Why CTE is silly

[dr_dave]

LAMas,

Excellent description. FYI, I've added it, along with your diagram showing examples, to my CTE resource page. Please check it out and let me know if any changes are appropriate.

Thank you for setting a good example of how an aiming system can be described and illustrated clearly, concisely, completely, and with full disclosure (i.e., honestly).

Regards,
Dave

Hi,
This is for shots from 1 degree to 29 degrees. For shots from 31 degrees to 90 degrees it doesn't work...more study is required.

What I like about CTE having tried it and wanting to make it work for me.

I can discern the Center of the CB and the Edge of the OB and the contact point on the OB that sends the OB to the target/pocket.

I can aim the center of the CB at the edge on the equator (3 o’clock or 9 o’clock) of the OB that is on the side opposite the target/pocket – CTE[Line].

I can find the contact/impact point on the equator of the OB that sends the OB to the target/pocket. I concentrate on the distance from that point to the original edge, and then I parallel shift the cue until it is shifted that distance away from the edge of the OB.


I then pivot back from my bridge until the tip of the cue is aimed at the center of the CB and then I shoot the shot. This gets me close to where the ghost ball should be. English can be applied pre shot if desired.

I use double distance aiming though for it has fewer steps – no pivot. I think that CTE is helpful to those that miscalculate where the center of the OB is - which is necessary for double distance aiming.

As the OB appears to get smaller as it is located farther away from the CB and the shooter’s eye/s, the distances from the edge of the OB and the contact point gets smaller and thus the outward shift is proportionately smaller which allows the “system” to adjust for the for-shortening/perspective and still sends the CB to where the GB should be.

The bridge is what you are comfortable with, say 12.0” or so behind the CB – no change necessary.

Try it, you might like it.

Thanks for your time….wasted?
:smile::thumbup:

 

[mikepage]

[...]Not you, not Pat, not Lou, not Mike, not Dave Alciatore. None of them have the pool credentials that their opinion matters.

ooh.. that smarts...

 

[peteypooldude]

Well...that's good. Nobody can deny you your personal experience.

But it's just like my "eating mud prevents colds" example: ANOTHER PERSON, hearing of your success, STILL has to ask themselves whether YOU YOURSELF are accurate in your opinion of what actually led to your success.

In this case is trivially easy to see that CTE doesn't offer aiming utility. So an objective person has to conclude that SOMETHING ELSE is actually what has helped you to win tournaments.

The history of sports, in particular, is FILLED with this kind of story--people winning IN SPITE of what they do, or think they're doing. Life in general is filled with this kind of story.

The person who ISN'T you--if they really want to GET SOMEWHERE--always has to try to figure out what has REALLY helped you win tournaments. It could be what you think; and it might not be. A person has to think and decide.

GMT cte is a completely different way of looking at the cb and ob,
With cte you use and see edges instead of lining up two points on
two round objects. Me being 41 before I changed the way I aim
and the level I play, Tells the story. And as you can see I am not alone.
There are some cte players who are working on limited information
and may not improve as fast, But at least they are WORKING on it. Until then they are still learning to look at the balls
the correct way .

 

[dr_dave]

some of Dave's information is wrong.
...
Dave SHOULD remove the information that people ask him to remove concerning THIS topic.

If you or others clearly explain what is wrong with any of the three versions of CTE posted on my CTE resource page (one of which was provided by you), and provide corrections, I would be more than happy to update or replace the information. In fact, I've already done this once by posting a clarification provided by eezbank for "Version 1."

But for now, I think the CTE resource page and benefits of aiming systems page provide useful information that is difficult or impossible to find elsewhere, so I certainly won't remove them.

The CTE resource page also explains and illustrates how and why CTE works for a wide range of shots with varying cut angles. I have not seen this information presented anywhere else.

Regards,
Dave

 

[GetMeThere]

GMT cte is a completely different way of looking at the cb and ob,
With cte you use and see edges instead of lining up two points on
two round objects.

Ya. I know.

But nothing about the edges or centers of balls on the table tells you (or the system) where the POCKET IS. In order to pocket balls you need to know where the POCKET IS. You can stare at, measure, contrive and contort ALL features of the balls--and doing that will NEVER tell you WHERE THE POCKET IS, and it will never tell you how to pocket a ball.

This is the KEY ELEMENT of the argument (and I congratulate you for zeroing in on it).

If you have experience shooting guns, then it's like thinking that making all sorts of interesting and complicated lines BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR SIGHT will allow you to hit your target without even putting the target in the sights!

It doesn't take much to understand that aiming can't work without exact knowledge about what you're aiming at. Exact knowledge of the POCKETS cannot be found from examining the BALLS.

In there somewhere must be a line from the OB to the pocket (or information about the angle from the OB-CB line to the OB-pocket line). Without that information, there is NO INFORMATION that can pocket balls. The line from OB-to-pocket cannot be GENERATED merely from the balls THEMSELVES; the POCKET must be included.

...yet we have a video from a foremost CTE advocate that the position of the pockets is MEANINGLESS. That you DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE POCKETS ARE to use CTE. That some mysterious MAGIC OF THE UNIVERSE allows the BALLS ALONE to GENERATE the position of the pocket.

Well....it just ain't so, Petey.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB Cases
[...]Not you, not Pat, not Lou, not Mike, not Dave Alciatore. None of them have the pool credentials that their opinion matters.

Mike:
ooh.. that smarts...

Wow. I think it takes some... uh... credentials to wade that far into one of John's posts.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

[...]Not you, not Pat, not Lou, not Mike, not Dave Alciatore. None of them have the pool credentials that their opinion matters.

ooh.. that smarts...

Even though people might claim you are quoting JB Cases "out of context," I agree: ooh... that smarts.

BTW, if anybody cares, my "pool credentials" are listed here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/dr_dave.html​

I'm sorry they are not up to John's standards.

Regards,
Dave

 

[peteypooldude]

Ya. I know.

But nothing about the edges or centers of balls on the table tells you (or the system) where the POCKET IS. In order to pocket balls you need to know where the POCKET IS. You can stare at, measure, contrive and contort ALL features of the balls--and doing that will NEVER tell you WHERE THE POCKET IS, and it will never tell you how to pocket a ball.

This is the KEY ELEMENT of the argument (and I congratulate you for zeroing in on it).

If you have experience shooting guns, then it's like thinking that making all sorts of interesting and complicated lines BETWEEN THE FRONT AND REAR SIGHT will allow you to hit your target without even putting the target in the sights!

It doesn't take much to understand that aiming can't work without exact knowledge about what you're aiming at. Exact knowledge of the POCKETS cannot be found from examining the BALLS.

In there somewhere must be a line from the OB to the pocket (or information about the angle from the OB-CB line to the OB-pocket line). Without that information, there is NO INFORMATION that can pocket balls. The line from OB-to-pocket cannot be GENERATED merely from the balls THEMSELVES; the POCKET must be included.

...yet we have a video from a foremost CTE advocate that the position of the pockets is MEANINGLESS. That you DON'T NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE POCKETS ARE to use CTE. That some mysterious MAGIC OF THE UNIVERSE allows the BALLS ALONE to GENERATE the position of the pocket.

Well....it just ain't so, Petey.

YOU have zeroed in on it. You should be at the shooting range.
We are not lining up sights, We are not shooting guns (yet) LOL
But I am pocketing balls and without lining up with the pocket.
This is something we are just not going to agree
on if it lasted 2000 more post. Buy a dvd and practice and I will
be glad to help you. Also my time on AZ has improved my typing (some)
LOL Have a good day sir. Petey

 

[randyg]

I am seriously trying to understand the concept of CTE through this thread, but this is the type of comment that confuses the hell outta me. I've read over and over again in this thread how the pockets aren't necessary to line up the shot using CTE. I've read over and over again how all you need to know is what the correct cut ANGLE is for making a shot with CTE (say 30 degrees, or 50 degrees, etc.).

How in the hell can you know what the cut angle is without using the pocket for reference??? Does not the pocket play a part of what the correct cut angle is???

I'd pull my hair out if I had any!!!

Maniac

Maniac: Why don't you come over to Pool School and take a two hour CTE lesson? You are welcome here.....SPF=randyg

 

[pool101]

OK. It just can't quite penetrate to you. But I'll try to say it, short and sweet:

You're not aiming at the pockets.

We KNOW that because of Dave Segal's video insisting that you can pocket balls without AIMING at them.

CTE doesn't use EXACT information about the location of the pockets, therefore CTE can't EXACTLY pocket balls. Information doesn't arise from nothing (and, in fact, in this case, the ACTUAL source of the information is the experience of the player--and NOT the methodology of "CTE").

I must say I doubted the claim of CTE not needing to see the pocket, which is why I posted my own video not using CTE and still getting similar results...
However after learning a little more and working to figure out what is really happening I have become aware that You don't have to see the pocket. Because of the relationship between the balls and rails on to the table. The line from the approach rail through the cue ball, through the object ball to the opposing rail is enought to give the angle to the pocket... someone who has played a while will know where the pocket is given those references. Someone who is new would need to learn that based on the angle to the pocket you follow these set of instructions and the ball goes in the hole...I believe CTE or any pivot system uses a set of specific moves to accomplish the correct alignment.
I hope when the video comes out and you can get more information you would open your mind and really take a look to see if there may be something to it... I think you may be suprised... or I could be wrong...
Time will tell.. and it is just a game.... so take the wad out of your panties and relax a little...

 

[LAMas]

LAMas,

Excellent description. FYI, I've added it, along with your diagram showing examples, to my CTE resource page. Please check it out and let me know if any changes are appropriate.

Thank you for setting a good example of how an aiming system can be described and illustrated clearly, concisely, completely, and with full disclosure (i.e., honestly).

Regards,
Dave

Thanks Dr.

I updated my post #2015 this morning on AutoCad to derive the actual cut angles for 1/8, 1/4, 3/8 and 1/2 OB offsets for cut angles from 31 degrees to 90 degrees this morning.
---------------------------------------
#2015

Hi again.

Cut angles from 31 degrees to 90 degrees are more complicated.

The straight in shot - shoot center to center, and the 30 degree cut requires no pivot either, just shoot CTE. For 35 degrees, most know that you need to send the CB just off of the outside edge of the CTEL, so the shift is toward the inside edge of the OB pre-pivot. After the pivot, the CB is sent just off of the OB to where the GB should be.

The other extreme is the 89 degree cut where the shift is aimed at the center of the OB pre-pivot. Since the shift is large, the CB is now aimed and sent “way” outside of the OB after the pivot to where the GB should be.

In the middle is the 47 degree cut (to be verified by CAD) which is shifted from the CTEL to ½ way between the edge of the OB and it’s center or ¼ ball nearest to the CTEL. The 40 degree cut would require a shift the cue to 1/8 ball inside of the CTEL.
The 60 degree cut would require a shift of 3/8 ball inside of the CTEL…etc..

This is the reciprocal of the contact point, and why it is more difficult, but the good news is that the cue is shifted to points on the equator of the OB rather than shifts to the outside of the OB edge – more discernable?

As the OB appears to get smaller as it is located farther away from the CB and the shooter’s eye/s, the distances from the edge of the OB and the contact point gets smaller and thus the inward shift is proportionately smaller which allows the “system” to adjust for the for-shortening/perspective and still sends the CB to where the GB should be.

The bridge is what you are comfortable with, say 12.0” or so behind the CB – no change necessary.

:smile:

 

[Catch_A_Gear]

pool101, good post on the rails and pocket alignment. After that you can tell which side to pivot from.

 

[AtLarge]

... initially, I wanted to be careful: Maybe there WAS something to CTE that I didn't know about.

I'll admit it took me nearly 2000 posts to become CERTAIN that CTE was COMPLETE and PURE nonsense. ...

Please re-read the first sentence of the first post of this thread. And that was written when you thought CTE was a 3-angle, fractional-ball aiming system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

pool101:
...You don't have to see the pocket. Because of the relationship between the balls and rails on to the table.

This is correct if you're aiming by feel. But in order for an aiming system to use these same clues to make shots without feel it would have to be too complicated to use.

...I believe CTE or any pivot system uses a set of specific moves to accomplish the correct alignment.

Your "internal computer" can do this, by itself or as an add-on to an aiming system. But an aiming system by itself (without the players added "feel") cannot. It's just too complex a calculation.

And, by the way, figuring out where the pocket is by where the rails are is not shooting without reference to the pocket.

pj
chgo

 

[pool101]

This is correct if you're aiming by feel. But in order for an aiming system to use these same clues to make shots without feel it would have to be too complicated to use.


Your "internal computer" can do this, by itself or as an add-on to an aiming system. But an aiming system by itself (without the players added "feel") cannot. It's just too complex a calculation.

And, by the way, figuring out where the pocket is by where the rails are is not shooting without reference to the pocket.

pj
chgo

That is my point.. If you have the references you do not need to see the pocket... it is always the in the same place based off of those references..

 

[GetMeThere]

I must say I doubted the claim of CTE not needing to see the pocket, which is why I posted my own video not using CTE and still getting similar results...
However after learning a little more and working to figure out what is really happening I have become aware that You don't have to see the pocket. Because of the relationship between the balls and rails on to the table. The line from the approach rail through the cue ball, through the object ball to the opposing rail is enought to give the angle to the pocket... someone who has played a while will know where the pocket is given those references. Someone who is new would need to learn that based on the angle to the pocket you follow these set of instructions and the ball goes in the whole...I believe CTE or any pivot system uses a set of specific moves to accomplish the correct alignment.
I hope when the video comes out and you can get more information you would open your mind and really take a look to see if there may be something to it... I think you may be suprised... or I could be wrong...
Time will tell.. and it is just a game.... so take the wad out of your panties and relax a little...

That's right, pool101, you can tell how to hit the balls from the rails, and where the side pockets are, etc. And that's HOW Spidey makes the shots in his videos.

But CTE DOES NOT INCLUDE WITHIN ITS RULES: "Now, determine from the rails, etc., where the pocket is, and aim for it."

It claims that by looking at the OB and CB ONLY, it is possible through CTE methodology that the position of the pocket is "derived." And that is not correct.

Simply, if you straightforwardly follow the rules of CTE, and DO NOT USE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT regarding where the pocket is--AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY--then CTE will not enable you to pocket balls. That's why it is NOT an aiming system, and that's why I'm trying to speak against it as an aiming system, and alert people that it's not an aiming system.

If you can pocket balls with your own judgment, then you should admit that's how you're pocketing them--and not add in hocus-pocus nonsense like CTE.

 

[GetMeThere]

Please re-read the first sentence of the first post of this thread. And that was written when you thought CTE was a 3-angle, fractional-ball aiming system.

Oh, sorry. Some people apparently DO think of CTE as a 3-angle fractional-ball aiming system.

There IS NO official CTE. Hal Houle is the only one who can claim true "ownership" of CTE (I guess. Hasn't he before said that's how "pros" have ALWAYS aimed?). And Hal Houle has said NUMEROUS and CONTRADICTORY things about CTE--including FIRST that it was a 3-shot system, and finally that it was a 1-shot system.

You can't win pro-CTE arguments by saying that arguers against don't "know what CTE is." CTE PROPONENTS don't know what CTE is.

What my statement means is that, along the way, I WAS able to discern that the COMMON ELEMENT of all CTE systems (I've heard about) is that NONE have a direct measure of the angle from the OB to the pocket, and THAT is the single necessary damning factor--without some measure of the angle of OB to the pocket there is NO WAY to pocket balls.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

GetMeThere:
Simply, if you straightforwardly follow the rules of CTE, and DO NOT USE YOUR OWN JUDGMENT regarding where the pocket is--AND ADJUST ACCORDINGLY--then CTE will not enable you to pocket balls. That's why it is NOT an aiming system, and that's why I'm trying to speak against it as an aiming system, and alert people that it's not an aiming system.

It's useful to clarify that CTE must include some "user input", but I think your semantic argument against calling CTE an aiming system is unnecessary. There's no law that says an aiming system must be completely "mechanical" and free of feel. Focusing on what you think it should be called is a distraction.

pj
chgo

 

[Jal]

...

I, LAMas posted months ago:

What is at the core of these diagrams is that it adjust for the OB appearing to be smaller at farther/longer shots an thus reducing the included angle to deliver the CB to the same point of contact with the OB (ghostball) - rather than angling away from the OB as in “classic” CTE as your diagrams clearly show.

The 30 degree cut doesn't require a shift for it is one of the two shots that I would revert to aiming the center of the CB to the edge of the OB without shift or pivot - the other is the straight in shot where I would aim the center of the CB to the center of the OB - this is, to me, academic.


In diagramming the examples in Acad, I realize why a 2D picture doesn't tell the whole story because of foreshortening (perspective) - as you get down, the CB appears larger than the OB. When I drew the different angular cut examples as a top view, when they are close together, the CB and OB were the same size.


On the left of my diagrams, I have attempted to show the relative appearance of the OB @ .65" diameter when viewed behind the CB which appears @2.25" diameter.

In my study, I have drawn diagrams for a few shots that start with aiming the center of the CB to the contact point on the OB (that sends it to the target/pocket) and then a lateral, parallel shifting of the cue to the center of the OB which is a tiny shift like when the OB is 4 feet (48 inches in the example) away. I don’t consider where the tip is at on the CB – not a ½ tip or a full tip etc. as has been described by some CTE users.

By doing this, the bridge shifts ohhh so slightly, especially on far shots, and after the pivot to the center of the CB, the CB is directed to the correct ghost ball location and contact point on the OB.

I have edited this dialog and description and have made the bridge the same for all shots depicted to show how slight the error can be.

View attachment 157910

Lamas,

Here are some plots of pivot location versus cut angle for various CB-OB separations. They are based on initially lining up CB center to OB contact point, then doing an 'apparent' parallel lateral shift to OB center. By "apparent," I mean a parallel image plane shift, as you've been suggesting. The shift is dependent on the eye position, so I've chosen 30" (horizontal) distance behind the center of the CB, and 10" above the cue. Also, cue elevation is 4 degrees downward. It's assumed that the optic axis is pointing directly at the contact point, and that the shift is performed essentially without any head or eye movement (i.e., it remains fixed on the contact point).

The first graph shows the correct pivot locations at four different CB-OB distances (center one of each group of five), along with pivot positions generating 2 and 5 degree errors in OB direction. Notice that while the pivot positions are over a relatively small range, there is a different set for each CB-OB separation.



In the next one, eye height is varied: 6", 10" and 14" above the cue. Not too much change.



Here, cue elevation is varied: 2, 4 and 8 degrees. Very little change.



Finally, horizontal distance of the eye from the center of the cueball is varied: 26", 30" and 34". Surprisingly, the pivot locations are altered more as the CB-OB separation is increased. I didn't expect this.



For a comparison with a "true" physical parallel shift, here is a re-post of an old graph (the 72" separation is not included). Here, the pivot distance from the tip is essentially equal to the CB-GB (ghostball) separation:



To my mind, the moral is that while the image plane parallel shift reduces the range of pivot positions, they are still distributed according to CB-OB separation (and eye position) in a way that's not easy to ascertain in a simple way, unlike with a true physical shift. Even assuming you can do such a shift with some accuracy (problematic), you'd have to memorize something like one of the above graphs, generated with one's particular eye placement in mind.

I've haven't included any mathematical details or justification since it would take quite a bit of work to present, and it's unlikely that anybody would bother to slog through it. But, if someone insists...

I haven't looked at your latest wrinkle: CTE and then "parallel" shifting in the image plane to the OB's contact point. I'm virtually certain the sets of pivot positions will again be varied according to CB-OB separation, and in a non-intuitive way.

I guess I may be about to lose my position as your "aparallel" interpreter again.

Jim

 

[GetMeThere]

It's useful to clarify that CTE must include some "user input", but I think your semantic argument against calling CTE an aiming system is unnecessary. There's no law that says an aiming system must be completely "mechanical" and free of feel. Focusing on what you think it should be called is a distraction.

pj
chgo

First, I think it's probably most accurate to say that CTE is ALL user input. And by that token, not only is it not an aiming system; it isn't ANYTHING--other than incantation and ritual.

A "system" certainly must be systematic. As far as I can tell, the actual systematic aspects of CTE are completely superfluous to the requirements of aiming. I see "judgment" at the START of the CTE setup and at the FINISH of the CTE setup--and what comes between seems to be without utility.

Why don't you give an example of something that CTE systematically does that does NOT include "feel," or the direct outcome of "feel," and which systematically assists in making a shot?