Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
I don't think that I did imply that players who don't use CTE or similar systems can't be great players. I certainly didn't mean to imply that, don't think that and have never to my knowledge overtly said any such thing.
I get regularly spanked by people who use pure Ghost Ball. I mean real true textbook GB with a laser straight stroke.
There is one major thing that you and others are not seeing here. It's NOT easy to make a proper video showing this. Maybe you think that this is the the essential problem because it is easy to make a chalk circle and show GB aiming.
But most of the people on AZ who use CTE are amateurs without access to the type of equipment that they need to show this from the proper angles in the right resolution.
I rigged up the camera to be as high over the table as I could today and it was still tough to get enough table to properly show the motions. The video I did capture is pretty useless because it's impossible to understand the motion without seeing the whole picture. On playback it just looks like any other shot. You honestly cannot see what CTE "is" by filming without some major effort in my opinion.
Again this goes back to my earlier statements of why GB is favored. It's easy to diagram and extremely easy to show on video with any camera.
And I honestly do not have the time to be fooling with it right now.
For what it's worth though I do not consider Randy G, Stan Shuffet, or Scott Lee to be the "fringe". You can discount my testimony and the testimony of all the other people who claim success with CTE who are nobodies in the pool world. We have about as much credibility as you or Lou or Mike do. You say is not and we say is too, cancels out.
Honestly if you had ever truly wanted to learn CTE then you would have. YOu would have learned it as well as Dave Segal knows it or anyone else. No reason to think that you wouldn't have other than you simply didn't want to. From the beginning you have been intellectually against Hal's systems and I understand why. But I do feel that at some point you should have made a real effort to learn the technique from the source so you then could at least say you had the information and followed the directions and THEN posted your conclusions.
Maybe given your skepticism you would have been the perfect person to learn it.
As for me being a good shot maker, of course I was a good shot maker before CTE. I put in the table time like everyone else who reaches a decent level. I wasn't saying I went from lousy to great. But I certainly know that I went from less than 50% on some shots to closer to 70% and on the 70% shots I went to 90% or so. In other words I know how I improved due to Hal's systems.
So now you're claiming to have everyone who has expressed no opinion as supporters of your side?
And you call me delusional?
Let's keep it real here, that is what you want right? What is your pool pedigree?
My opinion really means nothing as I have no pedigree to back up my statements. If we talk cases then I do but in pool I have nothing to back me up. What do you have?
Randy is a former national champion. Landon Shuffet is the student of Stan Shuffet and Landon has multiple national championships under his belt.
These two alone outweigh your end. No one on your side in this thread has the hardware to back them up.
Not you, not Pat, not Lou, not Mike, not Dave Alciatore. None of them have the pool credentials that their opinion matters.
As I have said this all boils down to a truly SIMPLE way to measure whether it works or not.
Does the user make more balls or not? Yes? then it works.
Does the user make tougher shots more consistently? Yes. Then it works.
Do people see measurable improvement AFTER learning it? So far the majority who have say yes. So conclusion? It works.
Based on the SIMPLE measure of more shots made.
John: this is not a cross for me to bear. Because each time you bring it up it just shows everyone what a weenie you are
Lou Figueroa
And that Lou got beat by a weenie in tin foil hat at HIS game.
Dave Stem az name cookie man Proud user of Pro-One, and student of Stan Shuffet with a special thanks to Dave Segal.
Baltimore Maryland
Sorry John. What you say is evidence of your DELUSION about CTE. It's the same, nearly identical arguments over and over: you try to INSIST on using indirect evidence for support (Somebody's "pedigree" is more substantial than mine, etc, etc. Or, "IT WORKS!"--as a substitute for explanation of why or how it works) while ignoring DIRECT evidence against (CTE doesn't even AIM at pockets, so it's OBVIOUSLY not an aiming system).
That's all part of the RECIPE for delusion.
There's just no way that I can help you with that. Obviously, at some point in your playing, you needed to ESCAPE reality (especially in regard to the problems of aiming), and you chose to BELIEVE, and to reject KNOWING and THINKING as your approach to the game.
That was your choice. And I can't do anything for you about it.
Snapped another tourny last night , guess I will just have to live with it,
And I didnt look at the pockets to aim. I may have missed 2 balls the last match
Last edited:
Maybe not, but here's what I was responding to (quoted in my 1st reply):
John, this is something you're not seeing. I'm the one who has said all along that videos of players saying they're using CTE are meaningless for this very reason. It's you and Spidey who insist on posting them.
Yet another thing you don't get (after all this time and saying it endlessly): I haven't discounted anybody's claim of success with CTE. But I completely discount what you and others on here say about how you think it works for you. I don't think any of you guys have a clue about that (and our visit confirmed that for me regarding you).
This unawareness of how CTE works by everybody who uses it is a crucial fact for those considering whether it's worth their time and money to explore. A "system" that its users can't describe or understand may be just what some are looking for, but I'm guessing many more won't be interested unless that can be overcome. I think people have a legitimate interest in knowing what kind of system CTE is, and I'm trying to make that choice clear.
That's right, I have no interest in learning a system that nobody can describe, because I know that such a system is more psychology than geometry, which isn't what I need. You'll say, as usual, that I don't have enough information to make a rational judgement, but that's your lack of understanding, not mine. You simply can't see that the fact that CTE can't be described is plenty of information for me to decide whether or not it's the kind of system that I have an interest in. And I think it's plenty of information for most people - all except the relative few who want a system that they have to "believe in".
I think you know that you improved; I don't think you know how. And I don't think the "blind way" is for everybody, and I think everybody should know that's the way CTE seems to be. I don't accept the principle that people should have to buy a system before finding out the most basic thing about what it is - and they're not getting that information from CTE's retailers and cheerleaders (which should make them wary).
pj
chgo
Last edited:
That's nice, Petey (really), but it has nothing to do with why I called your claims about CTE dumb. In fact, it's more evidence that you don't know how to tell what applies and what doesn't.
Nice shooting, but irrelevant.
pj
chgo
Pete (I hope you don't mind me calling you Pete - to me it seems incongruous for a man to put a "Y" on the end of his name.) Congratulations on your tournament win last evening. What type of tourney was it - eight or nine ball, APA, BCA or local bar/room, how many entrants were there and what is their level of play. Where was the tourney held? Just curious. Thanks!
The system is a center pocket system. Which leaves a margin of error
on either side of the center of the pocket. It could be a visual error or a stroke error.
It gives you room for a little human error. Not a system error
Thanks Petey
Last edited:
Just went to Spidey's blog and read how to make a thin cut which has always been a problem with the system. Simply didn't know how, using it.
On my 10' carom table with OB about 2" from the short and on the first diamond and the CB on the same diamond oppisite short rail. Did the lineup and pivot as described and wacked it into the other corner.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. Works for me.
On my 10' carom table with OB about 2" from the short and on the first diamond and the CB on the same diamond oppisite short rail. Did the lineup and pivot as described and wacked it into the other corner.
Hmmmmmmmmmm. Works for me.
It is a weekly Monday night tournament . I do not do APA. It was BIH
8b. Loser breaks . Very good players in the tournament. I also play
9b on Fridays with the best players and gamblers around. It is at
76 billiards and starts at about 8,30 . And as far as the y goes
everyone calls me Petey and I dont have a problem with it so
you shouldn't either. Are you from my area ? That is a pretty scary screen name.
I would be more concerned with someone with a prison screen name than a guy who adds a
y to their REAL name
Thanks Petey
Last edited:
Thanks.
At the end of the thread, when prizes are going to be awarded, I'm going to put you up for the "Silliest Post on the Why CTE is Silly Thread." I think you'll probably win (since I'll be fixing the results, anyhow).
btw, here's the "GMT" method for aiming and making that shot: "Hit the OB AS THIN AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN--and as hard as you can to drive it about four feet. And good luck! On a 5 X 10 table, the accuracy needed (if you were to actually pocket the ball--and for that you need a table with pockets) is LESS THAN ONE THOUSANDTH OF AN INCH--at a distance of nearly 10 feet. A human hair, is, on average, about FOUR THOUSANDTHS of an inch.
Obviously, a MIGHTY GOOD SYSTEM was used to make that shot; it could only have been a CENTER POCKET SYSTEM--no lesser system could make it, that's for sure
Last edited:
...and I will nominate you for the biggest douchenozzle on AzBilliards award.
I think you'll win too.
Okay, after reading this statement I am left to ask where is the "magic" or what is the "secret sauce" of CTE if you are regularly getting spanked by people using Ghost Ball?
I'm starting to begin a slow gradual lean toward the side of CTE detractors if CTE users can't do any better than this. I will still remain neutral though, because I don't care what ANYONE on this thread says, if somebody is using a "system" that they believe works for them, then it WILL work for them, one way or another (mentally or physically).
It is beginning to sound as if no "system" for aiming is any better than any other. It all depends on the user of any "system" to be able to EXECUTE what he/she is trying to accomplish with whatever method of their choosing happens to be.
These are my opinions. You may have your own (I certainly hope so anyway
). Keep in mind people, an opinion CANNOT be right nor wrong. Maniac
Hey 3kushn:
Is this you working with CTE in this video?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SvYeqLg4dQU
"These were places David clearly thought there were pockets on this table. It's easy to see here... there were no pockets there..."
-Sean
Different versions of CTE
John,
Thank you for sharing this "simple version" of CTE:
CTE Simple Version from JB Cases:
Now we have seen three different, but similar, versions of CTE, all of which are summarized and analyzed here:
It seems like Version 3 (from Spidey's blog) is the most widely accepted "official version" of CTE, but I'm not sure. We still haven't seen meaningful or useful descriptions of "Pro-One" or "Same-Aim" yet, which also purport to be CTE systems. This is the problem with CTE threads. Until we agree on a clear, complete, and consistent definition of CTE, it is meaningless to argue about, or even discuss, CTE.
Regardless, the illustrations and explanations on my CTE resource page concerning "effective pivot length" do provide a reasonable answer for how all versions of CTE "work" for a wide range of shots with varying cut angles. I also provide two other possible approaches to make CTE work as you develop your "visual intelligence" and "eye/body synergy" via "experience at the table." CTE also provides other benefits that might help some people with their pre-shot routine and actual "aiming".
Until we see a clear video similar to what I have described (see below), all of this stuff will remain a mystery, and CTE will continue to be questioned by people who don't like seeing others "make extraordinary claims in marketing an undefined system."
Regards,
Dave
Video necessary to clearly define what CTE is and how it works:
This video would show different views and close-ups (especially from above) that show exactly how a CTE user aligns, pivots, and strokes for a wide range of shots with varying cut angles. Then, it will be clear to everybody "how it works."
The video must clearly show the steps (alignment, pivot, stroke) and how they change with varying cut angle. The changes might seem natural and even subconscious; but with clear camera views, the differences from one shot to the next will be obvious, and this will conclusively prove how CTE works.
If we can agree on an "official" version of CTE, I would be happy to create and post a video showing how CTE works, by clearly identifying what changes from one shot to another. I first need a clear and complete description of the "official" version of CTE, accepted by most CTE proponents. If I need to wait for Stan's DVD, that's fine. If not, I hope somebody can post a simple explanation, or just clearly explain what steps are wrong and/or missing (and provide the correct information) in any of the three versions described here:
John,
Thank you for sharing this "simple version" of CTE:
CTE Simple Version from JB Cases:
1. AIM the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball.
2. AIM the cuestick tip to the edge of the cue ball.
3. Pivot to center and now the cuestick is AIMED at the proper line to make the ball.
1,2,3. Do this the same way for every shot. That's the simplest version.
2. AIM the cuestick tip to the edge of the cue ball.
3. Pivot to center and now the cuestick is AIMED at the proper line to make the ball.
1,2,3. Do this the same way for every shot. That's the simplest version.
Now we have seen three different, but similar, versions of CTE, all of which are summarized and analyzed here:
It seems like Version 3 (from Spidey's blog) is the most widely accepted "official version" of CTE, but I'm not sure. We still haven't seen meaningful or useful descriptions of "Pro-One" or "Same-Aim" yet, which also purport to be CTE systems. This is the problem with CTE threads. Until we agree on a clear, complete, and consistent definition of CTE, it is meaningless to argue about, or even discuss, CTE.
Regardless, the illustrations and explanations on my CTE resource page concerning "effective pivot length" do provide a reasonable answer for how all versions of CTE "work" for a wide range of shots with varying cut angles. I also provide two other possible approaches to make CTE work as you develop your "visual intelligence" and "eye/body synergy" via "experience at the table." CTE also provides other benefits that might help some people with their pre-shot routine and actual "aiming".
Until we see a clear video similar to what I have described (see below), all of this stuff will remain a mystery, and CTE will continue to be questioned by people who don't like seeing others "make extraordinary claims in marketing an undefined system."
Regards,
Dave
Video necessary to clearly define what CTE is and how it works:
This video would show different views and close-ups (especially from above) that show exactly how a CTE user aligns, pivots, and strokes for a wide range of shots with varying cut angles. Then, it will be clear to everybody "how it works."
The video must clearly show the steps (alignment, pivot, stroke) and how they change with varying cut angle. The changes might seem natural and even subconscious; but with clear camera views, the differences from one shot to the next will be obvious, and this will conclusively prove how CTE works.
If we can agree on an "official" version of CTE, I would be happy to create and post a video showing how CTE works, by clearly identifying what changes from one shot to another. I first need a clear and complete description of the "official" version of CTE, accepted by most CTE proponents. If I need to wait for Stan's DVD, that's fine. If not, I hope somebody can post a simple explanation, or just clearly explain what steps are wrong and/or missing (and provide the correct information) in any of the three versions described here:
Here's a interesting little shot. You are shooting the ten ball on a 9 ft table.
There is no direct path for the 10 to the corner. To make this shot the 10 has to go rail first then carom off the 1 to go in the corner.
Also, the 10 and CB placement is such that you have to use a bridge, or stand to the side of the table and lean over to stroke. The "standard" stance will not work here.The 5 ball really doesn't help for bridge placement either.
Since is has been stated that CTE is a center pocket system, it is useless on this shot.
I'd rather use a method that allows me to put any ball anywhere on the table. CTE does not do this. Notice I said on the table cause there are times there is no pocket and a safety is all you got.
Everything I read about CTE is always about putting a ball in the pocket and not being able to put any ball anywhere on the table. Major weakness.
There is no direct path for the 10 to the corner. To make this shot the 10 has to go rail first then carom off the 1 to go in the corner.
Also, the 10 and CB placement is such that you have to use a bridge, or stand to the side of the table and lean over to stroke. The "standard" stance will not work here.The 5 ball really doesn't help for bridge placement either.
Since is has been stated that CTE is a center pocket system, it is useless on this shot.
I'd rather use a method that allows me to put any ball anywhere on the table. CTE does not do this. Notice I said on the table cause there are times there is no pocket and a safety is all you got.
Everything I read about CTE is always about putting a ball in the pocket and not being able to put any ball anywhere on the table. Major weakness.
Yep that's me. I've had my own table for nearly 20 years and haven't pocket a single ball. Even the ball I just cut down the short didn't fallHey 3kushn:
Is this you working with CTE in this video?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SvYeqLg4dQU
"These were places David clearly thought there were pockets on this table. It's easy to see here... there were no pockets there..."
-Sean
That's why I've been searching for an aiming system. CTE seems to be the most promising.
And for your GMT I make feather cuts all the time using another system I learned here on AZ. But we won't get into that one. It wouldn't sound right to you and therefore useless nonsense.
- Status