Why CTE is silly

[dr_dave]

Randy,

If you have a description of CTE which you feel is more appropriate or more accurate, please post it or send it to me and I will put it on the resource page.

Also, what do you think is incorrect about the two Hal Houle versions that are posted? I would be happy to make corrections if they generally accepted as valid.

Pool School does have their version of CTE (SAME AIM). Right now it is proprietary just for our students. No bridge length, no bridge pivots, just simple CTE ball pocketing techniques. When Stan releases his DVD then things will probably change.

Dr. Dave's Pool School also teaches a "version" of CTE called DAM and BHE. The details are proprietary for students only; although, some of the information is also described, illustrated, and demonstrated on the Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots. :grin:

I don't recognize all of that from Hal. Where did you get it?

I list the sources on my CTE resource page.

The first version was presented in a video demonstration posted (and later removed) by eezbank. He claimed in the video that this was the version of CTE taught to him directly by Hal Houle. The second version is a direct quote from Spidey's blog, which is considered by many to be the best current resource on CTE. Spidey also claims this version of CTE was taught to him directly by Hal Houle.

I have also had numerous phone conversations with Hal in the past. The posted versions are consistent with what he described. Also, I have read literally thousands of posts and e-mails over the years concerning CTE. They generally create more questions than answers; but again, the posted versions seem consistent with what has been described by numerous people.

The remainder of my CTE resource page explains how the instructions can be made to work for a wide range of shots. My aiming system benefits page (in particular, the quote from Colin Colenso) describes many possible reasons why align-and-pivot approaches like CTE can help some people.

Again, I hope Stan's DVD provides a more complete and accurate set of instructions. And the offer to you and others still stands: If you provide a more accurate, complete, and appropriate description of CTE (in simple, concise, and understandable language), I would be happy to add it to the resource page.

Regards,
Dave

 

[duckie]

Hmmm. We're 1242 postings into this silly CTE thread and all we've learned so far is that "a tomb of information is still missing." :grin:

Wouldn't it make more sense for everyone to wait for Stan's DVD to come out and then argue the merits of whether CTE works or not?

Gee, won't that require people to buy the DVD in order to discuss it fully.

Hmmm,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I'm not spending money on snake oil when I got the true cure Ghost ball.

 

[Roger Long]

Dr Dave,

I recommend you remove CTE instructions from your website, at least the two versions I followed in my test. Reasons why:

1. They did not work
2. CTE users on this thread said they were bad instructions after my test results.
3. I'd hate for someone else to waste time like I did trying to follow them.

Thank you.

I have to disagree. Dr. Dave's instructions are his personal interpretations of how CTE works. It is his website, and therefore it is his right to post whatever he wants to post on it. No one else has to approve it first.

Besides, I don't know how anybody can say Dr. Dave's instructions are "bad" without telling us what good instructions would be. To date, no one has actually proven anything about CTE either way. (Yeah, I know; that's only because I'm too stupid to get it.)

Roger

 

[GetMeThere]

I've thought about this some more.

Some points are so obviously true they don't NEED more thought, such as:

1) CTE is NOT an aiming system
2) CTE does NOT give the "exact" point to aim.
3) People who believe CTE TELLS them where to aim are indeed deluded.

It's laughable to see proponents continue to WHOLLY FAIL to even give a HINT of how CTE works, or COULD work, without directly referencing the pocket as the final part of it's method or calculation. CTE proponents definitely have a cognitive failing (which they, of course, can't perceive within themselves).

I could see that nicely with Spidey's "block the pocket" video. Funny to see fully half the table blocked off, yet when seeing him set up the shots seeing HOW EASY it would be to make them--and that, after you've gained enough experience at playing, you can feel from the immediate contexts (distance from the rail and side pockets) how the OB has to be hit to put it in the corner--without actually needing to look directly at the pocket anymore. I haven't played in THIRTY FIVE YEARS and I think I could probably make the 10/15 shots that Spidey makes! (No, not making any videos )

But that has helped me understand better HOW CTE PROBABLY DOES WORK FOR SOME PEOPLE!

CTE users learn by "feel" just like the rest of us. Then they ASSOCIATE that feel with a certain degree of pivot, yada, yada, yada. By doing that they create a sort of cognitive ROADMAP for themselves of how to make the shot. Dr. Dave and others have said that what helps them is a consistent PSR, etc. I don't think it is. It's their internal "roadmap" for remembering/"aiming" the shots.

Any feel player will know what I mean: some days you can just be "off." (and you can notice that especially if you don't feel so great, have a cold, etc.). You just can't "see the shots" as well as you did a few days ago. Sometimes you just "come up dry" on exactly how to make the shot. But CTE users don't continue to feel and re-feel each shot. Once they "learn it," they associate it with a DEFINED RECIPE of how much to pivot (or whatever).

The better defined, discerned, delineated a mental process is, the better one can recall/implement it--because it involves more areas of the brain; there are more internal pathways by which your brain remembers the same thing.

CTE is like a little dance for each shot. They learn the shot, then they associate a dance with what they've learned, and then whenever they need to repeat the shot they repeat the dance--and the shot gets made. Believe it or not, I could actually find a way to defend that sort of process, from a cognitive perspective.

It's still not something I would recommend: all that "pivot stuff" is contrary to the concept/habit of stroking straight. And it's NOT GOOD to believe untrue things in order to accomplish a task--progress requires being RIGHT, not wrong.

But I could imagine something similar to CTE. Some "dance" that moved your aiming line in tiny increments from a more easily defined aimpoint--like 1/4, 1/2, 3/4--which, if remembered and acted upon properly, could help you settle in on a shot you had already learned by "feel" (a process which, with 5-10 repetitions takes all of 5 minutes to learn in the first place).

Instead of CTE players "subconsciously" adjusting for feel, they are in fact VERY CONSCIOUSLY adjusting for already learned feel--by performing their recipe/dance they have associated with the shot. I can actually find plausible a scenario (a clear and honest one, not a delusional one like CTE) where a similar practice could be used to one's benefit.

 

[duckie]

Here are a few--- beginners have little to no visual acuity to identify lines/tracks. Many advanced players have issues with that. Secondly, beginners can't stroke straight - so, it's a moot point altogether. But, not for the reasons you mention.

So, CTE can only be used effectively by skilled players then.

This makes be wonder if the skilled player prior aiming methods are still being used when they try CTE. See for all the claims about CTE to be true, a person must learn CTE from the git go and have no other prior pool playing experince. But, after awhile, like everyone else that plays for a long time, you'll end up using GB, which is what is meant by the top pro's who say they don't know how they aim

You also make assumtions about the ability of beginning players. You can not say for a fact all begnners have the issues's you stated. People do have life experinces that carry over to other areas.

A system doesn't make a great player, which CTE userrs seem to think it does.

 

[cookie man]

I have to disagree. Dr. Dave's instructions are his personal interpretations of how CTE works. It is his website, and therefore it is his right to post whatever he wants to post on it. No one else has to approve it first.

Besides, I don't know how anybody can say Dr. Dave's instructions are "bad" without telling us what good instructions would be. To date, no one has actually proven anything about CTE either way. (Yeah, I know; that's only because I'm too stupid to get it.)

Roger

I thought you were writing an article describing how to do it?

 

[Neil]

CTE users learn by "feel" just like the rest of us. Then they ASSOCIATE that feel with a certain degree of pivot, yada, yada, yada. By doing that they create a sort of cognitive ROADMAP for themselves of how to make the shot. Dr. Dave and others have said that what helps them is a consistent PSR, etc. I don't think it is. It's their internal "roadmap" for remembering/"aiming" the shots.

Any feel player will know what I mean: some days you can just be "off." (and you can notice that especially if you don't feel so great, have a cold, etc.). You just can't "see the shots" as well as you did a few days ago. Sometimes you just "come up dry" on exactly how to make the shot. But CTE users don't continue to feel and re-feel each shot. Once they "learn it," they associate it with a DEFINED RECIPE of how much to pivot (or whatever).

And, that in no way explains how one can have trouble making certain shots for 30 years, maybe making 1 in 10, and then, using CTE, they can make the ball most of the time.

 

[Norrbacka]

I've been a HAMB aimer for quite a while now, and it's been working like a charm. Concerning those CTE-fans I can only say: Do what feels right for you. I will never pay attention to that system anyways, and I believe the only thing that is silly in this thread is its existence. I will leave those believers alone 'cos I don't think their system gives them any advantages at all. So why bother?

 

[GetMeThere]

And, that in no way explains how one can have trouble making certain shots for 30 years, maybe making 1 in 10, and then, using CTE, they can make the ball most of the time.

Right. But, uh, CTE can't explain that either, I'm afraid--because CTE doesn't provide the information necessary to make a ball in the pocket.

All reports I've read on this thread about people's experience learning CTE (except yours--well, I'm not sure you actually described your learning process) have been the same: INITIALLY, the people played WORSE, not better. It took time to "get," they all said. (indeed, JoeyA seems to describe an EXTENDED worsening of his play--that he fully expects to get better than before...eventually--but that was in another thread, linked to in this one).

What's to "get" if it tells you exactly where/how to aim? Students should be immediately better in all respects--but that's not what has been reported by most. (another interesting phenomenon is the number of users who have reported variations of "I only use it for some shots." Yeah, the ones they need help remembering )

What those people are in the process of "getting" is associating a certain degree of "pivot" (or whatever) with certain shots. What they describe can easily be interpreted as the process of associating "pivot dances" with shots they've already learned, and shots they're now learning for the first time.

 

[eezbank]

Dr. Dave's Pool School also teaches a "version" of CTE called DAM and BHE. The details are proprietary for students only; although, some of the information is also described, illustrated, and demonstrated on the Video Encyclopedia of Pool Shots. :grin:

I list the sources on my CTE resource page.

The first version was presented in a video demonstration posted (and later removed) by eezbank. He claimed in the video that this was the version of CTE taught to him directly by Hal Houle. The second version is a direct quote from Spidey's blog, which is considered by many to be the best current resource on CTE. Spidey also claims this version of CTE was taught to him directly by Hal Houle.

I have also had numerous phone conversations with Hal in the past. The posted versions are consistent with what he described. Also, I have read literally thousands of posts and e-mails over the years concerning CTE. They generally create more questions than answers; but again, the posted versions seem consistent with what has been described by numerous people.

The remainder of my CTE resource page explains how the instructions can be made to work for a wide range of shots. My aiming system benefits page (in particular, the quote from Colin Colenso) describes many possible reasons why align-and-pivot approaches like CTE can help some people.

Again, I hope Stan's DVD provides a more complete and accurate set of instructions. And the offer to you and others still stands: If you provide a more accurate, complete, and appropriate description of CTE (in simple, concise, and understandable language), I would be happy to add it to the resource page.

Regards,
Dave

I want to go on the record and state that on the video I posted on youtube I clearly stated that it was an attempt by me to show how the system works. I took the instructions given to me by Hal and tried to explain them as I understood them. After I post the video it was linked onto Dr_Dave's site. At the time I thought it was accurate. There were many things that I left out. Also, I presented it in a way that I felt it would be easily translated to the masses. The way Hal teaches the system you pivot on every shot. So, the halfball info is wrong. Also, where I use the one tip reference Hal says it doesn't matter how many tips you use. You can start all the way to one side of the CB if that's what works with your pivot length. I was wrong there also. I would've made these mistakes known to the Dr. had he ever contacted me to work on the description. He just took the info and post it as it was. Now that I understand Pro-1 and CTE I have to agree. The info you have is either incomplete and or inaccurate and should be removed.

 

[pool101]

I can not believe that people who claim they want to learn something would try to do it with a closed mind!!!!
I just got a 30 minute lesson on the phone, and I got it, or a least the jest of it. Am I going to change the way I shot???
Am I going to work at it and make an informed decision? yes
For those who do not see it, wait for the video...
I think my foil cap and decoder ring is in the mail....
This is still not the only way to aim... Just another tool...

 

[SpiderWebComm]

So, CTE can only be used effectively by skilled players then.

This makes be wonder if the skilled player prior aiming methods are still being used when they try CTE. See for all the claims about CTE to be true, a person must learn CTE from the git go and have no other prior pool playing experince. But, after awhile, like everyone else that plays for a long time, you'll end up using GB, which is what is meant by the top pro's who say they don't know how they aim

You also make assumtions about the ability of beginning players. You can not say for a fact all begnners have the issues's you stated. People do have life experinces that carry over to other areas.

A system doesn't make a great player, which CTE userrs seem to think it does.

Sure CTE can be used by total novices. I think those who are SUCCESSFUL with CTE are better players. It's like showing a golfer a new way of aiming. You can show this method to a 100+ shooter, but they won't be successful with it if they keep chunking the ball. Novice golfers THINK they're aimed at the green when they're actually aimed at the pond.

Hopefully that helps you understand a little better. Do I recommend beginners learn CTE? Absolutely. Will they pick it up as fast as a good player - no, of course not. That holds true for ANY method of aiming.

Dave

 

[Roger Long]

I thought you were writing an article describing how to do it?

Wrong; I'm writing an article describing what it is.

Roger

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...I believe the term 1/2 ball hit refers to the estimated location on the object ball that the contact point of the cue ball is hitting, not that you are hitting half of the ball.

A "1/2 ball hit" is when the CB overlaps the OB visually (from the perspective of the shooter) by 1/2 ball at the moment of contact - the CB's center is aligned with the OB's edge and the CB's edge is aligned with the OB's center.

Factoid of the day: no matter how much the CB overlaps the OB, the CB/OB contact point is centered in the overlap area. This geometric fact is the basis of the Double The Distance aiming system.

pj
chgo

 

[AtLarge]

... After a long time playing, you'll just ended up using GB anyway.

You'll get to the point and just see where the ball needs to be and that GB's. You may have used various systems to get there, but seeing GB is where you will end up


Oh, there is no such thing as a 1/2 ball hit. The area of contact between the two balls is always the same size regardless of cut angle.

A good example of how what you see is not always what it seems.

duckie -- is that comment about a half-ball hit an attempt at humor? If not, WOW.

Now, about ghost ball. You're over-stating the case for it. You seem to feel that the only truly valid aiming method is to visualize a ghost ball and shoot at it. sfleinen has described extremely well how he does that. But not all of us have his ability to see that ghost properly.

Sure, to make the shot, we need to send the cue ball to the ghost ball position. But lots of us do that, using all sorts of different techniques, without any explicit reference to the ghost ball itself.[/INDENT]

 

[peteypooldude]

I have to disagree. Dr. Dave's instructions are his personal interpretations of how CTE works. It is his website, and therefore it is his right to post whatever he wants to post on it. No one else has to approve it first.

Besides, I don't know how anybody can say Dr. Dave's instructions are "bad" without telling us what good instructions would be. To date, no one has actually proven anything about CTE either way. (Yeah, I know; that's only because I'm too stupid to get it.)

Roger

But you are doing an article on what CTE really is. Are you not?
Is this going to be opinion or fact?

 

[peteypooldude]

I've thought about this some more.

Some points are so obviously true they don't NEED more thought, such as:

1) CTE is NOT an aiming system
2) CTE does NOT give the "exact" point to aim.
3) People who believe CTE TELLS them where to aim are indeed deluded.

It's laughable to see proponents continue to WHOLLY FAIL to even give a HINT of how CTE works, or COULD work, without directly referencing the pocket as the final part of it's method or calculation. CTE proponents definitely have a cognitive failing (which they, of course, can't perceive within themselves).

I could see that nicely with Spidey's "block the pocket" video. Funny to see fully half the table blocked off, yet when seeing him set up the shots seeing HOW EASY it would be to make them--and that, after you've gained enough experience at playing, you can feel from the immediate contexts (distance from the rail and side pockets) how the OB has to be hit to put it in the corner--without actually needing to look directly at the pocket anymore. I haven't played in THIRTY FIVE YEARS and I think I could probably make the 10/15 shots that Spidey makes! (No, not making any videos )

But that has helped me understand better HOW CTE PROBABLY DOES WORK FOR SOME PEOPLE!

CTE users learn by "feel" just like the rest of us. Then they ASSOCIATE that feel with a certain degree of pivot, yada, yada, yada. By doing that they create a sort of cognitive ROADMAP for themselves of how to make the shot. Dr. Dave and others have said that what helps them is a consistent PSR, etc. I don't think it is. It's their internal "roadmap" for remembering/"aiming" the shots.

Any feel player will know what I mean: some days you can just be "off." (and you can notice that especially if you don't feel so great, have a cold, etc.). You just can't "see the shots" as well as you did a few days ago. Sometimes you just "come up dry" on exactly how to make the shot. But CTE users don't continue to feel and re-feel each shot. Once they "learn it," they associate it with a DEFINED RECIPE of how much to pivot (or whatever).

The better defined, discerned, delineated a mental process is, the better one can recall/implement it--because it involves more areas of the brain; there are more internal pathways by which your brain remembers the same thing.

CTE is like a little dance for each shot. They learn the shot, then they associate a dance with what they've learned, and then whenever they need to repeat the shot they repeat the dance--and the shot gets made. Believe it or not, I could actually find a way to defend that sort of process, from a cognitive perspective.

It's still not something I would recommend: all that "pivot stuff" is contrary to the concept/habit of stroking straight. And it's NOT GOOD to believe untrue things in order to accomplish a task--progress requires being RIGHT, not wrong.

But I could imagine something similar to CTE. Some "dance" that moved your aiming line in tiny increments from a more easily defined aimpoint--like 1/4, 1/2, 3/4--which, if remembered and acted upon properly, could help you settle in on a shot you had already learned by "feel" (a process which, with 5-10 repetitions takes all of 5 minutes to learn in the first place).

Instead of CTE players "subconsciously" adjusting for feel, they are in fact VERY CONSCIOUSLY adjusting for already learned feel--by performing their recipe/dance they have associated with the shot. I can actually find plausible a scenario (a clear and honest one, not a delusional one like CTE) where a similar practice could be used to one's benefit.

And THIS is YOUR OPINION . Or BS. When you make post such as the one
I quoted, You are posting bold face lies. Talk about something you actually know about. You just want to show off and brag about yourself and use some big words.
. But you are still a pool IDIOT.

 

[randyg]

I want to know why under ghost ball you do not mentioned the arrow and its value. Babe Cranfield is not as good enough as Hal Houle in aiming systems?

You got voodoo aiming systems but not the one thing that truely helps in learning ghost ball and will work in all conditions.

Also, how would anyone know the CTE aiming is wrong if know one speaks up and syas whats wrong with it.

When it all comes down to it, every aiming system is based on ghost ball or the idea that there is only one spot on the table to make a ball go center pocket.

Why waste time on systems that just added requirements that aren't needed. After a long time playing, you'll just ended up using GB anyway.

You'll get to the point and just see where the ball needs to be and that GB's. You may have used various systems to get there, but seeing GB is where you will end up


Oh, there is no such thing as a 1/2 ball hit. The area of contact between the two balls is always the same size regardless of cut angle.

A good example of how what you see is not always what it seems.

Duckie: I don't think this is true. I believe that the contact area changes (minimally) according to cut angle. The thinner the cut the more the area.

Sticking my neck out....SPF=randyg

 

[mikeyfrost]

After reading some of this thread I just want to call people poor bastard for no apparent reason.

 

[GetMeThere]

Duckie: I don't think this is true. I believe that the contact area changes (minimally) according to cut angle. The thinner the cut the more the area.

Sticking my neck out....SPF=randyg

The contact area between two spheres is always the same size. In the abstract, it's a single "point." If they're on the same plane, it's a "point" at the "equator."

EDIT: If you're picturing two balls "sliding" across contact at, perhaps, a very thin cut, that conflicts with direct geometry (you would have to imagine the CB ABSOLUTELY continuing on a perfectly straight path--if it DOESN'T then it will immediately come out of contact with the OB), and with the measurement that contact time between balls would, if anything, be even less than contact time between tip and ball (assuming ball material has "better" elastic response than tip leather). If contact time were 0.0005 (half a millisecond) and the CB were traveling at 1 meter/sec (a medium hit, it seems to me), then the maximum "contact area" dimension in the direction of CB movement could be only 0.5mm--a 50th of an inch.