Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm lost as to why you won't answer this question? Doesn't Hal give his phone calls for free? Do you really think you are taking money from Stan if you answer this question? NO, because whatever your answer is, people probably won't understand it anyway.

I'm really confused by this attitude of not answering a question because its going to possibly be on someone's dvd. This CTE system has been strung around for 15 yrs, and now, you are keeping quiet????

It's even MORE than that. If CTE believers said stuff that was CONVINCING then I would have to believe that Stan could only sell FAR MORE DVDs. Hell, I already FULLY KNOW what the ghost ball system is. But if somebody came up with a DVD about "new and better ways to use the ghost ball," or "Finally, a full and useful explanation of how to use the ghost ball to solve aiming troubles" probably lots of people would buy it, and I might too! Just because something isn't a "secret" doesn't mean that people wouldn't be interested in hearing good explanations and good instruction.

CTE (even if it's pure baloney) is no doubt quite COMPLEX. Even if Stan gave ALL DETAILS IN FULL right on this thread, he probably wouldn't lose a SINGLE DVD BUYER--because anyone interested would want to have further explanation and instruction, anyhow.
 
The current deflection thread made me think of a personal experience, that may relate to CTE explanations...

3 yrs ago, if you asked me how I hit a ball with english, I would have said I "parallel shift" from the original center ball aim line. I knew about squirt forever, and I'm an engineer, and I understand the contact force has a forward component and a sideways component. All that considered, I honestly thought my stick was going parallel to the original aim line when applying english.

It was not until reading through the BHE threads, which I had never heard of, that I payed close attention to my stick AFTER the shot. I noticed it would land on the table at an angle to my original line of aim. I was stroking the stick at an angle all these years when applying english, even though I thought I was stroking it straight. I've learned through the BHE threads that what I do is simply align my stance and stick and bridge so that the stick is already on the angled line of attack to compensate for the squirt.

So my point of this, is I honestly believed my stick went straight, yet it went at an angle. This could be what CTE users experience. They honestly believe they are doing one thing, yet they are actually doing something else.
 
I also have another experience to share:

When I attempted to learn CTE a few days ago (posted on this thread with my results), there was one trial where I pocketed the ball 2 out of 5 times using CTE as I understood it to be (probably wrong, but thats not relevant to this post). My 2 makes were barely in the pocket, and my 3 misses were just outside the pocket, to the same side of the pocket as the makes.

So I tried the same shot 5 more times. During this trial, I again made 2 shots, however my misses were split between the right and left side of the pocket. I was really intrigued by this.

All of the other misses I had, on other trials, I was off nearly a full diamond on my shot, nowhere near the pocket, but they all hit the rail at almost the exact same place. Yet this trial was different.

What I hypothesized after this (which I did not previously report), is on the shot where I had 2 out of 5 makes, and the misses were very close to the pocket (a ball width away), I was lined up just a bit off from where I would normally be using my "feel" method. My eyes could see the pocket during the shots, and FORCED my arm to swerve mid-stroke to pocket a few of the balls. The CTE shots that missed consistently by a diamond, those shots I could not see the pocket, cause I was lined up according to my "feel" method WAY off.

With this in mind, after I finished my CTE trials, I tried another experiment, but without any preparation like my CTE trials. I wanted to try purposely lining up using my normal "feel" method, so that I would miss the pocket by a ton, a diamond, yet keep the pocket in my vision. Then, midstroke, swerve my stick, and see if I could pocket the ball. To my surprise, I made about 5 of these shots in a row, exactly in the middle of the pocket. Then I missed a few. I wanted to fool around with this more, but I was tired.

My point of this, is my mind forced my arm midstroke to swerve and correct the aim line to pocket the ball. Believe me, this was all instinct, as I'd never done this before.

This could also explain how a CTE user that gets close to the right line up, has their mind force their arm midstroke to pocket the ball.
 
Actually I said I have to look at it again when I next go to the table.

The Wikipedia article states that any parallel plane is also called the saggital plane. Pat pointed out that this is what I use to find the right edge. I know that I am definitely NOT picking any contact point on the object ball.

I think that the best way to think of how I see the edge is that I use the space where the center to edge line that is shown by the transverse plane meets the saggital plane on the edge of the object ball going towards the pocket.

Maybe. I don't know really.

Bingo. CTE starts with CTCP which is what I have described and what works for me, but it is not parsimonious.:smile:
 
But, in fact, it DOES take millimeter precision to pocket balls. The very first post of this thread demonstrates that.

No, in practice it does not take millimeter precision to pocket balls. Anyone who has studied Efren Reyes sees that he uses the rails as far up as two diamonds away from the pocket and makes the ball often. People "slop" balls in all the time by hitting the wrong side of the pocket or the tits on the corners or high on the rail when they meant to make it clean.

But in this world it's very often important to know HOW things happen. Ignorance is sometimes WORKABLE, but it's never PREFERABLE. There are COUNTLESS examples (especially in medicine, for example) where people thought something "worked" when IN FACT, it didn't.

Every heard the expression "ignorance is bliss?" The fact is that all over the world people get things done without the slightest understanding of the real math and physics behind the tasks they are performing. And to be clear we aren't talking life and death here. This is a game, something people do for fun. The proof of CTE's worth is very simple to ascertain, does it help the shooter to consistently make more shots, and make tougher shots more often?

That's a pretty simple metric. If yes keep going, if not abandon it and try something else.


All the top PLAYERS have understood that the ball does what they want when they HIT IT in the right place--and so they went about learning how to hit it there. I think that's what YOU don't understand--that most strong players (especially in the past) simply approached the game with a "natural" learning method--keep trying until you accomplish what you need to, and then hone that skill by further practice. The "system" they used was: LOTS OF PRACTICE!

And you know this how? Do you think "aiming systems" other than Ghost Ball were invented by Hal Houle? You honestly believe that people as far back as a 100 years ago weren't writing about various aiming methods?

One time Fred Agnir was in Valley Forge and a bunch of us were crowded around a table while he was explaining a few of Hal's systems and an older man who I'd guess was about 65ish piped up that he had learned something similar as a young man in the pool room.

Hal, and "many people" don't HAVE to understand the underlying geometry and physics. I'm more than pleased to do that work FOR THEM. But it's impossible, because the underlying geometry and physics DON'T WORK!

You don't know the steps so you can't say it doesn't work. The only way you could say for sure that it doesn't work would be to learn it from someone qualified to teach you and then debunk it. From your viewpoint I agree, it doesn't work. From my perspective it works great.
I gave this example before: go to youtube and look up "free energy" and similar terms. You will find COUNTLESS videos of contraptions made with magnets turning wheels. The people making those devices DO NOT understand the underlying physics, and as a result they have DELUDED themselves about what they believe are the workings of their contraptions.

I understood your example. As I said above the metric here is very simple, increased performance when the ONLY variable changed is the use of CTE indicates that CTE is the reason for the increased performance. If the use of CTE ALONE is enough to FORCE the subconscious to find and adopt the right aiming line when the shooter could not do that previously then it's quite powerful mojo. Either way the proof is in the balls pocketed.

And until we have some qualified teacher demonstrating HOW to do CTE so that people can learn it through distance, and until we have some scholars doing some sort of controlled experiements the jury will still be out on CTE because the personal testimony of CTE/Hal Houle aiming systems users is fairly strong.

It's strange that you've grown to full adulthood and haven't become well-acquainted with the concept that VERY OFTEN people get WRONG IDEAS that they BELIEVE are valid (and useful) but which in fact ARE NOT. You somehow don't seem to know that's VERY COMMONPLACE. The history of science and technology is littered with examples. Everyday life is often overwhelmed with it. Businesses fail every day because of it.

And by the same token it's hard for me to understand that you can not know how to do something and yet denounce it as impossible. I don't understand that you can't get the idea that it's possible for people to be able to perform certain tasks without being able to explain HOW they do it.

We observe all sorts of Pagan holidays because our ancestors had all sorts of beliefs about the "gods" controlling the seasons. Still although they weren't meteorologists and had no satellite assisted forecasting abilities they knew enough to be able to know when to plant and when to harvest and how to predict the weather. The history of science is full of such examples of people doing remarkable things with zero understanding of the underlying physics.

In fact ALL pool playing is estimation and taking your best guess when you shoot the shot. No human has a little readout in their brain which is measuring and plotting the ball locations with millimeter precision. No matter how a shooter chooses to aim they have to BELIEVE in their choice and have faith that they are lined up properly and then they have find the ability to execute properly.

You will not find a pool player alive who can consistently point to exactly 1.125" inches away from the object ball's edge to mark the exact center of the ghost ball. They ALL estimate it and the resulting path of the object ball, whether it splits the pocket or hits the rail a diamond high indicates how well they did with their estimation.

Millions of people drive cars every day with absolutely no clue how a car works other than turn the key, step on the accelerator, and steer. Ask them to explain the mechanics and they will tell you they can't. Yet they can pilot a 2000lb machine in a sea of other similar machines with ease.

You want to know HOW CTE works then go to someone who can tell you. Those people are here on AZ. If your intention is to either FORCE them to tell you on the forum or ridicule them then you're stuck with ridiculing them.

Meanwhile they are happily making balls and having fun playing pool.
 
No, in practice it does not take millimeter precision to pocket balls.

My first post relates to pool "practice." I suggest you study it to the point of understanding.

Every heard the expression "ignorance is bliss?"
Yes. Ever realize that it's intended to be used pejoratively?

You don't know the steps so you can't say it doesn't work.

That's right. I only know what people have said. From that, it doesn't work.

As I said above the metric here is very simple, increased performance when the ONLY variable changed is the use of CTE indicates that CTE is the reason for the increased performance...

You mean...."IT WORKS!" ??

That's indirect evidence. One doesn't favor indirect evidence in place of direct evidence. All direct evidence supports the inference that it DOESN'T WORK!

And by the same token it's hard for me to understand that you can not know how to do something and yet denounce it as impossible.

I don't know how to do an astrological chart; but I know astrology doesn't "work." I'm certainly NOT going to take the time to learn how to make astrological charts. In fact, actually LEARNING how to make them wouldn't put me in any better position to claim whether or not they "work."

We observe all sorts of Pagan holidays because our ancestors had all sorts of beliefs about the "gods" controlling the seasons. Still although they weren't meteorologists and had no satellite assisted forecasting abilities they knew enough to be able to know when to plant and when to harvest and how to predict the weather.

Primitive peoples knew enough to know when to plant and harvest because they made an EFFORT to understand seasonal periodicity (i.e., to do the SCIENCE, even before people had a name for "science")--not because they had Pagan holidays.

No human has a little readout in their brain which is measuring and plotting the ball locations with millimeter precision.

Anyone who can regularly make medium difficult shots (which includes most serious players) DOES have "a little readout in their brain which is measuring and plotting the ball locations with millimeter precision." They couldn't be consistently making the shots if they didn't.

Millions of people drive cars every day with absolutely no clue how a car works other than turn the key, step on the accelerator, and steer. Ask them to explain the mechanics and they will tell you they can't. Yet they can pilot a 2000lb machine in a sea of other similar machines with ease.

Those people are using machines that HAVE a basis in physical fact. CTE does not.

You want to know HOW CTE works then go to someone who can tell you.

All evidence so far suggests that no one CAN say how CTE works or what it is (and lots of evidence suggests that "CTE" means different things to different people). What evidence DOES exist about what CTE is implies that it would NOT work...so why would I go to someone for them to tell me about it? Would you suggest that people spend their lives chasing down every CLAIM made by every PERSON? Doing that would make for a completely WASTED LIFE. It's necessary to use discernment in order to best utilize one's opportunities to learn new things.
 
Last edited:
Can CTE make this combo?
If it can, how does one determine how to aim.

Or is this just completely beyond CTE capabilities, so that we can dismiss it as an aiming system and replace that with a ball pocketing system that only works with shots where it's only the cueball, the object ball, and the hole.

CueTable Help

 
No, in practice it does not take millimeter precision to pocket balls. Anyone who has studied Efren Reyes sees that he uses the rails as far up as two diamonds away from the pocket and makes the ball often. People "slop" balls in all the time by hitting the wrong side of the pocket or the tits on the corners or high on the rail when they meant to make it clean.


Oh come on, John. When a top player is off their game, sure, they're going to miss some shots badly. I watched one of Efren's US Open matches and he did hit a couple that hit the rail two diamonds up.

But even a player at your level, when you're on, can hit one side of the pocket or the other to work position. And when Efren is on and he's hitting two diamonds up he's doing so purposefully to give himself more positional opportunities.

If you've ever seen Efren (or any top player for that matter), on tough equipment, these guys can split the pocket and it's all net all the way. And on the type of equipment that is the standard nowadays, it does take millimeter precision or you're a dead duck. One of the things you see every year at the Derby are guys there for the first time that are used to playing on slop tables and are startled when all their shots hang up, or miss the pocket completely, because they are hitting the rail two diamonds up. I don't know how many of them are using CTE, but I'll check for it this coming year.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
There is so much mis information, or mis understanding about CTE.
How can you do math on bits and pieces of information.
Half of what I read is not correct. There is a learning curb, it is not that hard to make MOST shots using BASIC CTE. And THAT info is out there.And it makes some THINK they know
Petey
 
Last edited:
Can CTE make this combo?
If it can, how does one determine how to aim.

Or is this just completely beyond CTE capabilities, so that we can dismiss it as an aiming system and replace that with a ball pocketing system that only works with shots where it's only the cueball, the object ball, and the hole.

CueTable Help


using cte the 1st ob will go toward the center of the pocket. So I am going
to say no.
 
Can CTE make this combo?
If it can, how does one determine how to aim.

Or is this just completely beyond CTE capabilities, so that we can dismiss it as an aiming system and replace that with a ball pocketing system that only works with shots where it's only the cueball, the object ball, and the hole.

CueTable Help



If one was to make two arrows, you could place one at the ball to be pocketed to show where the other ball needs to be on the table to make that ball and the second arrow at the other ball to show where to put the CB on the table to make the combo.

See,a real world training device to use to practice shots until you just see them and the arrows are not needed anymore.

The same idea is used for any shot. Just place the arrow on the direction of travel line for the ball to be pocketed. That point is where the CB needs to be. This gives you a visual target, so to speak, to go for.

If the OB goes say too much right of the pocket, you know how much to correct for and which direction to move to get onto the right spot on the table to make the ball. Real feedback.

Shot making is just connecting the dots. The dots are the spot on the table where you want to put the OB, the start point for the OB direction of travel and the start point for the CB direction of travel.

The start point for the OB direction of travel is determind by a line from the spot on the table where you want to put the CB through the CP on the OB to a spot that is 1/2 ball from the edge of OB.

The CB direction of travel is determined by a line from the contact patch of the CB to start point OB direction of travel.

Its that simple. Oh and not once was mentioned about trying to "see" a ghost ball or put the center of the CB anywhere. Just spots or dots on the table. Why some still state that using ghost involves seeing a imginary ball or putting the center of the CB is beyond me, well except for maybe they just can't believe there can be another way to use GB or they just don't do any real research.



FWIW
 

Attachments

My first post relates to pool "practice." I suggest you study it to the point of understanding.

Learn the technique then practice it? Got it. When will you learn how to use CTE so you can practice it?
Yes. Ever realize that it's intended to be used pejoratively?

Of course but it also contains truth as in someone may be quite happy and productive without knowing "the truth" about the world.


That's right. I only know what people have said. From that, it doesn't work.

As opposed to the people who have said it works? Those people being ones who actually use it.


You mean...."IT WORKS!" ??

That's indirect evidence. One doesn't favor indirect evidence in place of direct evidence. All direct evidence supports the inference that it DOESN'T WORK!

Which direct evidence do you have that CTE does not work? You don't know how to use CTE. Where is the video showing a person who learned CTE or some similar system which claims and shows that it does not work?

You have your assertions based on your incomplete knowledge. That's all.

I don't know how to do an astrological chart; but I know astrology doesn't "work." I'm certainly NOT going to take the time to learn how to make astrological charts. In fact, actually LEARNING how to make them wouldn't put me in any better position to claim whether or not they "work."

Fair enough. However we are talking about something measurable here. Making pool balls go into holes.

Something within your realm of control and something you can learn and subsequently debunk with far less effort than you put forth here. If you make nice with Dave (under another name I'd suggest) then he will probably help you to learn CTE. Then you can apply that knowledge at the table and come back with better data to continue your quest. At the moment you lack critical information.


Primitive peoples knew enough to know when to plant and harvest because they made an EFFORT to understand seasonal periodicity (i.e., to do the SCIENCE, even before people had a name for "science")--not because they had Pagan holidays.

Um, not quite, the observed the changing of the seasons and assigned those changes to the "will of the gods" and did all sorts of rituals to gain favor of the gods so that the growing season would be longer, the harvest more plentiful, the winter not so long and harsh etc, etc..... the pagan celebrations at particular times of the year were made to MARK the changing of the seasons and allow them a way to keep track of when to plant, move, hunt, etc....

In other words they used a method to do something useful and concrete based on an erroneous belief about the cause. Still, although they did not understand geophysics they managed to get corn in the ground at the right time.


Anyone who can regularly make medium difficult shots (which includes most serious players) DOES have "a little readout in their brain which is measuring and plotting the ball locations with millimeter precision." They couldn't be consistently making the shots if they didn't.

No, they are not doing it precisely, they are doing it holisticly by taking in the whole shot picture at once and making a split-second best guess as to where to get down on the ball and how to address it.

However, if we accept your statement that the couldn't consistently be making shots if they aren't calculating to millimeter precision then how do you explain success with CTE? Subconscious calculation to milllimeter precision? Pretty good if a system brings a player to that level when the player wasn't there pre-CTE.


Those people are using machines that HAVE a basis in physical fact. CTE does not.

CTE has a basis in physical fact. Two balls are sitting on a table with the pockets in fixed positions. Start with the cueball and line it up to the object ball and pivot to the right line. Doesn't get much more physical than that.

All evidence so far suggests that no one CAN say how CTE works or what it is (and lots of evidence suggests that "CTE" means different things to different people). What evidence DOES exist about what CTE is implies that it would NOT work...so why would I go to someone for them to tell me about it? Would you suggest that people spend their lives chasing down every CLAIM made by every PERSON? Doing that would make for a completely WASTED LIFE. It's necessary to use discernment in order to best utilize one's opportunities to learn new things.
[/QUOTE]

No. There are people who can tell you HOW it works. But they won't do so at your demand on the open forum.

If you honestly think that CTE has zero merit then why are you wasting so much time here to attempt to discredit it? Wouldn't your time be better spent learning more about things you find useful?

Do you think that you are somehow saving people from disappointment when they try to learn CTE?

I mean it's a method to aim balls. If you want to get down to it it's one technique espoused by some people who feel it works well. No matter who tries it the proof is in the shotmaking. If a person tries it and they don't get better then that will be apparent to them in very short order.

So what on Earth is your motivation for all this energy to "debunk" something you don't even know how to implement?

All you have really achieved is a rehashing of the same debate that has gone one for years. And you are continuing to pique people's interest in this mysterious underground aiming system.

You would have achieved far more had you just remained silent on the subject.
 
Oh come on, John. When a top player is off their game, sure, they're going to miss some shots badly. I watched one of Efren's US Open matches and he did hit a couple that hit the rail two diamonds up.

But even a player at your level, when you're on, can hit one side of the pocket or the other to work position. And when Efren is on and he's hitting two diamonds up he's doing so purposefully to give himself more positional opportunities.

If you've ever seen Efren (or any top player for that matter), on tough equipment, these guys can split the pocket and it's all net all the way. And on the type of equipment that is the standard nowadays, it does take millimeter precision or you're a dead duck. One of the things you see every year at the Derby are guys there for the first time that are used to playing on slop tables and are startled when all their shots hang up, or miss the pocket completely, because they are hitting the rail two diamonds up. I don't know how many of them are using CTE, but I'll check for it this coming year.

Lou Figueroa


The point is that players don't need to be millimeter precise on the hit to make balls as GMT is claiming. You know this and I know it. Even on tight equipment.

The Chinese practice on some of the toughest equipment I have ever seen and they can hit the rail high and still make balls.

I have to fade it all the time because I choose to gamble with them on the best tables in the house which are ALWAYS the tight tables.

And CTE works great on tight tables.
 
If one was to make two arrows, you could place one at the ball to be pocketed to show where the other ball needs to be on the table to make that ball and the second arrow at the other ball to show where to put the CB on the table to make the combo.

See,a real world training device to use to practice shots until you just see them and the arrows are not needed anymore.

The same idea is used for any shot. Just place the arrow on the direction of travel line for the ball to be pocketed. That point is where the CB needs to be. This gives you a visual target, so to speak, to go for.

If the OB goes say too much right of the pocket, you know how much to correct for and which direction to move to get onto the right spot on the table to make the ball. Real feedback.

Shot making is just connecting the dots. The dots are the spot on the table where you want to put the OB, the start point for the OB direction of travel and the start point for the CB direction of travel.

The start point for the OB direction of travel is determind by a line from the spot on the table where you want to put the CB through the CP on the OB to a spot that is 1/2 ball from the edge of OB.

The CB direction of travel is determined by a line from the contact patch of the CB to start point OB direction of travel.

Its that simple. Oh and not once was mentioned about trying to "see" a ghost ball or put the center of the CB anywhere. Just spots or dots on the table. Why some still state that using ghost involves seeing a imginary ball or putting the center of the CB is beyond me, well except for maybe they just can't believe there can be another way to use GB or they just don't do any real research.



FWIW

Of course there are other ways to use GB. That's why there are devices like the arrow and dozens of "ghost ball" training devices out there.

CTE requires none of these devices and no need to attempt to pick out a spot on the cloth and hold it in your mind.

CTE relies on the balls as they lie and the ability to form a line between them.

That's the beauty of the system. No ghost balls, no tiny dots on the table or the balls, just one approach each time for the every shot.

No need to worry about whether you have placed the "arrow" or the "dot" correctly.

It just works with no training aids needed.
 
Can CTE make this combo?
If it can, how does one determine how to aim.

Or is this just completely beyond CTE capabilities, so that we can dismiss it as an aiming system and replace that with a ball pocketing system that only works with shots where it's only the cueball, the object ball, and the hole.

CueTable Help


I could show you but not tell you.

But let's assume for a moment that CTE is no good for combos.

You then always have Ghost Ball as a fall back.

Let's just assume that by using GB your pocketing percentage is say 50% but with CTE it's 75% - then use CTE to pocket balls and something else to line up combos.

No one is claiming that a player must do any one method exclusively.

But CTE works on combos and caroms. I know, tough to accept but it does. Maybe, hopefully Stan's video will show this adequately.
 
If one was to make two arrows, you could place one at the ball to be pocketed to show where the other ball needs to be on the table to make that ball and the second arrow at the other ball to show where to put the CB on the table to make the combo.

See,a real world training device to use to practice shots until you just see them and the arrows are not needed anymore.

The same idea is used for any shot. Just place the arrow on the direction of travel line for the ball to be pocketed. That point is where the CB needs to be. This gives you a visual target, so to speak, to go for.

If the OB goes say too much right of the pocket, you know how much to correct for and which direction to move to get onto the right spot on the table to make the ball. Real feedback.

Shot making is just connecting the dots. The dots are the spot on the table where you want to put the OB, the start point for the OB direction of travel and the start point for the CB direction of travel.

The start point for the OB direction of travel is determind by a line from the spot on the table where you want to put the CB through the CP on the OB to a spot that is 1/2 ball from the edge of OB.

The CB direction of travel is determined by a line from the contact patch of the CB to start point OB direction of travel.

Its that simple. Oh and not once was mentioned about trying to "see" a ghost ball or put the center of the CB anywhere. Just spots or dots on the table. Why some still state that using ghost involves seeing a imginary ball or putting the center of the CB is beyond me, well except for maybe they just can't believe there can be another way to use GB or they just don't do any real research.



FWIW

Thank you for the reply, but is this answering my question about CTE and combos?
 
I also have another experience to share:

When I attempted to learn CTE a few days ago (posted on this thread with my results), there was one trial where I pocketed the ball 2 out of 5 times using CTE as I understood it to be (probably wrong, but thats not relevant to this post). My 2 makes were barely in the pocket, and my 3 misses were just outside the pocket, to the same side of the pocket as the makes.

So I tried the same shot 5 more times. During this trial, I again made 2 shots, however my misses were split between the right and left side of the pocket. I was really intrigued by this.

All of the other misses I had, on other trials, I was off nearly a full diamond on my shot, nowhere near the pocket, but they all hit the rail at almost the exact same place. Yet this trial was different.

What I hypothesized after this (which I did not previously report), is on the shot where I had 2 out of 5 makes, and the misses were very close to the pocket (a ball width away), I was lined up just a bit off from where I would normally be using my "feel" method. My eyes could see the pocket during the shots, and FORCED my arm to swerve mid-stroke to pocket a few of the balls. The CTE shots that missed consistently by a diamond, those shots I could not see the pocket, cause I was lined up according to my "feel" method WAY off.

With this in mind, after I finished my CTE trials, I tried another experiment, but without any preparation like my CTE trials. I wanted to try purposely lining up using my normal "feel" method, so that I would miss the pocket by a ton, a diamond, yet keep the pocket in my vision. Then, midstroke, swerve my stick, and see if I could pocket the ball. To my surprise, I made about 5 of these shots in a row, exactly in the middle of the pocket. Then I missed a few. I wanted to fool around with this more, but I was tired.

My point of this, is my mind forced my arm midstroke to swerve and correct the aim line to pocket the ball. Believe me, this was all instinct, as I'd never done this before.

This could also explain how a CTE user that gets close to the right line up, has their mind force their arm midstroke to pocket the ball.

This is a valid point.

I also did a similar experiment. In that experiment I lined up exactly with my cue on the CTE line which would be a half ball hit. No pivot. Using that I was able to make most of the shots I tried.

What this shows to me is that nearly every shot known to man can be made by lining up with a half ball aim and then letting the cue pivot to the needed angle as the cue is in motion.

So my conclusion was that if I could start with a known half-ball aim and STILL make most shots by allowing the mind to adjust (as it obviously must have) then why not be able to use a couple more steps - CTE - to get to a shot line where no such adjustment was needed?

I know that a half-ball aim cannot work for all shots. However it does work for a wide range of shots (without regard to position for the moment).

So to me that's all the basis I need to allow me to trust CTE enough to give it a shot. Before CTE I wouldn't have even thought to try such an experiment.
 
I probably need to learn it a little more but with what I know so far the Cuetable is inadequate to show CTE since all lines are based on Ghost Ball. I don't know how to make a line that is not attached to a ball.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top