Why CTE is silly

[Mikjary]

I have thought about it. There are differences:

Good points and if I may respond objectively...

1) CTE was first brought on the scene by Hal Houle who specifically stated he wanted it to be FREE to the world--who gave it away to anyone who asked.

As I said before, Hal's stuff is free and understandable if you take the time to work with what he is willing to show you. He did occasionally give out incomplete instructions that frustrated many, but at the same time piqued the curiousity of others who were willing to put out an extra effort until they were successful. His free instructions to most were a test to see who would genuinely work at them and those who would fail due to lack of effort. This sounds like a harsh picture of Hal, but at the same time it is a glowing testament to his uncoddling wisdom. If you want to eat in this world, you have to work. We've become a microwaveable society and hard work is for the other guy of limited talent and intellect. It's not that Cte is hard to learn. On the contrary, I showed my teenaged son who plays once a month with me and he got it in a half hour or so.

2) Some still arguing the point CONFERRED with Hal fifteen years ago, and came away saying it was the BALONEY then as it is now. Hal Houle's near MANIACAL sounding posts are still available for all to read. They're nonsense. Nothing has been said about them since to imply they don't REMAIN anything but nonsense.

Again, to the Cte educated these posts are not cryptic. Time marches on and old news is still old news. I live in the here and now. This is not to ridicule those efforts by others as I felt their frustrations in my own quest, but sometimes negative pressure and poetic license create fierce defensive postures. Have you ever put your foot in your mouth (outside of a yoga setting)? I know I have and I can't take those words back. It happens. I have no control of past events and I'm not making excuses for them now. All I know is I have never been asked to write a speech for the President, but I do understand Hal's technical points.

He is bringing a previously thought outrageous claim of using the balls themselves to aim with instead of direct aiming lines to the pockets. He uses perspective ratios and the CB/OB relationship to find a target in space. He figured out the points to use on the OB and found they were consistent as contact points. The user is asked to maintain their relationship to this "dance" by maintaining a consistent pivot and bridge length, unique to each individual. Hence, the difficulty in a cookie cutter one size fits all scenario. With practice you can do just about anything if you try in all aspects of pool and life.

3) Advocates are NOT silent on the issue. They DEMAND others believe the veracity of their claims. When asked, they DON'T SAY "Well, it's a secret." They say "The information is OUT THERE and AVAILABLE" but.....well, they're not just going to spoon feed it (lovely that John Barton's farewell post in this thread includes another spoon-feeding reference).

This is the same PITA argument I heard when I first started on my search. Frustrating, but you know what? It's the truth and I got past it. You should, too.

4) There still is NO SUBSTANTIAL INFORMATION from which one could get some hints of PRINCIPLES of CTE. The atomic bomb was one of the largest secret projects undertaken; yet even CHILDREN understand the basic principles upon which it is based. Substantial ideas about something can be put forth, and the DETAILS withheld, and in that way outsiders CAN come to reason that the idea has substance, without being able to use it themselves.

I would add to that first sentence the words, "for free". No amount of whining is going to change the fact that people who use the actual Hal/Stan/Spidey Cte are willing to go against their wishes of discretion. I realized this and rather than go 'round and 'round on a public forum full of squabbling and posturing I sought a way to getting the answers for myself.

5) One principle of CTE IS out in the open: It claims to provide "exact" (Stan's promotional literature about Pro-One) aiming solutions for pocketing balls by referencing relative ball position ONLY, and not pocket position (this was again confirmed by Dave Segal in a post within the last day or two). Well such a system CANNOT work--and that can be determined by the SIMPLEST analysis--probably by an intelligent and thoughtful twelve-year-old.

A system is only as exact as the user's concept of the tools needed to implement its techniques. I do not use my Skilsaw with a wood cutting blade to cut masonry. Until you tear down the wall your logic has erected in front of your face and resign yourself to explore the possibilities that could open up before you if you picked up these tools, no explanation will make sense. I mean this respectfully and honestly.

It's true many Cte advocates are lost when it comes to explaining their methods. Some say they use the CB center and others say they use the edge. Some use a half ball pivot and some say quarter ball offset and pivot. They are all doing the same thing. They are using an individualized movement that starts in different places and in varying degrees, but they end up at the correct contact point. It's still a pivot system. Their pivot system. The kids on the sandlot can all swing a bat, but is one doing it better than the next? Stan's dvd will standardize Cte and create a baseline for understanding and further discussion.

Best,
Mike

 

[sfleinen]

I always thought PJ was the forum police on here, but with GTM and SEAN's posting I'm not so sure. Good job guys, lol.

Exhibit A.

 

[cookie man]

Exhibit A.

We have to be way past A.

 

[GetMeThere]

Until you tear down the wall your logic has erected in front of your face and resign yourself to explore the possibilities that could open up before you if you picked up these tools, no explanation will make sense. I mean this respectfully and honestly.

I'll just take this as representative of the entire post, which is of the flavor: "I know it sounds crazy, but it WORKS!"

You recommend "hard work" to understand. I wonder what kind of work you think earning PhDs in scientific fields, or doing research in science and engineering entails. One type of "work" that is required is the work to develop critical thinking skills--work that does NOT COME NATURALLY, and which many people have significant difficulty in developing (and which most develop in only the most meager manner--if at all).

A wall (a MOUNTAIN!) of logic tells me that CTE cannot exactly and systematically provide a solution to pocket balls if it doesn't exactly and systematically place the balls in relation to the pocket.

You tell me to JETTISON all that logic (and all the work involved in learning and applying it) and "just try it" (and work hard at "just trying it").

When you do that you are being ANTI- "work," and, btw, pro "superstition" or pro "religion."

When I see a blackbird, and someone tells me to just "give up that prejudice that the bird is black, and start to call it WHITE instead" and to "WORK AT THAT for a good while...." I just call that person nuts; and I keep calling black "black." They'll probably keep insisting that I don't realize that it's really white because I'm not TRYING....but thanks, I've already done a lot of trying to learn something that's USEFUL (i.e., thinking critically), and it has been ENORMOUSLY powerful for society for hundreds, and in some sense, thousands of years.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

a hit n run typed out of frustration and prejudice.

Hit n run, huh? After many years of engaging in threads about these "ballpark" systems (years more than you, I'll wager), I'm still here, waiting to hear something other than "it works" or "keep an open mind". Funny, after your post (even after Joey's novel-length homage) I still haven't heard it. Go figure.

pj <- so open I've got squatters
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

I'll just take this as representative of the entire post, which is of the flavor: "I know it sounds crazy, but it WORKS!"
You recommend "hard work" to understand. I wonder what kind of work you think earning PhDs in scientific fields, or doing research in science and engineering entails. One type of "work" that is required is the work to develop critical thinking skills--work that does NOT COME NATURALLY, and which many people have significant difficulty in developing (and which most develop in only the most meager manner--if at all).

A wall (a MOUNTAIN!) of logic tells me that CTE cannot exactly and systematically provide a solution to pocket balls if it doesn't exactly and systematically place the balls in relation to the pocket.

You tell me to JETTISON all that logic (and all the work involved in learning and applying it) and "just try it" (and work hard at "just trying it").

When you do that you are being ANTI- "work," and, btw, pro "superstition" or pro "religion."

When I see a blackbird, and someone tells me to just "give up that prejudice that the bird is black, and start to call it WHITE instead" and to "WORK AT THAT for a good while...." I just call that person nuts; and I keep calling black "black." They'll probably keep insisting that I don't realize that it's really white because I'm not TRYING....but thanks, I've already done a lot of trying to learn something that's USEFUL (i.e., thinking critically), and it has been ENORMOUSLY powerful for society for hundreds, and in some sense, thousands of years.

Did I just say that? Again, you are trying to peek around or over your wall. I'm not presenting technical facts or arguements about exact details of Cte implementation. Or dismissing the use of logic in a discussion and trying to spin the value of higher education and research in our society as a waste of time. Preconceived notions are why we stagnate and close our minds. The status quo changes every day. Hopefully for the better.

I've read every word you've said on this thread and agree with some of your points and understand if you are incorrect with others it is because of incomplete information. I, too, like to logically solve problems and am confused with inconsistencies.

I didn't invent Cte or Pro One and have struggled at times to figure this stuff out when something wasn't clicking. It was always an operator error that popped up and I understood that as a non-machine. I made mistakes and fixed them. I'm still far from perfect, but at least I take comfort in the fact that I'm productive and progressing. This is because I don't let preconceived ideas limit my advancement. If I'm wrong I cut my losses and move on. But I still explore all avenues available to me.

You're an intelligent person and I'm not patronizing you here. I want you to see though, that different degrees of logic run parallel with yours and demand an answer or be dismissed. We are non-machinery that occasionally can creatively answer an equation by looking at it from a fresh perspective or equivalency. If a blackbird is just a black bird, then you will never notice genetic differences in their in tufts or feather patterns. They're all the same. But some can see the difference and open up the possibility for exploration and new pathways of thinking and looking at their surroundings. Rather than debate these questions prejudiciously we should make greater effort to examine them and keep an open mind. After all, antimatter was a comic book staple a short while ago.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

Hit n run, huh? After many years of engaging in threads about these "ballpark" systems (years more than you, I'll wager), I'm still here, waiting to hear something other than "it works" or "keep an open mind". Funny, after your post (even after Joey's novel-length homage) I still haven't heard it. Go figure.

pj <- so open I've got squatters
chgo

Sorry to hear about the roids, PJ. You do have the seniority over me as far as letting the rest of the aiming world know that they are wrong. Old news is old news. I do respect your work with a lot of other things you've posted, just found you lacking in the progressive department.

I guess my "hit n' run" cliche was wrong because it seems you've come back to the scene. Seriously though, PJ, a player with your analytical mind and experience could shed a lot of light on things here. Yet you shut the door with sarcastic dismissals of people's intellect and witticisms only a true Chicagoan (me) could appreciate. That's my point. Don't be Lex Luthor on these threads. Make the effort and get the info other than from these threads and report back. No excuses.

It hasn't taken over 2K posts to disprove why Cte is silly. The ones making the silliness claims don't even use the system. I don't listen to operas. Does that make them silly? I don't think so.

Best,
Mike

 

[GetMeThere]

I want you to see though that different degrees of logic run parallel with yours and demand an answer or be dismissed. We are non-machinery that occasionally can creatively answer an equation by looking at it from a fresh perspective or equivalency.

Vague, cryptic assertions. Why is it that NO CTE advocate EVER can make a clear and definitive assertion?

Oh...good thing I'm here to tell you why: because to be a CTE "believer" requires a DELUSION (that they're actually using CTE to "aim" in order to pocket balls), and delusions REQUIRE suspension of such things as clarity and logic.

Mike, say something SPECIFIC, and maybe there's something to talk about. You say nothing which CAN be discussed in a meaningful way. Whereas I have said something EXTREMELY definitive: CTE (as something EXACT and as a SYSTEM--both terms used in Stan's marketing) CANNOT work, simply because it does not include an exact representation of ball-pocket relationship. I've said that REPEATEDLY on this thread, and no CTE advocate has stepped up to say "Oh yes it can, consider A, B, C and then xyz." Instead all they EVER say in response is "IT WORKS!"


Let's hear about those "different degrees of logic run parallel with yours and demand an answer." Perhaps we can discuss those (it hasn't happened in 15 years. Maybe today is the day).

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Mike:
You do have the seniority over me as far as letting the rest of the aiming world know that they are wrong.

I have accuracy over you too. "The rest of the aiming world" isn't in these aiming system threads - and the insignificantly tiny fraction of the aiming world here "defending" CTE is wrong.

But not wrong about whether or not CTE "works" - that's not a real issue. Wasting time defending CTE against this red herring issue, not understanding the legitimate questions about CTE, and not understanding what kind of answers these questions need is why I think CTE's cheerleaders are clueless.

What are the legitimate questions? Here they are again (for the millionth time):

1. How can a "pivot" be described with enough precision to make shots without adjustments (and enough simplicity to be a useful system)?

2. Why are pivot system users so defensive about the possibility that pivot systems aren't "exact"?

I'm still here listening, but with very low expectations.

pj
chgo

 

[Mikjary]

Vague, cryptic assertions. Why is it that NO CTE advocate EVER can make a clear and definitive assertion?

Oh...good thing I'm here to tell you why: because to be a CTE "believer" requires a DELUSION (that they're actually CTE to "aim" in order to pocket balls), and delusions REQUIRE suspension of such things as clarity and logic.

Mike, say something SPECIFIC, and maybe there's something to talk about. You say nothing which CAN be discussed in a meaningful way. Whereas I have said something EXTREMELY definitive: CTE (as something EXACT and as a SYSTEM--both terms used in Stan's marketing) CANNOT work, simply because it does not include an exact representation of ball-pocket relationship. I've said that REPEATEDLY on this thread, and no CTE advocate has stepped up to say "Oh yes it can, consider A, B, C and then xyz." Instead all they EVER say in response is "IT WORKS!"


Let's hear about those "different degrees of logic run parallel with yours and demand an answer." Perhaps we can discuss those (it hasn't happened in 15 years. Maybe today is the day).

GMT,

I offered a set of diagrams detailing Ron Vitello's 90/90 aiming system before and never got a request from you. It is essentially the same thing as Cte except with different starting points and different pivots. It is available and I've sent out emails to many takers.

You can analyze this pivot system and draw the same conclusions. They are sister systems and share the same ideas about alignment and pocket location. This is available. Any player with a little ambition can get a handle on this system in 15 minutes. It is like Chevy and GMC.

This is the impasse. I offer a solution, but I still am asked for another way. If you don't believe me when I say you can draw conclusions from this, why would you believe me if I explain Cte?

I have a close friend who played on the Camel tour who is already familiar with Cte. After I showed him 90/90 he started using it, too. I talked to him last week and he joked around about them being the same thing. He was having trouble figuring out how they were so closely related, but started with different setups.

This is free with Ron V.'s blessing. It is his system. If you want it I will send it to you. Draw your own conclusions.

Best,
Mike

 

[Mikjary]

I have accuracy over you too. "The rest of the aiming world" isn't in these aiming system threads - and the insignificantly tiny fraction of the aiming world here "defending" CTE is wrong.

But not wrong about whether or not CTE "works" - that's not a real issue. Wasting time defending CTE against this red herring issue, not understanding the legitimate questions about CTE, and not understanding what kind of answers these questions need is why I think CTE's cheerleaders are clueless.

What are the legitimate questions? Here they are again (for the millionth time):

1. How can a "pivot" be described with enough precision to make shots without adjustments (and enough simplicity to be a useful system)?

2. Why are pivot system users so defensive about the possibility that pivot systems aren't "exact"?

I'm still here listening, but with very low expectations.

pj
chgo

I am not here to defend Cte. Why should I? I found my answers and am moving on. If you are a fellow user we can discuss the finer points of it. But that's my point. Shouldn't both sides of the discussion be familiar with the details of the topic?

I don't even worry the least about "exact"ness. Mathematicians do. The non-"exact" part is people who haven't learned Cte and are questioning it.
They want everything to be explainable. It makes them uncomfortable until this happens. It doesn't change anything, but their sense of order and routine is satisfied. Human nature.

Here's something I've queried of this thread before. And before I repeat my question I'll answer yours. The pivot is and should be a consistent part of a Cte setup. Except for high level (unexplained by me) movements that I've seen such as Bustamante's or Jimmy Moore's pivoting among others, the pivot shouldn't vary. No adjustments on a typical Cte setup. You can vary the pivot if you want to satisfy your view of how Cte works, but it's not used on 99% of shots. IMO Balls close together in different pivot systems do tighten their pivot arc for throw. Very close together.

Help answer some of your own issues by telling me what you think the pivot is. Even if they're theories they're important. I'll honestly answer with mine.

Best,
Mike

 

[GetMeThere]

GMT,

I offered a set of diagrams detailing Ron Vitello's 90/90 aiming system before and never got a request from you. It is essentially the same thing as Cte except with different starting points and different pivots. It is available and I've sent out emails to many takers.

You can analyze this pivot system and draw the same conclusions. They are sister systems and share the same ideas about alignment and pocket location. This is available. Any player with a little ambition can get a handle on this system in 15 minutes. It is like Chevy and GMC.

This is the impasse. I offer a solution, but I still am asked for another way. If you don't believe me when I say you can draw conclusions from this, why would you believe me if I explain Cte?

I have a close friend who played on the Camel tour who is already familiar with Cte. After I showed him 90/90 he started using it, too. I talked to him last week and he joked around about them being the same thing. He was having trouble figuring out how they were so closely related, but started with different setups.

This is free with Ron V.'s blessing. It is his system. If you want it I will send it to you. Draw your own conclusions.

Best,
Mike

Sure, send it in a PM (or series of PMs). Didn't you make this same offer to Dr. Dave? If it's something like he shows here, then I don't find it particularly interesting: it says you have to "estimate" how much to pivot. Why should I be interested in "estimating how much to pivot" when I can already "estimate how much to cut the ball" quite successfully?

 

[Mikjary]

Sure, send it in a PM (or series of PMs). Didn't you make this same offer to Dr. Dave? If it's something like he shows here, then I don't find it particularly interesting: it says you have to "estimate" how much to pivot. Why should I be interested in "estimating how much to pivot" when I can already "estimate how much to cut the ball" quite successfully?

For GMT and anybody else interested, please send your email info and I will email it to you. All inquiries will be treated confidentially. Please do the same for me.

Best,
Mike

 

[lfigueroa]

CTE was supported by some people that I have respect for, so I gleaned what I could from their posts on the subject. Over a year ago, I tried it, and got nowhere real fast, and gave it up. But, I kept an ear open for more on it. Later, a piece here and a piece there, I tried something, and it opened a door for me. I worked with it, and the door wasn't only opened, the whole blame wall fell down!

I knew I wasn't doing it "right", but it sure worked wonders for me! I haven't posted what I do publicly because I know it won't meet scrutiny. On paper, it won't make sense. In the real world, it does.

I think this is what happens over and over with CTE -- people force it into something workable.

I have written a couple of times about how people develop their own realities for pool and how what they see as the actual physics and mechanics of the game are not necessarily how any other player sees them. And so, when one player says this is the way you line up and shoot this, it may not work for someone else. Maybe because even though a player might believe they are executing a shot with say an above center hit, they're not seeing that at the last moment their cue tip drops and they're actually hitting the ball below center. But in their mind, in their reality, above center produces draw and nevermind that you can "prove" otherwise.

And so, we have all these people all trying to make this CTE thing work and they can't and they somehow develop a construct that forces it to work on one level or another. They all know they're "not doing it right," or that "my version of CTE is different," (some folks might even give their version a cool name) but it's the only way they can jump on the CTE bandwagon. It probably helps them, just not for the reasons they believe or can prove to anyone else.

Lou Figueroa

 

[dr_dave]

I think this is what happens over and over with CTE -- people force it into something workable.

I have written a couple of times about how people develop their own realities for pool and how what they see as the actual physics and mechanics of the game are not necessarily how any other player sees them. And so, when one player says this is the way you line up and shoot this, it may not work for someone else. Maybe because even though a player might believe they are executing a shot with say an above center hit, they're not seeing that at the last moment their cue tip drops and they're actually hitting the ball below center. But in their mind, in their reality, above center produces draw and nevermind that you can "prove" otherwise.

And so, we have all these people all trying to make this CTE thing work and they can't and they somehow develop a construct that forces it to work on one level or another. They all know they're "not doing it right," or that "my version of CTE is different," (some folks might even give their version a cool name) but it's the only way they can jump on the CTE bandwagon. It probably helps them, just not for the reasons they believe or can prove to anyone else.

Lou Figueroa

Good post Lou!

I also worked really hard with CTE. I've researched, tested, and analyzed it thoroughly to figure out how to make it work. The end result is "my own version of CTE" called DAM. I can't describe to you what it is or how or why it works, but take my word for it: DAM is the best version of CTE available ... it's the nuts!!!

I do charge a lot money for DAM lessons, but they are worth it. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special CTE nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if I ever release a DAM-CTE-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.

Regards,
Dave

PS: All of these recent CTE threads have provided many more ridiculously interesting sentences for my marketing introduction for DAM.

 

[lfigueroa]

Good post Lou!

I also worked really hard with CTE. I've researched, tested, and analyzed it thoroughly to figure out how to make it work. The end result is "my own version of CTE" called DAM. I can't describe to you what it is or how or why it works, but take my word for it: DAM is the best version of CTE available ... it's the nuts!!!

I do charge a lot money for DAM lessons, but they are worth it. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special CTE nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if I ever release a DAM-CTE-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.

Regards,
Dave

PS: All of these recent CTE threads have provided many more ridiculously interesting sentences for my marketing introduction for DAM.

lol, thanks, Dr. Dave. Of course I'm with you -- I require all my students to sign a blood oath of secrecy. If I ever put out a DVD there will be a hypnosis session at the end where anyone watching it will immediately forget everything they've seen and be unable to keep me from recouping my investment in making the DVD and profiting from my hard, sweaty work, by sharing it with others.

Lou Figueroa
did I mention
the pinkie swear

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
How can a "pivot" be described with enough precision to make shots without adjustments...?

Mike:
...the pivot shouldn't vary

LOL. Exhibit A in the case for "CTE users don't even understand the questions".

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Good post Lou!

I also worked really hard with CTE. I've researched, tested, and analyzed it thoroughly to figure out how to make it work. The end result is "my own version of CTE" called DAM. I can't describe to you what it is or how or why it works, but take my word for it: DAM is the best version of CTE available ... it's the nuts!!!

I do charge a lot money for DAM lessons, but they are worth it. I know this might sound ridiculous, but I must be clear on this matter: My students are not allowed to share with anybody anything they learn. They are required to sign a special CTE nondisclosure agreement that binds them for life. People are willing to openly discuss and share everything they learn from my VEPS series; but if I ever release a DAM-CTE-DVD, the information must not be disclosed by any viewers; otherwise, they risk exposing themselves to extreme wrath and persecution.

Regards,
Dave

PS: All of these recent CTE threads have provided many more ridiculously interesting sentences for my marketing introduction for DAM.

You should take that stuff off your site. It doesn't educate your visitors, it creates division, it's not funny, and it takes away from the educational "feel" for the site.

You'd do well for yourself and improve the quality of your site if you just stuck with the educational tidbits and left out the "smart ass" stuff that some people take offense to.

I think Petey was banned for saying the same thing but being a little less diplomatic. I like your site---- it serves a good purpose. However, it's the move to keep it non-partisan and without the anecdotes that are derogatory towards CTE. Some of your "ridiculous" claims I could back-up if I gave a sh!t enough to do so.

In closing, take a mulligan on that page and restructure it as a new beginning of good information. Remove the fluff, non-funny humor, and other stuff that doesn't add to a solid educational resource.

Dave

 

[stan shuffett]

Dr. Dave,

I appreciate the respect I get from you which is zero.

I despise some of your crap!

Had I only known.....but I was warned.

Have s great day,

Stan

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Spidey:
Some of your "ridiculous" claims I could back-up if I gave a sh!t enough to do so.

Sure you could.

pj
chgo