Why CTE is silly

[peteypooldude]

It (Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers) is complex, but it should satisfy the geometry crowd. Maybe if Joe still reads these boards he can jump in the mix.

This may be completely a poor analogy, but I compare these Houle-offshoot systems to learning music. You can learn to read music which could take years or you can read tableture and chords, which some would call a shortcut that falls short of being a master musician. However, the guy who learned tablature can play today and make money at it if he so chose. It would get him far enough and if he worked at it, could make him a super musical legend.

Because in the end, what's important? Being able to play better and have fun today with improvement ? Or studying what is classically correct and traditional but (potentially) being bogged down with eyes on the greater gain long into the future?

Fred

I played for about 20 years on feel and my improvement stopped. I worked on CTE about 8 months and I gained so much it is incredible. With that said I dont think CTE has limitations on the END results. I think I will
further improve my consistency after working with Stans dvd
Respectfully Petey

 

[randyg]

OK, here are my CTE claims. And you can be disrespectful to me cuz
I BS on here all the time
1. I don't look at the pocket
2. It improved my ball pocketing dramatically
3. I don't look for contact points
4. Lou is full of sh1t
5. I gained at least 2 balls
6. GMT is more full of crap than Lou
7. It has improved my break, because I am hitting the ball exactly square,
cb usually does not hit a rail after the break unless kicked by another ball
8. Has dramatically improved my banking
This is all true
9. It is an exact aiming system
10. Improves and forces a solid pre-shot routine

AMEN.....SPF=randyg

 

[randyg]

Nope, its's a fact. See I deal in facts, things that are real. You see what appears to be a 1/2 ball hit , but in fact it is not. And what if it is 13/16 ball hit?

I'm overstating my case for ghost ball............You are so full of shit. It seems more that the CTE user seem to believe if they say something long enough it will become true. Those are the one overstating.

I can tell you haven't played for very long and play 9 ball as 'the game of all games". Anyone that still has to use a system are still in the beginners stages. And that stage is a very long one.

Because you are lacking visualization skills you will only go so far. Thats a fact Jack.

Pool is all about visualiztion and the only way to get that is 10,000 hours of hitting a million balls.

Gee how is my stance and support for GB any different than the CTE (Insert nice word for CTE users here cause the one I want to use is not) do?

At least, I can back up everything I say. Like GB can be used on any shot. ANY SHOT. It appears that to use CTE, you must be able to hit the OB directly with the CB.

Well show me how to use CTE for a any shot where you can not hit the OB directly, like a rail first shot, kick shot, combo and carom. I want pictures, drawings. Oh and as asked, what about when you play a safety and not trying to pocket a ball?

Well guess what, with GB this can be done.

Also there is no need for a DVD and 5 hours of instructons. to understand GB. I mean good grief. Making a ball is not rocket science, but if it makes you feel better to think this go ahead.

Oh one more thing GB is not about putting the center of the CB at a point in space. It is about rolling the cue over a spot on the table that will make the OB go center pocket. And the Arrow helps trains yourself to do this.

I don't think the CTE DVD can be used a real world training device like the arrow.

And yes, times I will speak as other against CTE becasue there are people that are real serious about there playing and I don't want them the read this CTE BS and think thats the way to go in the long run.

In the long run, CTE is a very weak system. I mean, show me using CTE with a bridge. I can set up the shot where you have to use a bridge and can't get any of your feet into a proper stance.

Play some 14.1 with some top players and have the CB get buired in the middle of a almost full rack. Can't place the bridge hand at a optimum spot, no way to get in a the standard stance(oh you didn't now there is not just one stance but a variety you may have to shoot from), and haven't a makeable ball. CTE goes out the window.

Oh and just for you home position stroke guys(I didn't forget about yall), in the above situation, you have to be jacked up, shooting down toward the table, so the home position would be through the table.

The only thing that works in these situtation is 10,000 of practice using GB.
Plan and simple, just the facts.

FWIW

Duckie: What is the difference between an: 1/2 ball hit or 1/2 ball aim???
SPF=randyg

 

[GetMeThere]

The pockets come into play. I have never indicated they do not. I can watch a player from the stands and tell you the visuals and pivots for most all shots.

Let's say I viewed an accustats 9-ball game of your choosing. I could give you the visuals and the pivots for most all pocketed shots over a 5 game period. You can learn and do the same.

Set up 9 balls (all balls dotted for replacement) on a table and I will view the shots from a window and tell you the visuals and pivots for the shots and then we can shoot them.

I appreciate you kind tone,

Stan

Thanks. I VERY MUCH appreciate you being upfront about this. You must know that there has been a lot of vagueness in CTE discussions.

My question is this: Don't you agree that people IN THE PAST have made the impression that with CTE "it's not necessary" to "know where the pocket is?"

I can assure you (as a "naysayer") that the main complaint or question that arises from my side is the implication that CTE can produce a "shot solution" by ONLY dealing with the OB and CB. That (as I've insisted before) is mathematically impossible.

Still, from what you put above, I return to thinking that CTE doesn't actually PRODUCE a shot alignment as much as it REPEATS a shot alignment. If you can "look at the shots" and "give the pivots," that means you look at the shots, KNOW the angles (i,e, "the shot," from years of experience) and can give a recipe for setting up for that shot.

See, I don't call that a production of "systematic information" because it includes information from your years of experience.

A person who could faithfully visualize a ghost ball could know exactly where to aim (ignoring throw effects) the FIRST SECOND he tried it--he wouldn't have to include "knowledge." That is a "systematic" source of aiming/shot information that doesn't depend on any "shot" or "angle" knowledge from the player.

If you have a "formula" which, if followed exactly (say, robotically), "point this at that, look at this line, pivot toward here" that ends up with the cuestick being aligned in a such a way that a ball will be pocketed, then you have an "objective system" for "pocketing balls."

But if you "look at the shot" and think "for this shot I'll need to do x,y, and z" to setup to make the shot, then that's not an "external" system for pocketing balls, it's using your experience of what has worked before to make a shot you have made before. That's something more like "successful practice" than a "shot pocketing system."

It could be called a "system" to "enhance shot making consistency," perhaps. But it's not a system that PRODUCES a shot solution.

Speaking for myself (and I think, others): If I were to try to find an "aiming system" or a "pocketing system" I would want something that tells me WHAT I DON'T KNOW--that TELLS me (or shows me) exactly where to align the cuestick in order to make the shot....with me providing only IMMEDIATE information, like "the OB is here, the CB is there, and the pocket is over there."

If you're saying that Pro-one does that, then I'm all for it (if it in fact does that).

Still, without seeing the DVD, I have doubts--based on the way CTE has been presented in the past. I'm pre-biased in thinking that CTE (or Pro-one) will suggest a series of alignments between OB and CB, and will not include a SPECIFIC alignment regarding the pocket. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to explicitly say so.

 

[GetMeThere]

I played for about 20 years on feel and my improvement stopped. I worked on CTE about 8 months and I gained so much it is incredible. With that said I dont think CTE has limitations on the END results. I think I will
further improve my consistency after working with Stans dvd
Respectfully Petey

If I recall correctly, Joe Tucker's "number system" is just a re-done version of Willi Mosconi's "parallel line" system--both of which are just variations of an underlying ghost ball method.

From what Stan has said I believe he is claiming that CTE/Pro-one independently (from information of the relative positions of the CB, OB, and pocket) produces an "alignment solution" for pocketing balls. If his method actually accomplishes that, I'll fully support it.

....and if that is the case, then HAL HIMSELF (and many of his followers and supporters) have done FAR MORE to HURT the understanding of his ideas than to help them.

[and it's still my best impression, as a general judge of what people do, say, and think, that CTE/Pro-one is NOT going to an objective, independent, shot-solution system--that instead it's going to (at best) require "judgement" input from the shooter about what's required to pocket balls. I'll be curious to see.]

 

[peteypooldude]

Thanks. I VERY MUCH appreciate you being upfront about this. You must know that there has been a lot of vagueness in CTE discussions.

My question is this: Don't you agree that people IN THE PAST have made the impression that with CTE "it's not necessary" to "know where the pocket is?"

I can assure you (as a "naysayer") that the main complaint or question that arises from my side is the implication that CTE can produce a "shot solution" by ONLY dealing with the OB and CB. That (as I've insisted before) is mathematically impossible.

Still, from what you put above, I return to thinking that CTE doesn't actually PRODUCE a shot alignment as much as it REPEATS a shot alignment. If you can "look at the shots" and "give the pivots," that means you look at the shots, KNOW the angles (i,e, "the shot," from years of experience) and can give a recipe for setting up for that shot.

See, I don't call that a production of "systematic information" because it includes information from your years of experience.

A person who could faithfully visualize a ghost ball could know exactly where to aim (ignoring throw effects) the FIRST SECOND he tried it--he wouldn't have to include "knowledge." That is a "systematic" source of aiming/shot information that doesn't depend on any "shot" or "angle" knowledge from the player.

If you have a "formula" which, if followed exactly (say, robotically), "point this at that, look at this line, pivot toward here" that ends up with the cuestick being aligned in a such a way that a ball will be pocketed, then you have an "objective system" for "pocketing balls."

But if you "look at the shot" and think "for this shot I'll need to do x,y, and z" to setup to make the shot, then that's not an "external" system for pocketing balls, it's using your experience of what has worked before to make a shot you have made before. That's something more like "successful practice" than a "shot pocketing system."

It could be called a "system" to "enhance shot making consistency," perhaps. But it's not a system that PRODUCES a shot solution.

Speaking for myself (and I think, others): If I were to try to find an "aiming system" or a "pocketing system" I would want something that tells me WHAT I DON'T KNOW--that TELLS me (or shows me) exactly where to align the cuestick in order to make the shot....with me providing only IMMEDIATE information, like "the OB is here, the CB is there, and the pocket is over there."

If you're saying that Pro-one does that, then I'm all for it (if it in fact does that).

Still, without seeing the DVD, I have doubts--based on the way CTE has been presented in the past. I'm pre-biased in thinking that CTE (or Pro-one) will suggest a series of alignments between OB and CB, and will not include a SPECIFIC alignment regarding the pocket. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to explicitly say so.

I Promise you that the only time I look at the pocket is to see if the path is clear. But that is me.
Is it possible that the math is not taking the movement of the body and eyes in the equation ?
I am not a mathematician ,at least not on your level

 

[dr_dave]

Ball-to-ball aiming or ball relation aiming is the group of aiming systems that have the player aiming one part of the cueball to another part of the object ball. This differs from Ghost ball aiming where you aim the cue ball to a point in space, not on the ball.

I refer to these systems as fraction-ball aiming.

Hal Houle's version of the quarter ball aiming method is a ball-to-ball aiming system. So are Center-to-Edge and Small Ball aiming.

To me, align-and-pivot systems like CTE share some of the attributes of fraction-ball aiming, but the variable pivot (i.e., "effective pivot length" flexibility) creates more feel-based freedom.

Joe Tucker's aiming system I consider a ball-to-ball aiming system and is probably one that most "geometrically correct" stalwarts would agree is an aiming system that fits their preferred model.

I call this type of system contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines aiming. Essentially, it is variation of ghost-ball aiming, IMO.

And then there's stick aiming like The Ultimate Aiming System, Shish Kebob (my personal favorite), and some of the fractional stick systems Hal teaches (9/16ths or something like that). Other than the UAS, most of the other stick aiming systems start with a ball-to-ball relation (center to edge, quarter to center, etc.). Hal separates his stick aiming from his ball-to-ball systems. True students of Hal's should realize that "ball-to- ball" and "stick systems" are how he grouped his systems.

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Thanks. I VERY MUCH appreciate you being upfront about this. You must know that there has been a lot of vagueness in CTE discussions.

My question is this: Don't you agree that people IN THE PAST have made the impression that with CTE "it's not necessary" to "know where the pocket is?"

I can assure you (as a "naysayer") that the main complaint or question that arises from my side is the implication that CTE can produce a "shot solution" by ONLY dealing with the OB and CB. That (as I've insisted before) is mathematically impossible.

Still, from what you put above, I return to thinking that CTE doesn't actually PRODUCE a shot alignment as much as it REPEATS a shot alignment. If you can "look at the shots" and "give the pivots," that means you look at the shots, KNOW the angles (i,e, "the shot," from years of experience) and can give a recipe for setting up for that shot.

See, I don't call that a production of "systematic information" because it includes information from your years of experience.

A person who could faithfully visualize a ghost ball could know exactly where to aim (ignoring throw effects) the FIRST SECOND he tried it--he wouldn't have to include "knowledge." That is a "systematic" source of aiming/shot information that doesn't depend on any "shot" or "angle" knowledge from the player.

If you have a "formula" which, if followed exactly (say, robotically), "point this at that, look at this line, pivot toward here" that ends up with the cuestick being aligned in a such a way that a ball will be pocketed, then you have an "objective system" for "pocketing balls."

But if you "look at the shot" and think "for this shot I'll need to do x,y, and z" to setup to make the shot, then that's not an "external" system for pocketing balls, it's using your experience of what has worked before to make a shot you have made before. That's something more like "successful practice" than a "shot pocketing system."

It could be called a "system" to "enhance shot making consistency," perhaps. But it's not a system that PRODUCES a shot solution.

Speaking for myself (and I think, others): If I were to try to find an "aiming system" or a "pocketing system" I would want something that tells me WHAT I DON'T KNOW--that TELLS me (or shows me) exactly where to align the cuestick in order to make the shot....with me providing only IMMEDIATE information, like "the OB is here, the CB is there, and the pocket is over there."

If you're saying that Pro-one does that, then I'm all for it (if it in fact does that).

Still, without seeing the DVD, I have doubts--based on the way CTE has been presented in the past. I'm pre-biased in thinking that CTE (or Pro-one) will suggest a series of alignments between OB and CB, and will not include a SPECIFIC alignment regarding the pocket. If I'm wrong about that, I'll be MORE THAN HAPPY to explicitly say so.

The pocket is there and I know it's there but the pocket does not carry as much conscious weight as other systems do.

I do not know the angles for shots. CTE yeilds a consistent solution for ball pocketing.

The XYZ is for practice. During play the process becomes subconscious after a reasonalble time of weeks to a few months. Very acceptable IMO.

Ghost ball is not objective. Ghost balls can't be seen.

When you say I would want this or that.....that is your Math intelligence and reading intelligence speaking.....What does your visual intelligence want or what does your physical intelligence want? Objectivity and repeatability. That's what CTE/PRO ONE gives its users.

Stan

 

[dr_dave]

LAMas: I am a double the distance aimer - from the center of the OB to the contact point, that sends the OB to the target/pocket, toward the outside edge of the OB. This serves me well for shots from 1 degree to 30 degrees. All of the contact and double distance points can be visualized on the surface of the equator of the OB. For cuts that are more than 30 degrees, the double distance aim points are off of the edge of the OB.

PJ: The contact point is not only centered between the CB/OB centers; it's also centered between their inside edges. When you get past a 30-degree (half ball) cut you can switch from "double-the-distance" to "double-the-overlap". You can't aim your stick at it, but it might help.

FYI to LaMas: There are some good illustrations and explanations here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#double​

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

By my definition, the true ghost-ball position is the position that takes throw (CIT or SIT) into consideration. That's why ghost-ball is great for beginners. You can start them out with the basic form (assuming no throw). Then you can introduce CIT and SIT, and show how the required ghost-ball position is actually slightly different for different types of shots.

Regardless of which "aiming system" you might teach, squirt, swerve, and throw must be dealt with. IMO, ghost-ball aiming offers a straightforward way to deal with throw, and BHE/FHE offers a straightforward way to deal with squerve (squirt + swerve). Both techniques require lots of practice, but the "information" is clear and understandable.

I cannot fathom how ghost ball offers any advantage whatsoever over any legitimate aiming system for dealing with throw. Please explain. Thanks.

It doesn't necessarily offer "an advantage," but I think it offers a good way to think about throw. It also offers a natural progression for learning. First use the line-of-centers to identify the ghost-ball position. And after you learn about and understand throw (CIT and SIT), adjust the ghost-ball position to create the angle necessary to compensate for throw.

But I see your point. Any system that takes into account the ghost-ball center, contact point, or cut angle needed for a given shot can correct for throw with a straightforward adjustment.

Regards,
Dave

 

[LAMas]

FYI to LaMas: There are some good illustrations and explanations here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#double​

Regards,
Dave

Yes, I have studied your examples and accept them on their face and have learned how to compensate for them (imperfections)....especially when the OB and CB are close together etc..
Thanks.

 

[Cornerman]

I refer to these systems as fraction-ball aiming.

Definitely a big gap between fractional aiming and ball-to-ball systems. Especially since the 1/4 ball hit traditionally is not a ball-to-ball aiming method (it's a cueball to a point-in-space aim) where as the Hall Houle methods that address 1/4 ball aiming is most definitely a ball-to-ball aiming method (he uses a point on the cueball to aim at a point on the object ball for the 1/4 ball aim).

Traditional fractional aiming using 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 aiming lines is something that Hal Houle moved away from which is why his systems are new and his. His methods should end up in the same lines, however. The whole crux of his systems is to use actual points on the balls, not points in space.

If I'm not making sense, then that should tell you that there's a gap in understanding (which no doubt there is a gap).

Ball-to-ball systems use a point on the cueball aimed to a point on the object ball as start point, pivot or no pivot. I think it's important that if we refer to Hal Houle's systems or systems that are offshoots of his systems, we should refer to them as he refers to them. That's my opinion.

Fred

 

[cookie man]

Then Hal Houle should be the one getting the money from the DVD because by all accounts I've read on this thread, it's HIS "system".

Maniac

How do you know he isn't?

 

[LAMas]

Definitely a big gap between fractional aiming and ball-to-ball systems. Especially since the 1/4 ball hit traditionally is not a ball-to-ball aiming method (it's a cueball to a point-in-space aim) where as the Hall Houle methods that address 1/4 ball aiming is most definitely a ball-to-ball aiming method (he uses a point on the cueball to aim at a point on the object ball for the 1/4 ball aim).

Traditional fractional aiming using 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 aiming lines is something that Hal Houle moved away from which is why his systems are new and his. His methods should end up in the same lines, however. The whole crux of his systems is to use actual points on the balls, not points in space.

If I'm not making sense, then that should tell you that there's a gap in understanding (which no doubt there is a gap).

Ball-to-ball systems use a point on the cueball aimed to a point on the object ball as start point, pivot or no pivot. I think it's important that if we refer to Hal Houle's systems or systems that are offshoots of his systems, we should refer to them as he refers to them. That's my opinion.

Fred

When looking at the point on the CB lined up with a point on the OB - The cue tip if pointed at the center of the CB will be a parallel offset that needs to be almost perfect - sans slight angles.

Thanks...I concur:smile:

 

[dr_dave]

Fred,

I appreciate your point of view, and I get it.

My main point is that any system based only on a few points or lines of aim (like fractional-ball aiming systems or Hal Houle's 3-angle system, or even CTE) are similar in concept (and in limitations). For more info, see the analysis here. Regardless, I still see the value in aiming systems like these.

Regards,
Dave

Definitely a big gap between fractional aiming and ball-to-ball systems. Especially since the 1/4 ball hit traditionally is not a ball-to-ball aiming method (it's a cueball to a point-in-space aim) where as the Hall Houle methods that address 1/4 ball aiming is most definitely a ball-to-ball aiming method (he uses a point on the cueball to aim at a point on the object ball for the 1/4 ball aim).

Traditional fractional aiming using 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 aiming lines is something that Hal Houle moved away from which is why his systems are new and his. His methods should end up in the same lines, however. The whole crux of his systems is to use actual points on the balls, not points in space.

If I'm not making sense, then that should tell you that there's a gap in understanding (which no doubt there is a gap).

Ball-to-ball systems use a point on the cueball aimed to a point on the object ball as start point, pivot or no pivot. I think it's important that if we refer to Hal Houle's systems or systems that are offshoots of his systems, we should refer to them as he refers to them. That's my opinion.

Fred

 

[cookie man]

I played for about 20 years on feel and my improvement stopped. I worked on CTE about 8 months and I gained so much it is incredible. With that said I dont think CTE has limitations on the END results. I think I will
further improve my consistency after working with Stans dvd
Respectfully Petey

I second this opinion.

 

[duckie]

Cool little video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmNcYH52eo&feature=fvw

Stop it at where aiming is discussed. See the two balls touching. No matter what angle you look at it, the CP is in the same spot and same size. No such thing as a 1/4,1/2 ball and so on.

See the x. That is the point of the arrow. So using the arrow trains you to see a spot on the table, in this case the x.

Now this is where I disagree with alot of people about GB and that is putting the center of the CB at the x or on the same plane as the CP of the OB.

My view is that the CB contact patch is what is rolled over the x or the point of the arrow. The CB contact patch being the area of the CB that touches the table.

Now the CB contact patch has a opposite point that is on top of the CB. So all you have to do is get straight behind the CB and aim the top of the CB to the x or arrow and the OB will go in.

Oh, see the line and x that was drawn. the line represent the direction of travel and the x represents the start point of the direction of travel. So, once the spot is located on the table, the OB is not really needed.

But even with this over a long period of time, you will just get in the frame of mind of put the CB here, the OB goes there.

FWIW

Simple.

 

[Cornerman]

Fred,

I appreciate your point of view, and I get it.

My main point is that any system based only on a few points or lines of aim (like fractional-ball aiming systems or Hal Houle's 3-angle system, or even CTE) are similar in concept (and in limitations). For more info, see the analysis here. Regardless, I still see the value in aiming systems like these.

Regards,
Dave

Definitely a gap, which is why these threads go crazy from the get go. I know it's vague, but I think if you and I sat down and discussed it, you'd reconsider how you describe the systems.

Maybe in the end, you'd still call it fractional aiming. From where I sit, there's no way I'd group what many of us do under that umbrella.

Fred

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...As the OB is moved down table, the shift to the center of the OB becomes a smaller distance from the original CTEL because when the OB appears smaller, the distance to the center of the CB on a smaller appearing OB is also smaller.

Not unless your shift is not really parallel.

pj
chgo

With the pointer over the spot, get down like your aiming a shot with your eyes at, say, an arms length behind the pointer. Make a mark behind the pointer, turn the pointer on and aim it at one edge of the OB.

So the laser beam goes from CB center to OB edge, right?

While still down, roll the pointer until the laser is now pointing at the center of the OB

In other words, a parallel beam, but pointing at the OB center, right?

Now place a CB on top of the second mark an notice that the first mark isn’t right under the first mark, but is instead between the Center of the CB and the outer edge of the CB.

If the two beams are parallel, then they're an equal distance apart all the way along, right? That's the definition of parallel. We know the far ends are 1 1/8" apart because that's how far it is from the edge of the OB to its center. Then the near ends must also be 1 1/8" apart or they're not parallel. How large or small the OB looks to you has nothing to do with it.

I contend that the shift is parallel but affected by foreshortening

There's no such thing as "parallel, but". Lines are either parallel (equidistant all along their lengths) or they aren't.

pj
chgo

 

[Cornerman]

When looking at the point on the CB lined up with a point on the OB - The cue tip if pointed at the center of the CB will be a parallel offset that needs to be almost perfect - sans slight angles.

Thanks...I concur:smile:

Yes, you're right, unless the imperfection in sighting "parallel" is part of the system. Gasp. But, that's been a conjecture of mine from the start. As I've said, I've been pretty amazed when shots that couldn't possibly be aligned correctly went in. I think we're on the same page. This line of thinking (on my part) is why anyone with any logic would think this style of aiming is simply voodoo or hypnotism.

That being said, many of the pivoting aiming methods get away from this issue of the need of a parallel offset of your cueball (assuming centerball) vs the two point ball-to-ball aim line.

Fred