Why CTE is silly

Status
Not open for further replies.

CueTable Help


These may not be exact but they are close, I believe.. and as I said I am no expert.. but I have been in contact with some...

In the above link note that any thing inside the 1 to 10 ball lines to the cue ball is a thick cut ie. the 5, 6 and 14 ball, between the 2 and the 1 ball is a thin cut ie the 7 ball, between the 3 and the 2 ball is a thinner cut and between the 4 and the 3 balls is a thinnest cut.



also note that the 11-1 relationship is a 3/4 overlap, the 12 -2 is a 5/8 ball overlap, and the 13-3 is a 1/2 ball overlap. also note the 6 ball is centerd on the one ball to cue ball line and that the 14 could be any where in the triangle, and could be placed where it does not touch any line ie. between the 5 and the 6.


So you would need to teach the 3 alignments (4 with edge to edge) and which section of the balls to apply to each alignment, then teach the shift..,which could be the same movement just starting with different reference points...Some will get it, some will not.

I prefer my methods at this point, (maybe because I do not get it all yet) but I think that CTE or a pivot system may be benifical to some as it is a more structured routine...others won't like it..but if you want to improve you may want to give it a try..Nothing Ventured.......Nothing Gained....
 
Let's reverse this a little. Since people use CTE to make balls then it's impossible that it's not geometrically correct.

Because if it were not then people would not be able to make more shots, and tougher shots more consistently.

How does the geometry work?

Easy, the line that the bridge hand goes down on corresponds to the SAME line given by the invisible Ghost Ball.

Or the line shown by The Arrow

And the one shown by the Laser Guided Spider

And the same one that the B.A.T aim trainer shows

And the Otto Trainer

And the plexiglas British contraption,

And let's not forget the perfectly named, Ghost Ball Aim Trainer.....

And and and.

However by the application of CTE all one needs is the two balls as reference points. Using ONLY those two balls and the shooter can align himself to the perfect aiming line.

And how exactly does he do this?

Go to Stan Shuffet, Dave Segal, Hal Houle, Randy Goetlicher, Scott Lee or any other instructor who knows the system well enough to teach it and they will show you.

Or, go find all the free resources on the net showing the Ghost Ball diagrams and buy yourself one of the devices above or make one with a printer and some scissors or a laser cutter if you are lucky enough to have one. Then use that device to train yourself to see and eventually FEEL the proper position.

Either way, with due diligence you will learn to pocket balls with confidence.

The difference?

You can't use your Ghost Ball trainer in a match. You can only rely on your muscle memory and your "shot pictures". So if a shot comes up where you haven't hit it a million times in practice then you MIGHT have some trouble with it. I did. A lot.

But with CTE you have everything you need for any shot directly to a pocket. Yourself, the cueball and the object ball. No matter what shot comes up you can approach it the same way (or nearly the same way) and have a damn good chance of making it even if you never shot that shot before. Even if it's some weird off-angle backwards cut in the middle of the table.

THAT is the magic of CTE.

You want to know how to do it? Of course you do, who wouldn't want to be able to shoot every shot without having to practice it a milliion times first?

So what's holding you back?

Some guys who don't know HOW to do CTE, who have never learned it telling you it's impossible?

These guys who have never accomplished anything notewothry in pool telling you it's crap?

Well if it is there is only one way you will ever know for sure. You have to get on the table and figure it out.

Plenty of good people in this thread are willing to help you, but not by printing a manual here.

Here is a CTE discussion group where people who aren't interested in biting each other's heads off for ego purposes are gathered. They help each other to figure out the nuances.

http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/cte-students/

If you truly desire to LEARN and not be endlessly bombarded with what amounts to "is to and is not" then this is a good place to start.

Once you have learned then you can decide for yourself whether CTE fits your game or not.

The REASON that som many of us are passionate about it is really simple. We love to make balls go into the holes and CTE affords us a way to do that by giving us a way to make more shots, and to make tougher shots more consistently.

Membership in the CTE club is free. You can leave anytime. You can modify it to suit you. You can build on it and teach it to others as you are able and feel confident to do so. The only fee is time to learn and absorb it. I guarantee you as a player who has been at this game since he was 12 years old, that this is a better way to great shotmaking than spending years building a shot picture library in your head.

Or you can follow GetMeThere and see where you end up.

Your choice.


You can always tell when John is on a roll: every sentence is it's own paragraph, lol.

Lou Figueroa
 
Ain't no thang until Joey anoints you a "naysayer" :-)

Lou Figueroa

Weren't those the knights that wanted a new shrubbery in that Monty Python movie?

-Sean <-- wishes to be a member of the "Knights who say Nay!" (or, wishes when he said "Ni!" like that, it'd have the same effect on people)
 
So you would need to teach the 3 alignments (4 with edge to edge) and which section of the balls to apply to each alignment, then teach the shift...

Right. People before have used fractional ball aiming systems, with adjustments in between, to good effect. But that's not CTE (just ask AtLarge).

CTE implies it has MUCH more to offer than that.

EDIT: I think having "landmark" ball fractions (using the edge of the CB, into the fractions on the OB), and making adjustments in between is a useful shot-aiming method--and a good foundation on which to build further "feel" for shots.
 
Last edited:
Weren't those the knights that wanted a new shrubbery in that Monty Python movie?

-Sean <-- wishes to be a member of the "Knights who say Nay!" (or, wishes when he said "Ni!" like that, it'd have the same effect on people)

It was the knights who said nee, right?
 
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:
I'm sorry they are not up to John's standards. :confused:

Regards,
Dave


(sigh) Well, I guess I'm the last of the "Gang of Five" (GO5) John has identified to respond... Frankly, it has become a little like clubbing baby seals at this point (what with Petey and Cookie and John leading the charge), but here's my obligatory moan to add to the heap:

ouch, John, *your* credentials as a player (weenie), are soooooooo big that hurt.

Lou Figueroa
any pain I feel
right about now
is mostly from
my club arm getting
a little sore :-)
 
Last edited:
Right. People before have used fractional ball aiming systems, with adjustments in between, to good effect. But that's not CTE (just ask AtLarge).

CTE implies it has MUCH more to offer than that.

EDIT: I think having "landmark" ball fractions (using the edge of the CB, into the fractions on the OB), and making adjustments in between is a useful shot-aiming method--and a good foundation on which to build further "feel" for shots.

Great! So it looks like this thread has served a worthwhile purpose for you, because your scatalogical opening shot in post #1 (directed at what you thought was a fractional-ball aiming system) seems somewhat contrary to your current view.
 
And for a different take...

Right. People before have used fractional ball aiming systems, with adjustments in between, to good effect. But that's not CTE (just ask AtLarge).

CTE implies it has MUCH more to offer than that.

EDIT: I think having "landmark" ball fractions (using the edge of the CB, into the fractions on the OB), and making adjustments in between is a useful shot-aiming method--and a good foundation on which to build further "feel" for shots.

GetMeThere:

Before I go any further, let me point out that I'm a natural ghostballer. I "see" the ghostball plain as day, and often make the analogy that the ghostball "pops up" for me at the correct spot next to the object ball (to make it in the pocket, with throw already calculated in many cases), just like those whack-a-mole games. All I have to do is shoot the mole dead-center in the face, using the best fundamentals I can muster to do so.

I don't use CTE. However, I *do* see the value of CTE, one of the reasons for which you touched on in the bolded paragraph above. Here are my thoughts on the values (if not virtues) of CTE:

1. Many people have problems "finding the center" of something. For example, I'd just about bet my hat that probably 50% (if not more) of the readership on these boards could not do the "lag the cue ball the length of the table and back [kitchen to footrail and back], and have the cue ball return to the cue tip, without moving the cue" exercise, say, 10 out of 10 times. A pretty stiff challenge, I know, but I've seen it all too often. There are several reasons for this, but mostly due to eye-dominance (either known or unknown) playing a factor in the player's perception, the player's stance/head-eye placement over the cue, etc. Regardless what it is, many players can't hit the exact center of the cue ball.

2. Extending this outwards, many players can't see the "middle" of the object ball, either. Here's an experiment: line-up a straight-in shot towards a pocket, and then obscure the pocket from the player (e.g. place something across the table that is opaque, but with just enough room under it for the object ball to travel under). Remember: the cue ball and the object ball are still lined-up dead-straight into the pocket behind the blinder. Ask the player to shoot the cue ball straight into the object ball as if it were a straight-in shot. You may be surprised at the results (I certainly was when I first tried this as a proposition shot to a couple casual players). Many of them won't pocket the ball -- and worse yet, many will probably miss the pocket by a large margin! The reason is simple: those folks need to see the pocket in the background, as a reference point to home in on, because they simply can't see nor use the "middle-ness" of the object ball alone. To them, there's the left edge of the object ball, and the right edge of the object ball, and some "stuff" in-between. They can't find the middle of that "stuff."

3. You can see how the problem is exacerbated when the shooter is having problems finding the middle of objects they *can* physically see on the table, much less a ghostball -- something they have to visualize / can't physically see. Combine the "can't find the center of the cue ball" with the "can't find the center of the object ball" anomalies with the obvious problems in doing the same for a non-existent object (ghostball), and you can see where a system like CTE, that uses easily-locatable/-focusable (if that's a word?) fixed points on the cue ball and object ball, comes into the fray.

These folks find that being able to see and focus on the edges of the balls, and then pivoting a determined amount to point the cue somewhere into that "stuff," is able to get them on line for the shot. There's nothing wrong with that technique.

IMHO, it's just a way of end-running the "visualize the ghostball" thing, because they aren't using a ghostball whatsoever. They bypass the ghostball completely. Do pivot-aiming techniques, when they're properly conducted (either intentionally, or "accidentally" as you like to say, GetMeThere), ultimately get the shooter to point the cue ball at the proper ghostball location prior to pulling the trigger? It sure does. Does the pocket come into play for the shot? You betcha -- although it's only a cursory (and much glossed-over) preliminary step before beginning the CTE process. That's where the thick/thin/thinner aspect comes into play -- that decision as to whether the shot is a "thick," "thin," or "thinner" shot USES THE POCKET IN THE BACKGROUND to make that initial/cursory decision. After that, the pocket is discarded/ignored for the entire rest of the CTE process.

And yes, I have played with CTE as part of my explorations of the technique. Do I make balls with it? Yes, I do. Am I comfortable with it? So-so -- I do find it extremely hard to ignore that ghostball "mole" that automatically and naturally (for me) pops-up in the correct spot. It's difficult to just throw that information away. Am I more comfortable with ghostball and make balls more consistently and accurately than I do with CTE? Yes, I do -- but CTE advocates will quickly point out that I haven't committed to muscle memory (and haven't completely drowned out / killed-off the ghostball "mole") the CTE methodology to be second nature. Whether that's the "correct" method for me remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure -- it's my decision to make, not any one of the CTE advocates. That's why -- and the only reason -- you'll see me jump into CTE threads, and that is to kill or quash the insane sales pitches (e.g. "Sean, if you'll just commit yourself to CTE, you'll go up 'x' number of balls in your ability!" Grrrr!! :mad: )

Anyway, I hope this is helpful,
-Sean
 
Last edited:
GetMeThere:
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?
It systematically puts the shooter's eyes, stick, body (and, not incidentally, mind) in a consistent pre-determined starting position for each shot, and focuses attention on the consistency and precision of these actions and subsequent ones like them.

Why don't you give an example of GetMeThere not being a complete hardon all the time?

pj <- frequent hardon with occasional erectile disfunction
chgo
 
Last edited:
Great! So it looks like this thread has served a worthwhile purpose for you, because your scatalogical opening shot in post #1 (directed at what you thought was a fractional-ball aiming system) seems somewhat contrary to your current view.

Nope.

It was a fractional ball aiming system that claimed it could SYSTEMATICALLY FILL IN the intervening values that I was arguing against.

The problem with a fractional ball aiming system to START with, is that, if you think you're making a 30 degree shot, and it's really 28 degrees, you will miss it just based on that. For a fractional ball aiming system to be anything beyond a FEEL system, it would require some way to gain SYSTEMATIC INFORMATION about the angles.

I can never argue against feel, because that's how I learned pool and have mostly played. My argument is against FALSE systematizations of feel--which is EXACTLY what CTE is.
 
GMT , How many times a week do you catch
yourself stopped beside the road, getting out of your car to argue with a road sign . YOU are telling everyone that one of, If not THE top instructors (plural)
in the US are wrong and your right
Petey
 
Last edited:
Wow Jal. You must have put a lot of work into this! I doubt many people will appreciate the results, but I do.

It is no surprise how difficult it is to create a practical version of CTE that actually applies to a wide range of shots. It is also clear that to use CTE (any version) to pocket a wide range of shots over different distances and cut angles, "adjustment" and "judgment" are required.

CTE might be easy in "practice" for some, but it certainly ain't easy in "theory."

Good job,
Dave

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.

View attachment 160152

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

View attachment 160153

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

View attachment 160154

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.

View attachment 160155

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:

View attachment 160162

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
 
Jal,

Thanks for the charts. I need some concurrence of what I am looking at.

The numbers in inches on the left margine are just where you put the 8", 18", 36" and 72" examples that start at zero degree - which has no aparallel shift.

As the cut angle goes from 0 (degrees) to 90 degrees, the shift moves and increases as it follows the contact point (CP).

At 8", The shift on the chart rises from ~3" on the left (0d) to ~4" on the right (90d) - the delta being ~1" is close to 1/2 of the OB ball diameter at that distance of 8".

The same thing happens at 18" which results in a delta of ~.75" and at 36" = a delta of ~.50"

Finally at 72 ", the delta is ~.25".

This would validate that the "aparallel" shift is smaller as the CB to OB distance increases. If interpret that part of the chart correctly.

I don't understand the 2 degree (blue) and 5 degree (red) OB Direction Margin and why the slope is so severe at zero degrees etc..

Thanks again for your interest and work.

CTCP_Focal_Parallel_8_18_36_72_30_10_-4_2_5_T.JPG

:smile:
 
Last edited:
1. Many people have problems "finding the center" of something. For example, I'd just about bet my hat that probably 50% (if not more) of the readership on these boards could not do the "lag the cue ball the length of the table and back [kitchen to footrail and back], and have the cue ball return to the cue tip, without moving the cue" exercise, say, 10 out of 10 times. A pretty stiff challenge, I know, but I've seen it all too often. There are several reasons for this, but mostly due to eye-dominance (either known or unknown) playing a factor in the player's perception, the player's stance/head-eye placement over the cue, etc. Regardless what it is, many players can't hit the exact center of the cue ball.

I think you have to ask whether the problem is FINDING the center, or HITTING the center. I think those are two different tasks, and they're BOTH necessary for pool; and I think that SEPARATING those, in order to know which one you have a problem with, is a primary route to proper practice.

But what does CTE have to do with that situation?

2. Extending this outwards, many players can't see the "middle" of the object ball, either. Here's an experiment: line-up a straight-in shot towards a pocket, and then obscure the pocket from the player (e.g. place something across the table that is opaque, but with just enough room under it for the object ball to travel under). Remember: the cue ball and the object ball are still lined-up dead-straight into the pocket behind the blinder. Ask the player to shoot the cue ball straight into the object ball as if it were a straight-in shot. You may be surprised at the results (I certainly was when I first tried this as a proposition shot to a couple casual players). Many of them won't pocket the ball -- and worse yet, many will probably miss the pocket by a large margin! The reason is simple: those folks need to see the pocket in the background, as a reference point to home in on, because they simply can't see nor use the "middle-ness" of the object ball alone. To them, there's the left edge of the object ball, and the right edge of the object ball, and some "stuff" in-between. They can't find the middle of that "stuff."

I have no problem with using ball edges as references for aiming. Ball edges are BUILT-INTO the very foundations of pool: References to "cut shots" can only be metaphors for using the edge of the CB to "cut into" the OB at a particular point. "Thin cuts" refer to "cutting off" a thin portion of the OB with the edge of the CB.

And I agree that it's possible that once people have the idea of "cutting" that they can maybe be at a temporary loss when they confront a straight shot. Personally, a straight shot for me means trying to hit BOTH edges of the OB with both edges of the CB!

Still, I don't know what that has to do with CTE, or how CTE can help that situation.

3. Combine the "can't find the center of the cue ball" with the "can't find the center of the object ball" anomalies, and you can see where a system like CTE, that uses easily-locatable/-focusable (if that's a word?) fixed points on the cue ball and object ball, comes into the fray.

These folks find that being able to see and focus on the edges of the balls, and then pivoting a determined amount to point the cue somewhere into that "stuff," is able to get them on line for the shot. There's nothing wrong with that technique.

If people can't "see" edges and centers, then I don't know how "systematic commands" to see edges and centers can change things for them.


IMHO, it's just a way of end-running the "visualize the ghostball" thing, because they aren't using a ghostball whatsoever. They bypass the ghostball completely. Do pivot-aiming techniques, when they're properly conducted (either intentionally, or "accidentally" as you like to say, GetMeThere), ultimately get the shooter to point the cue ball at the proper ghostball location prior to pulling the trigger? It sure does. Does the pocket come into play for the shot? You betcha -- although it's only a cursory (and much glossed-over) preliminary step before beginning the CTE process. That's where the thick/thin/thinner aspect comes into play -- that decision as to whether the shot is a "thick," "thin," or "thinner" shot USES THE POCKET IN THE BACKGROUND to make that initial/cursory decision. After that, the pocket is discarded/ignored for the entire rest of the CTE process.

To me that's just another way of saying that CTE users utilize "feel" just like everyone else. In my mind (what I do to pocket balls), "feel" is just one step down from "ghostball:" I "feel" where the GB is, without actually "seeing" it. Estimating "how much to cut" is equivalent to imagine a ghost ball sitting there "at the cut."

I agree with others that what CTE players are doing is simply making shots by feel. But I have trouble seeing how that means CTE actually HELPS them. I certainly wonder whether they wouldn't be helped MORE just concentrating on the "feel" that's in fact making the shots for them.

Maybe I'm wrong (and maybe YOU'RE wrong): I don't see how "MAKING BELIEVE" that one is using a "system" can enhance one's use of feel (but I can imagine, and have stated before, that mentally TYING stereotypical movements TO feelings could make it easier to call up and repeat the "feel" set ups).

And yes, I have played with CTE as part of my explorations of the technique. Do I make balls with it? Yes, I do. Am I comfortable with it? So-so -- I do find it extremely hard to ignore that ghostball "mole" that automatically and naturally (for me) pops-up in the correct spot. It's difficult to just throw that information away. Am I more comfortable with ghostball and make balls more consistently and accurately than I do with CTE? Yes, I do -- but CTE advocates will quickly point out that I haven't committed to muscle memory (and haven't completely drowned out / killed-off the ghostball "mole") the CTE methodology to be second nature. Whether that's the "correct" method for me remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure -- it's my decision to make, not any one of the CTE advocates. That's why -- and the only reason -- you'll see me jump into CTE threads, and that is to kill or quash the insane sales pitches (e.g. "Sean, if you'll just commit yourself to CTE, you'll go up 'x' number of balls in your ability!" Grrrr!! :mad: )

Right. I also dislike unsupported claims. Which is why I don't like the "systematic" claims of CTE. I'll admit that I don't understand why some non-CTE-advocates want me to mitigate my dislike for CTE claims. I'm really confused by that one.
 
It systematically puts the shooter's eyes, stick, body (and, not incidentally, mind) in a consistent pre-determined starting position for each shot, and focuses attention on the consistency and precision of these actions and subsequent ones like them.

Pre-shot routines are already VERY well known, and their value universally acknowledged. Why should one be thought of or referred to as an "aiming system?"
 
GMT , How many times a week do you catch
yourself stopped beside the road, getting out of your car to argue with a road sign . YOU are telling everyone that one of, If not THE top instructors (plural)
in the US are wrong and your right
Petey

Authority is good, and useful. But it can't be taken for granted, and it can't be used as an excuse for ceasing your own thinking.

OTOH, my thinking and analysis has been tested by/against some of the ABSOLUTE TOP MINDS IN THE WORLD! Nobel prize winners, and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Who is some...pffft....BILLIARD INSTRUCTOR to tell me I don't know how to consider and analyze a pathetically simple set of concepts?
 
Authority is good, and useful. But it can't be taken for granted, and it can't be used as an excuse for ceasing your own thinking.

OTOH, my thinking and analysis has been tested by/against some of the ABSOLUTE TOP MINDS IN THE WORLD! Nobel prize winners, and members of the National Academy of Sciences. Who is some...pffft....BILLIARD INSTRUCTOR to tell me I don't know how to consider and analyze a pathetically simple set of concepts?



Ya, the brashness of those Billiard Instructors....SPF=randyg:wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top