Why CTE is silly

[Cornerman]

And, Fred, since you don't participate in these threads how can they be so tiring?

I actually read what I wrote and have no idea what I was saying.

I try not participate in these threads because I've already been there, done that. Watching today's thread, it's clear to me that GMT has added nothing new. The threads are tiring overall. The discussion of aiming systems is tiring.

Whether you believe it or not, I think these discussions move the CTE football down the field a bit at time.

I think my past participation (GMT and any newby has many more moons to go before approaching the hours I've put in on these aiming system discussions on these forums) is part of the foundation of the paved road of aiming discussions and their movement.

It's tiring because I've put the hours in. And nothing is really new from the detractor's side, IMO. Even the method of backhanded passive and blatant insults and subsequent denials (by both sides). But, by all means, everyone keep talking.

Fred <~~~ waiting for the DVD

 

[Piercyexclusive]

I like reading this thread it keeps me entertained and informed....
thanks everyone.

sorry for butting in.

I cant see this topic ever really dieing....
I like it just like I like long movies...
Alot.

thanks again

 

[stan shuffett]

Feel free to think whatever you want to think, but please don't continue to share with us every single thought you have, especially the negative ones. Honestly, it is getting a little tiresome. I hope you realize that, based on all of the "feedback" you have received from numerous people (and "Mr. Wilson").

Again, I hope you can become a better "citizen" of AZB over time.

"tangent line: the imaginary line perpendicular to (90 degrees away from) the impact line between the cue ball and an object ball. For a stun shot, the cue ball moves along this line after object-ball impact." glossary, page 264, The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards by "Dr. Dave"

And your definition in your book seems to say the CB moves down the tangent or the impact line between the 2 balls. Of course, we know that the CB moves down a line 1 1/8 inch away from that line. An edge of the cue ball moves down the tangent line.

Stan

 

[Piercyexclusive]

When I was learning how to play the game of billiards, which I love. I never thought about the mathematical aspect of making a ball.

I now that, looking back at the times, my brain was probably calculating everything at a mathematical view.
What I don't get, about this whole thing is, with all these factors and terminology that this thread has been conversing about, how this will help the average person to stand up, grab a cue, move in to the table, lean, aim, and shoot ....
I have some red-neck friends here in ms, which I believe I might be one also, who I have tried and get them to read this whole thread and cann't seem to understand anything.
Now, not everyone is smart and can understand "BIG" vocabulary words, how do we compress this whole discussion to where an average man, most of which has an IQ no larger than their height sometimes, to understand tis or how can I explain this thread to my friends where they can understand?
Is C.T.E. so advance that an average player would have a hard time understanding it?
or is the explanation of C.T.E. the complicated factor.
Is it not for people who can't even hold a cue right?
These are questions only...

Ps. Alot of people hate math and the terminology that goes with it, physically calculating each shot. So when they read this it confuses them.
if my question is stupid.... it may be cause I am a red-neck!

 

[dr_dave]

"tangent line: the imaginary line perpendicular to (90 degrees away from) the impact line between the cue ball and an object ball. For a stun shot, the cue ball moves along this line after object-ball impact." glossary, page 264, The Illustrated Principles of Pool and Billiards by "Dr. Dave"

And your definition in your book seems to say the CB moves down the tangent or the impact line between the 2 balls. Of course, we know that the CB moves down a line 1 1/8 inch away from that line. An edge of the cue ball moves down the tangent line.

I'm glad you have a copy of my book handy. That shows good judgment. :grin-square:

I agree that the definition in the book isn't very clear, but it is correct. Also, Figures 3.1 and 3.3 in the book provide illustrations to reinforce the definition. Here they are:

The "impact line" (AKA "line of centers") is the imaginary line through the centers of the GB and OB. The "tangent line" is "perpendicular to (90 degrees away from)" the impact line. Again, the definition in the book is correct, it just isn't very clear (without the illustrations).

The definition in my revised online glossary is a little better:

tangent line: the imaginary line through the center of the cue ball perpendicular to (90º away from) the “line of centers.” For a stun shot, the cue ball moves along this line after object ball impact.

line of centers: the imaginary line through the centers of the ghost-ball and the object ball (i.e., the “impact line”).​

Sorry for the confusion and terminology nitpicking.

Regards,
Dave

 

[cookie man]

cookie:

Thanks for the kind words about my post. It seems as if everyone agrees on the same thing -- simplicity. You mention when being in the zone, you can sight the CTEL, get down on center ball (not sure what that means -- center ball on the cue ball, post-pivot?), and smack the mole in the face -- presumably in the same spot, which for me, is dead-smack center where the ghostball is.

I think where you and I differ, is that I arrive at the fire control solution in one or two less steps. (I'm an ex-Navy guy -- excuse the gun/missile ballistics terminology -- old habits die hard.) I see the ghostball, and I aim right at it, dead center. You have to sight the CTEL first, and then do your pivot (whether in the air or on the table).

I'm not sure if you caught this in my original post:



Now I'm not saying "you can't" or "you don't have the ability," but I am saying, is that I don't need as many steps to arrive at the same fire control solution.

Is it natural ability? Is it a honed ability based on previous "creative" type abilities (e.g. perceptive abilities honed through drawing/sketching)? I don't know. It *has* very nearly crystallized over the years with practice, I can tell you that. I can now not only see the ghostball as part of my PSR (pre-shot routine) when I'm standing over the shot, about to get into my stance, but I can also see the ghostball out of my peripheral vision now. (That was mentioned in my challenge in the previous post.)

Everything, including visual abilities, increase and hone with practice. There are no shortcuts, no matter what anyone tells you. If you practice "it" enough, you will become better at "it," assuming you do everything leading up to "it" the same (i.e. pre-shot routine, head/eye placement, etc.).

Where my hackles get up, is when I get these snake oil sales pitches from "aiming system of the day du-jour" (to include pivot-based aiming systems) where someone will say to me things like these:

* "Sean, with your ability to visualize so clearly something that does not really exist, if you'd learn CTE, your ability will go up "x" number of balls -- you'd be Bustamante speed!" (I got this one a while ago from a well-known pivot-based aiming advocate, and this one, up until recently, was my "Exhibit A" of the snake oil sales pitch.)

* "Sean, if you know what I know about pivot-based aiming, you'd be ranked number 1!" (I got this one only recently in a PM, and is now probably going to be my new poster child snake oil sales pitch.)

Now I'll never name names, but these are the examples of things that will get me involved in a CTE discussion. When I see these snake oil sales pitches, I go into the Elmer Fudd "kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!" stance with my double-barreled shotgun.

If something works for you, great -- that's the name of the game, after all: pocket those balls and get position. I fully believe CTE works for people, if not for the reasons they claim (i.e. it may actually be disguising/BandAiding something wrong in their PSR, head/eye placement, shot line visualization, etc.). But when an aiming system gets foisted upon me or others with these snake oil claims (samples shown above), that's when I'll jump into the fray. And that's where a lot of the perceived skeptics jump in, as well.

Anyway, if I'm ever down your way, I'd like a friendly game of straight pool, if you're ever so inclined. We'll have to make it a race to 150 or 200 though, because I'm already in the 120s for my high run of the year (in June). Not sure how that stacks up for a full-time working man, but hey, I'm pretty proud of it.

Keep shooting 'em straight,
-Sean

Sean I was trying to say that it is basically the same. I see the CTEL line like you see the GB, they are two different things, but they both get you too the right place. People IMO worry to much about the pivot, it really is no big deal, and we are basically doing the same thing. The difference is I am looking at the same thing every shot and it is not an imaginary thing. Although you see the gb clearly it is still imaginary,( I don't see it clearly) where as I sight through the CTEL very clearly. To me that is a much more visual thing to see. I used feel and GB for twenty years and the CTEL for about three years now, I know the difference and the simalarities. Pro - one is definatly the way to aim IMO.
Would love to play some sometime. 120 for a working man is not to shabby, you should be proud, and I better start working on my straight pool.

 

[lfigueroa]

But, by all means, everyone keep talking.

...nothing is really new...Even the method of backhanded passive and blatant insults...

Fred

Yes, yes -- me too. I can see how that hasn't changed ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[mantis99]

cookie:

Thanks for the kind words about my post. It seems as if everyone agrees on the same thing -- simplicity. You mention when being in the zone, you can sight the CTEL, get down on center ball (not sure what that means -- center ball on the cue ball, post-pivot?), and smack the mole in the face -- presumably in the same spot, which for me, is dead-smack center where the ghostball is.

I think where you and I differ, is that I arrive at the fire control solution in one or two less steps. (I'm an ex-Navy guy -- excuse the gun/missile ballistics terminology -- old habits die hard.) I see the ghostball, and I aim right at it, dead center. You have to sight the CTEL first, and then do your pivot (whether in the air or on the table).

I'm not sure if you caught this in my original post:



Now I'm not saying "you can't" or "you don't have the ability," but I am saying, is that I don't need as many steps to arrive at the same fire control solution.

Is it natural ability? Is it a honed ability based on previous "creative" type abilities (e.g. perceptive abilities honed through drawing/sketching)? I don't know. It *has* very nearly crystallized over the years with practice, I can tell you that. I can now not only see the ghostball as part of my PSR (pre-shot routine) when I'm standing over the shot, about to get into my stance, but I can also see the ghostball out of my peripheral vision now. (That was mentioned in my challenge in the previous post.)

Everything, including visual abilities, increase and hone with practice. There are no shortcuts, no matter what anyone tells you. If you practice "it" enough, you will become better at "it," assuming you do everything leading up to "it" the same (i.e. pre-shot routine, head/eye placement, etc.).

Where my hackles get up, is when I get these snake oil sales pitches from "aiming system of the day du-jour" (to include pivot-based aiming systems) where someone will say to me things like these:

* "Sean, with your ability to visualize so clearly something that does not really exist, if you'd learn CTE, your ability will go up "x" number of balls -- you'd be Bustamante speed!" (I got this one a while ago from a well-known pivot-based aiming advocate, and this one, up until recently, was my "Exhibit A" of the snake oil sales pitch.)

* "Sean, if you know what I know about pivot-based aiming, you'd be ranked number 1!" (I got this one only recently in a PM, and is now probably going to be my new poster child snake oil sales pitch.)

Now I'll never name names, but these are the examples of things that will get me involved in a CTE discussion. When I see these snake oil sales pitches, I go into the Elmer Fudd "kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit!" stance with my double-barreled shotgun.

If something works for you, great -- that's the name of the game, after all: pocket those balls and get position. I fully believe CTE works for people, if not for the reasons they claim (i.e. it may actually be disguising/BandAiding something wrong in their PSR, head/eye placement, shot line visualization, etc.). But when an aiming system gets foisted upon me or others with these snake oil claims (samples shown above), that's when I'll jump into the fray. And that's where a lot of the perceived skeptics jump in, as well.

Anyway, if I'm ever down your way, I'd like a friendly game of straight pool, if you're ever so inclined. We'll have to make it a race to 150 or 200 though, because I'm already in the 120s for my high run of the year (in June). Not sure how that stacks up for a full-time working man, but hey, I'm pretty proud of it.

Keep shooting 'em straight,
-Sean

Good posts. However, given the fact that others do not see the ghost ball correctly with all shots, especially larger angle and back angle shots, it is nice to think of an aiming system that puts you into the right spot without having to be correct about where the ghost ball goes when you get down on the shot. That seems to be the big draw back to GB. Once the angle gets big enough and the pocket is not in such direct sight, your visual placement of where the GB should be can be off. The idea of CTE is that it puts your aim into the right spot automatically no matter what the angle is (at least that is myu understanding, correct me if I am wrong). From there, you should just have to stroke the ball correctly. People without such good visual/spatial skill would then be able to aim with CTE as well as you aim with GB, thus being a very valuable tool if it true.

 

[mantis99]

I still don't understand why there has not been much of a response to the geometric presentation from LAMAs, especially by getmethere.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mantis99:
The idea of CTE is that it puts your aim into the right spot automatically no matter what the angle is (at least that is myu understanding, correct me if I am wrong). From there, you should just have to stroke the ball correctly. People without such good visual/spatial skill would then be able to aim with CTE as well as you aim with GB, thus being a very valuable tool if it true.

The problem with this idea is that it's entirely implausible. There's no possible way to aim accurately without reference to the pocket location. This is a simple geometric and logical truth that many just don't seem to get.

So while CTE seems to help some players, it isn't because it's better than ghost ball in this way.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

mantis99:
I still don't understand why there has not been much of a response to the geometric presentation from LAMAs

It's not clear that LaMas's drawing has anything to do with CTE. We already have too many people talking about too many personal versions of the system.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The problem with this idea is that it's entirely implausible. There's no possible way to aim accurately without reference to the pocket location. This is a simple geometric and logical truth that many just don't seem to get.

So while CTE seems to help some players, it isn't because it's better than ghost ball in this way.

pj
chgo

The only thing one must know is what gamut the shot falls within: thick, thin, thinner and razor-thin (I never shoot these anyways). Why is there 3 categories for thin and 1 for thick: friction.

Therefore, I can ignore the pocket (doesn't matter) because based on where I'm standing in relation to the CB/OB orientation, I can deduce VERY accurately which of the 3 shots (excluding razor thin) any shot falls within.

So, of course the pocket matters --- one must know the relationship the pocket has to the OB to determine the shot type (thick, thin, thinner). However, the "ghost-ball position / line to the pocket" doesn't matter a bit.

 

[Neil]

The problem with this idea is that it's entirely implausible. There's no possible way to aim accurately without reference to the pocket location. This is a simple geometric and logical truth that many just don't seem to get.

So while CTE seems to help some players, it isn't because it's better than ghost ball in this way.

pj
chgo

Actually Pat, it's entirely plausible. Re-read Stans posts on the subject and you might understand why. You are so hung up on what works on paper, that you fail to see what works on felt.:wink: The only thing you initially need the pocket for is to see how you want to start your aiming, thick, thin, or thinnest. Once you know that, you don't need to see the pocket for it to work. Maybe when the DVD comes out, and if you ever do view it, you will understand what we are saying.

 

[8pack]

The problem with this idea is that it's entirely implausible. There's no possible way to aim accurately without reference to the pocket location. This is a simple geometric and logical truth that many just don't seem to get.

So while CTE seems to help some players, it isn't because it's better than ghost ball in this way.

pj
chgo

The pocket has everything to do with it.But its not like you have to know
exactly where the pocket is .The pocket tells you how your going to start.
The reason why cte works and comes to the correct aimng line
is DISTANCE. The target changes sizes.

 

[duckie]

A nice little read http://billiardaimtrainer.com/about/faq/.

Neat little training device.

I almost bought the whole 3 standard angle shot theory until the statment about having to make adjusts for when the shot was not one the the 3 standard angles.

GB sure seems alot simpler. Just put the CB on the right spot on the table to make the OB go into the pocket. No need to think of what the angle is. You stroke such that the CB rolls over that spot, the OB ball goes in, degree of angle never thought of or even considered in aiming.

I classify the angle of cut shots by low, middle, high, extreme high. The reason for this is because of how the CB will react after hitting the cut shot.

I know for a extreme high angle cut shot ,there will not be alot of transfer of engery to the OB which requires a different stroke then a low angle cut shot where alot the energy is transfer to the OB.

Since the transfer of engery in a extreme high angle cut is small, that means the CB will keep most of that engery and is one reason the CB is hard to control on these types of shots.

Just a example.

FWIW

 

[duckie]

The pocket has everything to do with it.But its not like you have to know
exactly where the pocket is .The pocket tells you how your going to start.
The reason why cte works and comes to the correct aimng line
is DISTANCE. The target changes sizes.

So CTE users should have no problem with this:

CueTable Help

Tell us how CTE gets you to the correct aiming line for this shot.


OH, I practice this alot, using nothing bout GB. I'm 3 out of 5 right now.

 

[8pack]

So CTE users should have no problem with this:

CueTable Help

Tell us how CTE gets you to the correct aiming line for this shot.


OH, I practice this alot, using nothing bout GB. I'm 3 out of 5 right now.

Duckie im at work right now but i can tell you how to hit this shot with
out being a the table .
1 Way aim for a 1/2 ball hit ,use some left hand english.A slow speed should get you close.OR aim for a 1/4 ball hit on the ob at fast speed
should get you close.
But it actually depends on the table for the reall answer.
Aimng and banking are just a like .Its the hit of the cb which really determains the angle ,but with banking you just have to add the rail to.

 

[LAMas]

It's not clear that LaMas's drawing has anything to do with CTE. We already have too many people talking about too many personal versions of the system.

pj
chgo

I don't think what I proffered qualifies as CTE for it doesn't start with the Center of the CB being aimed at the Edge of the OB, but then some other who say (as I understand it) that they use CTE don't either.

Since it isn't CTE and since I never took a lesson nor was I sworn to secrecy, when I derived it, I feel free to diagram and describe all aspects of it.

It could be called Center of CB to Contact Point on OB (CTCP)... pre shift and pivot.

What I was searching for was a method to cut angles from 31 degrees to 90 degrees that started with points on the OB instead of off of the edge of the OB on the felt or rail or...

Some have said that it works for them.

Sorry if I intruded on this thread.:smile:

 

[randyg]

So CTE users should have no problem with this:

CueTable Help

Tell us how CTE gets you to the correct aiming line for this shot.


OH, I practice this alot, using nothing bout GB. I'm 3 out of 5 right now.

Pretty normal golf shot. SAME AIM and table speed get you to the pocket quite often....SPF=randyg

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spidey:
The only thing one must know is what gamut the shot falls within: thick, thin, thinner and razor-thin (I never shoot these anyways).
Utter nonsense. As I said, a simple geometric and logical truth that many just don't seem to get.

Neil:
The only thing you initially need the pocket for is to see how you want to start your aiming, thick, thin, or thinnest. Once you know that, you don't need to see the pocket for it to work.

8pack:
its not like you have to know
exactly where the pocket is .The pocket tells you how your going to start.
The reason why cte works and comes to the correct aimng line
is DISTANCE. The target changes sizes.

It can only be one thing: home schooling.

LOL.

pj <- sounds like Hal's Holy Trinity to me
chgo