It is a nifty parlor trick, but the so-called "blind" videos are anything but blind.
You have half the table, rails, and landmarks in the room that provide excellent reference as to where the pockets are. Watching your video, I had no doubt as to exactly where the covered pockets were.
In fact, what would be much more impressive would be the ability to deliver the OB to a point on the table that could not easily be inferred from pocket position.
Mike, can you give some detail about how CTE helps you check your alignment? Do you mean sighting the center-to-edge (half ball) alignment serves as a "precision starting point" from which you then aim the shot in your own way, or do you mean something more?
For me the double check is mainly post pivot as I'm down on the shot. The pre shot routine contributes to this of course, but I pause mainly after the swivel. I am now looking at the ghostball alignment. In my case it is more the Rempe style of look at the contact point.
I employ a hip pivot which puts me in the same position I use for feel shots. The consistent pivot assures my mind's eye that the info is good and learning can occur. I will resort to 'my own way' if I feel sure Cte has established the correct angle. This mechanical recheck of the feel aiming is a critical focal point and confidence builder I use to get in dead stroke.
Less mental clutter so to speak.
Best,
Mike
PS I do look at the pocket before I use any aiming system. You have to have a reference point. All aiming sytems use this idea for a baseline on shots directly to a pocket.
EDIT I can pocket balls without looking at the pocket with a reference point such as a rail. The pocket coordinates are part of the Cte alignment and completed by the pivot. And I'm not making this $hit up as I go.
It is a nifty parlor trick, but the so-called "blind" videos are anything but blind.
You have half the table, rails, and landmarks in the room that provide excellent reference as to where the pockets are. Watching your video, I had no doubt as to exactly where the covered pockets were.
In fact, what would be much more impressive would be the ability to deliver the OB to a point on the table that could not easily be inferred from pocket position.
This is a different Mike replying to your post. :wink: I've shot for many years using feel, ghostball, etc. I learned Stan's Pro One and tried to incorporate it into my game. After an adjustment period I realized I could now find the aiming line on shots I previously had problems making. What an advantage! But what about my "feel" game? Was I supposed to throw it away and completely go with Cte? After all, I didn't need a new aiming system to pocket balls I could make 99.9% of the time.
My game was already at a level where if I didn't break and run out on an average table I was not doing something right. That "something" was usually mixing dominant eyes (different thread) and not lining up correctly on the shot. This is where I realized Pro One/Cte had another use, especially for the experienced feel shooters that were playing at an advanced level. Old dogs and new tricks is not popular with players that don't want to scrap years of playing experience for the latest aiming craze.
Using Cte as a training tool hasn't really been discussed. The idea of using it to improve the mental routines we use to approach each shot has. The level of focus and concentration improves, but what about the added benefit of seeing the correct angle/setup? You can pull the trigger after you pivot to this alignment or you can pause for a second or two and really look at it and try to burn it into the memory banks. I actually stop and do a system check when I have the aiming line. It tells me immediately if it feels right or not. If it doesn't, why? If it doesn't feel right I will shoot it anyway. If the ball goes in I reset the shot and look at it again. I see where my aiming problems are and catalogue the shot angles for future reference.
I now use Cte to supplement my aiming and double check my alignment instead of completely switching over to it. I've found my shotmaking has improved which allows me to think more about position play. On the bad days when you feel like you're playing 9 ball on a billiard table, I switch completely over to Cte. I just pay attention to my alignment and setup for each shot. After a period of time I can usually get back on track and get in my rhythm once again. Cte is not silly to me.
Good post! I now use it on each and every shot, I like the consistency factor. Now, where it has been mentioned many times in this thread that you don't even have to look at the ob once you determine thick or thin, that doesn't mean that you shouldn't look at the ob!
Once I get on the right aim line, I forget about it. Why waste focus on something already done?? I then focus on my speed and position. I know the ball is going to drop, so, the rest is now my focus. Picture it in your head exactly what is going to happen, then let "feel" take over to shoot the shot.Doing that, you also are seeing exactly where you did hit the ob for future reference. Such as not wanting to pocket the ball, but shoot it somewhere else.
I don't think anyone here is saying DON'T look at the ob once you determine thick or thin, just that you don't HAVE to. Just like any other aiming system, once you are on the right line, you can turn your head away and still make the ball. That doesn't mean that you should do that, just that you can.
Prove it by doing a test (not one of your showoff videos) without insisting on anybody else doing it. I posted (at your invitation) how to set up a real test and you dodged it with the usual "show me yours first". It's all about your ego.
.... your complete lack of "getting it." If I'm the ONLY ONE doing the test, it proves even LESS. For the MILLIONTH TIME, stop back-peddling, crawfishing, and circle talking---- I've agreed to do any test you come up with. I'd love to do it. However, there must be a control group (someone who isn't a CTE player) doing the same thing.
A test isn't a test if there's only 1 guy doing it. In fact, how about EVERYONE in the thread post a video of PJ's test and let's see how the scores come in.
I love it how you say I'm "crawfishing" when I've told you 100x I'll do any test you make. Let me repeat that for the slow people--- I'll post a video of any test PJ makes. However, I'm not gonna be the only guy doing the test.... that would make the test pointless.
You, Lou, Mike Page and whoever else can participate too, right? This isn't about ego--- it's about not cocking off unless you wanna play too. Everyone knows I'm ALWAYS first in line to post a video because I can back up what I say. EVERYONE on the "detractor's" side, however, is MIA. I'm watching History Channel right now about the Bermuda Triangle. You guys are more MIA than Flight 19.
So, I agree to any test you post. Now, it's up to you guys doing the test too. Fair is fair. ........ go ahead and start back-peddling now.
OK Mike, here is the answer again "three alignments, thick-thin-thinner. The qball and ob are always in different places so there are many angles however the 3 alignments will cover these many angles."
No offense, but your answer above is Exhibit A of your continued "contributions" -- if you want to call them that -- to any CTE thread asking for the system to be explained or explored. At least Dave S. (Spidey) tries to explain it when he can, when he sees the opportunity to, and has offered videos in the past describing what he's doing. Do you know what I see relative to your "contributions" to these threads? Just one-liners, either zings against the post you're responding to (amazing how we'll see you come out of nowhere to protect Hal or CTE once a very pointed post challenges either), or else a couple cheerleading sentences describing how well CTE works for you (and not *HOW* it works, nor *HOW* you use it). It seems the only time we hear from you, is when the logic behind CTE, or Hal's legacy, is challenged. And even then, it's only a sentence or two, serving as an icepick in the eye of not only the original poster, but of the reader as well.
How about some meat to those posts? As that old burger chain TV commercial used to say, "Where's the beef?"
Respectfully,
-Sean
P.S. Now I'm not condoning zings to Hal. But I do approve of challenging a system, especially one that has yet (until Stan's DVD comes out) show a CTE-type system explored and explained in detail, without all the snake oil sales pitches and without the "it just works -- stop asking questions, sit down, and enjoy the movie" shushing-type comments. I believe it works, but I am very interested in knowing the mechanics/geometry behind it. So far, only Dave S. and Stan seem willing to do this.
Sean, good post and I respect that. In my defense I will just about always let Stan and Dave S. post the relative answers ( they taught me cte ), but I am zinging at a couple of people that have put it down for years and now with a couple of there recent posts realize even more that they are bad mouthing something they know very little about.
Ok, bear with me.
You have 3 cueballs, and 3 object balls that correspond to each particular cueball.
Spot cueball is shooting at the 3.
The A cueball is shooting at the 4.
And B cueball is shooting at the 5.
Let us just assume that we have a device (maybe a magic rack with balls on each end of the diamond) that keeps the cueballs the exact same distance from their respective object balls.
And assume we have another device to keep them all exactly on the same line that runs right down the middle of the table.
Since each cueball is equidistant from each object ball, it's safe to say that the outermost edge is exactly the same for each shot.
Just look at this picture that Spidey posted on his blog. (see below)
(Spidey, if you would like me to take it down, please let me know)
In that picture, it shows you that you are aiming at the edge of the object ball, and there are no reference points around.
Back to my picture.
Since all 3 shots are on the exact same line and the same distance from each other, the edge of the object ball has to be the same for all 3.
If CTE effectively pockets the 3 ball, how can CTE effectively pocket the 4 and 5 ball, instead of firing them into the rail on the same angle as the 3, as i have shown?
Now i am sure that someone will argue that it's all about the pivot, and that the 5 is thick, and that the 3 and 4 are thin, or that the 4 and 5 are thick, and the 3 is thin, but either way you have 2 shots that have the exact same point of aim (outermost edge), and the same pivot, so how does CTE pocket the balls?
And on that note, if you want all 3 balls to be thin cuts, how come the 5 doesn't get chopped in the side?
From my perspective, if you have the same shot, on the same line, with the same distance between balls, the point of aim is the same, but the end result cannot be the same.
If CTE makes the 3 ball, the 4 ball will fire it into the rail.
If people want to argue 3 pivots, one for thick, one for thin, and one for very thin, since i don't have 2 very thin shots set up just add 2 more shots further down the center line equidistant from each other, and explain to me how CTE makes them both go. (it would still be the exact same outmost edge of the ball you are lining up and therefore, the same exact exit angle)
Please do not include the word feel, or judgment, or anything subjective in your answer, as that will be treated as non significant.
If someone can come up with something mathematical that can explain it, that would be nice, (how pivot changes the shot by X degrees, etc. etc.) but i'm not keeping my fingers crossed.
Otherwise, i will continue to believe that CTE doesn't have a factual basis for the results that people swear by.
.... your complete lack of "getting it." If I'm the ONLY ONE doing the test, it proves even LESS. For the MILLIONTH TIME, stop back-peddling, crawfishing, and circle talking---- I've agreed to do any test you come up with. I'd love to do it. However, there must be a control group (someone who isn't a CTE player) doing the same thing.
A test isn't a test if there's only 1 guy doing it. In fact, how about EVERYONE in the thread post a video of PJ's test and let's see how the scores come in.
I love it how you say I'm "crawfishing" when I've told you 100x I'll do any test you make. Let me repeat that for the slow people--- I'll post a video of any test PJ makes. However, I'm not gonna be the only guy doing the test.... that would make the test pointless.
You, Lou, Mike Page and whoever else can participate too, right? This isn't about ego--- it's about not cocking off unless you wanna play too. Everyone knows I'm ALWAYS first in line to post a video because I can back up what I say. EVERYONE on the "detractor's" side, however, is MIA. I'm watching History Channel right now about the Bermuda Triangle. You guys are more MIA than Flight 19.
So, I agree to any test you post. Now, it's up to you guys doing the test too. Fair is fair. ........ go ahead and start back-peddling now.
Do you really think one of the people you mentioned will step up and put a video up? They've made an art out of taking shots from the sidelines. I don't see any of them getting on cam anytime soon. If all they want to do is troll try some of this....
It is a nifty parlor trick, but the so-called "blind" videos are anything but blind.
You have half the table, rails, and landmarks in the room that provide excellent reference as to where the pockets are. Watching your video, I had no doubt as to exactly where the covered pockets were.
In fact, what would be much more impressive would be the ability to deliver the OB to a point on the table that could not easily be inferred from pocket position.
I thought Dave shot well in that video. However, there is a valid point to "landmarks" around the room, as well as the table itself, to help obtain that original pocket reference. For instance, the stainless steel "catcher's mitt" on Dave's table's pockets are readily visible even with all the "horizontal" obstructions (e.g. cardboard). Just aim for the center of the catcher's mitt, and the pocket's right there.
IMHO, I think the closest anyone's come to a truly "blinded pocket view" is pool101. He just made one mistake with that windshield sunscreen -- he mounted it upside-down so the rearview mirror cutout is towards the table surface, covered it up with a sheet of paper, and placed the object ball directly in front of it (i.e. it itself served as a pocket marker/locator). Doesn't matter that the cue ball was moved around to simulate various cut angles; the fact is that all he needed to do was to cut the object ball to split the center of the sheet of paper, and it was headed towards the pocket. I think if this was done with the windshield sunscreen mounted right side up (i.e. the rearview mirror cutout on top), it would've been a more true "blind/obfuscated pocket view" test.
Speaking of all these blind/obfuscated pocket view tests, someone remind me again why we're doing them, and what they have to do with explaining the geometry/accuracy behind CTE? I got lost on that one...
I mainly use it on the tougher shots. I don't really need it for most shots unless I have to spin the CB or have a tough angle. I'm at 950,000 shots now.
When you design the test for yourself and shoot it by yourself, you just can't believe that anybody can question its "meaningfulness". But when an objective test (that you didn't design for yourself) is proposed, suddenly you get control group religion.
You've claimed that you can make shots "all day long" without reference to a pocket. I haven't claimed that. I already know I can't do it, and have said so. We're trying to test what you say you can do. Your self-designed "test" didn't prove anything, and you won't take another test that would.
OK Mike, here is the answer again "three alignments, thick-thin-thinner. The qball and ob are always in different places so there are many angles however the 3 alignments will cover these many angles."
Then why do you claim that your test was meaningful?
When you design the test for yourself and shoot it by yourself, you just can't believe that anybody can question its "meaningfulness". But when an objective test (that you didn't design for yourself) is proposed, suddenly you get control group religion.
You've claimed that you can make shots "all day long" without reference to a pocket. I haven't claimed that. I already know I can't do it, and have said so. We're trying to test what you say you can do. Your self-designed "test" didn't prove anything, and you won't take another test that would.
Even if I do, it won't prove anything unless you guys do. If I score mega-high--- you guys will say it didn't prove anything and that any good player can do it. I say, BS. So, if I score well and no one else can score at all --- there's something scientific there.
Look, it is what it is. Let's say I score a 50% on your test and I'm the only one doing it. That could be perceived as terrible. However, if you guys do it and you can't score 5% - - my 50% is significant.
