't talking about math when we talk about CTE. We are talking about visual reference points and perception. When I say to you look at the "edge" of the ball you may be staring at a different space than me.

That CTE works certainly has to do with math somewhere as do all things in life on the highest level.

But even Ghost Ball relies on perception and estimation rather than cold hard calculation.

The fact is that there are all sorts of methods to "aim" which help a person to align themselves to the correct line. Once a person starts studying these methods then all sorts of interesting things happen. Such as the ability to make previously "impossible" looking shots. The player gains the ability to consistently make shots that they previously consistently over and undercut. Players find that if they apply certain methods to aim regardless of the shot then they begin to raise their pocketing percentages on "regular" shots a little bit and quite a bit on the "hard" shots.

Some have suggested that this is merely the subconscious adjusting automatically. I contend that the subconscious cannot adjust into the proper shot line unless you are very close to it to begin with.

For, as the original poster has shown, pool is a game of precision where millimeters count.

So if a person claims that they are using CTE and they are pocketing balls consistently then obviously the math is working on some level.

In my opinion.

As usual...well said. I guess people just want to see the math.

KMRUNOUT

 

[JB Cases]

No. People's ADVOCACY of CTE is useless because they fail to provide information. If nobody shared their information about physics, then hearing someone babble on about it would have NO MEANING OR VALUE to anyone other than the babbler.

"OH, this physics is just GREAT!!!" "Really? What is it, what does it do?" "Hey! What do you want me to do, SPOONFEED IT to you? I already TOLD you, it's GREAT! Find out for yourself!"

What does it do?.............. Well physics helps us to build things like cellphones and satellites and cars.

Wow that's awesome, will you teach me physics? ........ Um, no but there are places you can go to learn physics.

Well then I think you're full of BS about physics if you won't teach me. Obviously physics is a sham and you're a con-artist.

First, your claim ignores the fact that there are people who HAVE "learned it" and WISH to describe it to others on the forum--yet are apparently unable to do so. Second, from the above, we have reason to doubt that a man pocketing balls is using an inexplicable (but instructable, for a fee) method to pocket them.

No one said that they are unable to do so in a practical matter. Those who really know CTE have been asked NOT TO try to provide a step-by-step instructional on the forums and so far they respect that.

And that means what, exactly?

Obviously the conclusion you draw is that if it's not free to you then it's a sham. Pity because if you tried to be nice to those who know it then maybe they would share what they know and you could argue from a position of intimacy.

Huh? So CTE works with climate issues too!! We may have to alert the government about this! This could be bigger than I thought! This is NOT just some AIMING system! Why didn't you tell me?!?!

That is correct. CTE and like methods work in all climates.

The system is judgment. The judgment is the system. Repeat that 500 times. $500 please.

Are you losing it a little? Maybe you should make another chart to calm down.

No. What I want is a HINT that it's something that makes any sense or, absent that, perhaps someone with a NAME and REPUTATION to lose coming forward and saying "Yeah, this is great."

Stevie Moore.

Are there any other plausible reasons to purchase something from a seller?

I don't understand your question? Stan Shuffet offers a money back guarantee I think. So you can go to him with your prejudgment and your mind made up and get all the information he has to give and when done ask for your money back if you don't think you learned anything of value. What's easier than that?

Oh I know, making charts to disprove something you know nothing about.

Testimonials? Sorry but, even the TESTIMONIALS are hopelessly vague. Show me even one person who says "I can usually only run about a rack a week. The day after learning CTE I ran FOUR RACKS!"

Is that your measure? Going from a rack a week to four packs? Well I can't give you a concrete example like that but I can tell you that about two weeks after learning a fractional system from Hal Houle, which has been equally derided by several of the same folks in this thread, I won a decent sized tournament in Colorado against the best players in the state.

As for my labels, they come from my (long) experience. When people are vague about something, then that something is usually ineffective or non-substantial. At least, that's the way I've found things to be on THIS planet. What planet are you from?

So you rely on your own experience to come to conclusions? Yet at the same time you call people who also have long experience in the game of pocket billiards delusional because they are relating their positive experiences with CTE and like methods?

In your whole life you have never found that someone just didn't WANT to tell you something? I'd probably be vague dealing with you as well given the short interaction we have had so far. Why would I care to share anything of value with a person who is so close-minded as you appear to be? In fact if I were a mean-spirited person I might even lead you on just to see you blow up even more.

I am not sure what planet I am from. Earth is the only home I have known. In my life on the Earth I have learned that the world has a lot to teach me and that we as a species are never done discovering things we did not know the day before.

When I go to the Chinese pharmacy and he gives me some nasty tasting natural pills to calm my gassy stomach I don't ask him how he knows that they work. I trust that he has given them to others before me without killing them and I try them. When they work I don't have the feeling that these pills came into existence because some huge company figured out the exact chemistry to produce them. I have the feeling that Chinese pharmacists and doctors over the past 5000 years have done enough trial and error to figure out what concoctions of naturally available plants and minerals work to relieve my gas. Now if YOU want to know HOW the pills work then you will have to analyze them and figure out the chemistry of the ingredients.

For me it's enough that the pharmacist I trust recommends the medicine. By the same token people I respect in this game, who also play at moderate to high levels, trust the aiming systems enough to teach them and that's enough for me to want to try them.

There was a time when I thought it was all BS. Before Hal showed up in Denver and asked to see me I thought I knew how to aim and I was quite happy with my game. I had skipped all the threads about his aiming systems - preferring no opinion because I thought it was all something I did not need. And when I met Hal I thought it was nonsense at first and tried to find a way to excuse myself and go find some action during the first 30 minutes.

But no action was there so I was stuck and when I settled down and started listening I started making some ridiculous shots. Shots that I knew were LOW percentage for me, shots that I normally tried everything to avoid when playing for real. Suddenly I am splitting the pockets and all the time feeling like I was lined up wrong.

Well the fact was that I was lined up RIGHT but it FELT wrong because before when aiming my way I was wrong.

So I became a convert. When I went home I kept using the system that stuck with me and tried to get it to fail me. It didn't and as a result a few weeks later I won that big event.

Did it make me into a world beater? Not even close. I have too many other bad habits to correct and unfortunately I learned Hal's method at 32 as I was winding down my pool playing. Now I play a few times a month of I am lucky. But when I do play I feel pretty good that I can still get applause from the rail for some of the ridiculous great shots I can make thanks to Hal's methods.

So I feel bad for you if this is something you might need in your game and you can't get it. Because the feeling of running racks is awesome and the feeling of coming with great shots to do it is even better.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

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

If one tries to make balls, and plays a lot, eventually he'll make a lot of balls. What he's using is feel/experience--and it's not informative (or objectively true) if he insists on calling it something else.

Furthermore, IMO, it's ALWAYS beneficial to purge fantasy from your mind. For one, doing so then allows you access to the REAL source of whatever ability you ACTUALLY have--while at the same time clearing a little extra space in your head

On the other hand, I remember reading recently on here about how top tier pro players (I believe it was Mika Immonen and Earl Strickland that were mentioned in that thread) believe themselves to be great all the time, and that sometimes a seemingly arrogant self evaluation is often present in the very best champions. Are they really that good, and then started believing it, or did that belief lead to their greatness? In other words, sometimes an irrational belief can lead one to a point where that belief becomes true. (Or at least *works* for them).

KMRUNOUT