I'm afraid that if you REALLY KNEW the pleasure I get from reading such a post, you wouldn't post it
Why CTE is silly
- Thread starter GetMeThere
- Start date
- Status
I'm afraid that if you REALLY KNEW the pleasure I get from reading such a post, you wouldn't post it
AHA! So if you win (or any arbitrarily chosen CTE advocate) then CTE is TRUE, and (you must agree), if I win (or any arbitrarily chosen CTE disparager) then CTE is FALSE.
With logic like that you should be in government (or maybe the vatican
)
Too bad Internet access wasn't more widespread back in the late 70's. Just think of all the posts (900?) swearing Jim Jones and the People's Temple was the greatest thing since Kool-Aid...
Lou Figueroa
I guess you will have to find someone who can demonstrate it for you so that you can apply your higher education to figuring out why they are able to do what they are doing.
No one said that the target is undefined. When you approach a shot then you automatically approach it in the correct general direction. Even the rankest beginner has an innate sense of which way to face the cueball in relation to the object ball and pocket.
It just so happens that when the cueball and object ball are approached a certain way using certain reference points they HAPPEN to line up just right to allow the shooter to lay his cue down on the correct line which corresponds to the correct ghost ball line.
The sticking point is that there is no A-B-C guide yet published in print or video which comprehensively details how to apply this method.
But it works. I will leave HOW it works to someone else to describe.
Ya. You can NEVER find a really AUTHENTIC witch doctor when you need one! Hey, I can't even get anyone to explain to me how ASTROLOGY works. I guess people who can explain that stuff are too busy working on really IMPORTANT things...
Hal called me up (no, really) and we discussed CTE a long time ago.
Didn't change my mind, quickly or slowly
Lou Figueroa
Pool instructions and sex are pretty similar in the fact that while you may get a little something over the phone, in person just works better.
I don't know how Stand and Hal teach it or do it, just how Ron V showed me. His 90/90 CTE system is great. For pocketing cut shots and bank shots. I've never shown ANYONE in person who wasn't impressed.
AHA! So if you win (or any arbitrarily chosen CTE advocate) then CTE is TRUE, and (you must agree), if I win (or any arbitrarily chosen CTE disparager) then CTE is FALSE.
With logic like that you should be in government (or maybe the vatican
Nope, just that I have the personal satisfaction of beating you using the methods you think are BS.
As I tried to explain to you before part of the love of the game is making balls disappear. Using Hal's methods helps me to do that more often and when it also culminates in meaningful victories then so much the better.
What it specifically means between you and I is that I using CTE am the better player than you are using whatever method you choose to aim if I should happen to win over a long enough session. Of course there are many reasons beyond CTE that I might be better than you but should I win then I will sure to highlight the fact that I was using CTE (or like systems) while beating you.
Once again though your logic escapes me. So you claim to have some PM's where people are not happy with whatever "alternative" to ghost ball aiming they learned while in paid lessons and you use that extrapolate and bolster your idea that CTE is BS and yet If I were to give you an old fashioned ass-whipping on the table using CTE it wouldn't be worth anything?
I'm afraid that if you REALLY KNEW the pleasure I get from reading such a post, you wouldn't post it
Well, we already get that you are engaging in some heavy duty mental masturbation. We don't really need to know that you are skilled at typing with one hand.
What you missed was my sarcasm. My point was that we haven't gotten anywhere with all that arguing.
And you're not the first to come with the spreadsheets showing error margins and tolerances either. You're repeating history that didn't work the first (or tenth) time.
That's a different system.
Been there; done that. Many times. Many ways.
Asked and answered many times.
Why do we need this demonstrated yet again?
pj
chgo
Well John Barton. Since everyone knows who you are through your business, you wouldn't be hard to find. If I'm ever nearby I'll offer you your match, and we can settle this argument once and for all
Again, my true, real reason for this was getting my ass around to cranking that data for myself. Since I made the effort (and since it's not top secret) I thought I'd share it. If I knew where someone else had posted the simple diagram/explanation of how to calculate the data, and supplied the cell formulas, then I would have used and verified them. Doing the work myself was probably easier than searching the forum for it--and people are notoriously lax in providing worksheet formulas, etc., meaning that you have to verify what they've done, which ALSO can take more time than just doing it yourself.
I suppose I was also amused by what seemed like a lot of irrational CTE stuff. I couldn't find a definitive explanation of what CTE IS of course, and that directly implied that maybe it isn't ANYTHING. Turns out it isn't.
What DOES surprise me is seeing GANGS of pool players who are so gullible. The times I've spent around pool halls generally has shown pool players to be skeptics (and cynics).
Yes, we are gullible! Someone showed me this voodoo with smoke, mirrors and magic and I simply believed it. Of course, when I got on the table and USED it, I felt even more gullible when the balls were dropping. Man, I'll believe anything that works...
All joking aside (really), you might find it interesting to go to, say, wikipedia, and have a look at some things like: placebo, double-blind trial, or facilitated communication, in order to see the ENORMOUS difficulty people have had over CENTURIES in being able to DETERMINE "what works."
It turns out that it's very easy to be fooled about it.
The story of "facilitated communication" is one that especially has always fascinated me. I'll repeat the gist of it here:
Severely autistic kids can't communicate at all. One guy had the idea that maybe it was because they needed "help." That they weren't just totally pudding between the ears, and instead just couldn't speak, or couldn't sit still long enough to try to communicate what was on their minds.
So he trained people to GUIDE their hands over a typewriter while he asked the kids questions, and the facilitators (who held the kid's hands over the keyboard) "helped." Well, the kids started typing A LOT! And the kid's parents were ECSTATIC with being able to hear what their kids had to say--much of which was that they loved their parents
This was taken VERY SERIOUSLY by the psychology establishment. Hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of facilitators were trained, and found enormous satisfaction in helping these poor kids communicate, and giving great pleasure to their parents.
THEN, some smart ass came along and said: "Wait a minute! How could these kids have even learned to SPELL?" This facilitated communication stuff is bullshit!" So he did the simple test. He put a blinder between the kid and the facilitator, showed the kid apples, or books, or flowers, and asked the kid to type what he saw....and all of a sudden--if the facilitator couldn't see the object--the kid could no longer type what he saw (although he could type it just FINE if the facilitator could see it).
It was all PURE, SWEET, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT.
Further research showed that almost all the facilitators actually had NO IDEA they were just typing whatever the hell they wanted to type! They were doing it and DIDN'T KNOW IT.
(I won't elaborate on the other part of the story that led to the whole thing becomming unwound: Some kids started reporting through their typing that they were being MOLESTED by their parents--in SATANIC RITUALS
)So. Would you have recommended that communicated facilitation be continued--at great expense; training all those facilitators, etc.? The parents LOVED IT, They KNEW it worked. And OF COURSE, the facilitators themselves KNEW it worked! Everybody was HAPPY!
CTE is described (with links to additional resources) here:
It does work for some people. The reasons why it works vary from one individual to another, but here is a list of possible explanations:
Enjoy,
Dave
I looked at those explanations. I noted the absence from all of them the notion that the actual AIMING SYSTEM explained why it worked.
I believe after 12 pages and 176 posts that you have effectively established that CTE hasn't been explained on the web. Not sure, maybe you could make that statement another couple dozen times. We, the unwashed and uneducated peasants who are far below your station and academic acclaim might finally understand that fact if you continue to state it over and over and over. Thanks for all your help with this point.
{disclaimer; doesn't know CTE, doesn't care. Reads these posts solely for entertainment purposes only}
{disclaimer; doesn't know CTE, doesn't care. Reads these posts solely for entertainment purposes only}
John I think there are Forum Members who if you gave them a treasure map, the key to the strong box hold the $10,000.00, a limo ride to where to dig, a shovel, and pointed at the spot to dig, and said you only need dig 2" deep in the sand to get the treasure. They would not put for the effort to get in the limo, or dig.
Here's why this is REALLY hard to describe online:
- CTE should be called Center-to-OUTERMOST-Edge because that's what it is on each and every shot. It's never the "edge" you see as if your eyeball were on the CTEL.
- In order to see a new edge, your eyes must come off the CTEL
(Here's where the breakdown occurs)
- The player's perception of balls and their relation to each other in 3D space cannot be diagrammed EASILY online. Cuetable isn't capable of this. For example, the longer the shot, the shorter the distance you come off the CTEL for a shot of a certain angle. As the distance closes in for that certain angle, the distance increases.
So... I'll say the "process" (such as A, B, C) is the same for each shot, but the math is totally different. Everything changes.
Years ago I asked Hal why can't he help me post diagrams of how it works and he said, "Because it can't be done in 2D."
Now, let's say you have 3 shots all within thick/thin gamut. Unless the balls are stacked on top of each other, they will all have a different outermost-edge you must address. The difference in setup is identical; however, your eyes move sliiiightly to see the outermost edge of the shot. Many times, you're talking about such a subtle movement. From that new perspective, you are now looking at a different CB center.
I'm confident Stan's video will cover these topics well. Stan shows Hal a lot of love in that video. I hope the SPF instructors do the same with their Same Aim and give the proper credit where credit is due. I don't care what it's called - Hal is the source.
I'll say this and then I'll go back to eating popcorn and reading this nonsense for entertainment...... Hal is so goddamn smart I half wonder if he's an alien. After YEARS of grinding away at this info to really find out WHY (like the rest of you) this works, I'm just now getting it (with the help of some math friends). I think I have everything down on paper with the exception of distance/outermost-edge relationship (which can't be done on paper).
Maybe after Stan's video comes out we can renew this discussion in a meaningful way. The system 100% works and I also think it's geometrically PERFECT to zero tolerance. Human perception is what makes it imperfect as does friction (both need to be recognized and adjusted for). We prob need a robot to see how smart this guy really is, believe me.
I only hope we overcome our differences and get to the bottom of it TOGETHER before Hal passes. He should be in the HOF for this info.
- CTE should be called Center-to-OUTERMOST-Edge because that's what it is on each and every shot. It's never the "edge" you see as if your eyeball were on the CTEL.
- In order to see a new edge, your eyes must come off the CTEL
(Here's where the breakdown occurs)
- The player's perception of balls and their relation to each other in 3D space cannot be diagrammed EASILY online. Cuetable isn't capable of this. For example, the longer the shot, the shorter the distance you come off the CTEL for a shot of a certain angle. As the distance closes in for that certain angle, the distance increases.
So... I'll say the "process" (such as A, B, C) is the same for each shot, but the math is totally different. Everything changes.
Years ago I asked Hal why can't he help me post diagrams of how it works and he said, "Because it can't be done in 2D."
Now, let's say you have 3 shots all within thick/thin gamut. Unless the balls are stacked on top of each other, they will all have a different outermost-edge you must address. The difference in setup is identical; however, your eyes move sliiiightly to see the outermost edge of the shot. Many times, you're talking about such a subtle movement. From that new perspective, you are now looking at a different CB center.
I'm confident Stan's video will cover these topics well. Stan shows Hal a lot of love in that video. I hope the SPF instructors do the same with their Same Aim and give the proper credit where credit is due. I don't care what it's called - Hal is the source.
I'll say this and then I'll go back to eating popcorn and reading this nonsense for entertainment...... Hal is so goddamn smart I half wonder if he's an alien. After YEARS of grinding away at this info to really find out WHY (like the rest of you) this works, I'm just now getting it (with the help of some math friends). I think I have everything down on paper with the exception of distance/outermost-edge relationship (which can't be done on paper).
Maybe after Stan's video comes out we can renew this discussion in a meaningful way. The system 100% works and I also think it's geometrically PERFECT to zero tolerance. Human perception is what makes it imperfect as does friction (both need to be recognized and adjusted for). We prob need a robot to see how smart this guy really is, believe me.
I only hope we overcome our differences and get to the bottom of it TOGETHER before Hal passes. He should be in the HOF for this info.
Last edited:
Guys, add to the conver sation in a constructive manner or stay out.
- Status