Why CTE is silly

[GetMeThere]

I was one of the fortunate ones that got a phone call from Hal back in the late 90s. I have used CTE in the past, as well as Ghost Ball, as well as fractional aiming, Equal/Opposite method, etc..

The method he taught me, which still works to this day with no adjustments, is different than what has been posted (or I haven't seen the correct version yet). You need to know which way you're cutting the ball, and there are a few magic starting points you need to know. You, first off, need to be able to identify a half ball hit.

The direction of the pivot, and the starting point, are determined by the angle of the cut. This is why you need to know the half ball hit angle. The alignment point on the object ball is always the outer edge. The starting point on the cueball is always the edge. However, it can be the inside or outside edge. That is determined by the cut angle.

For shots less than 30 degrees, line up the centre of the cueball with the edge of the object ball. Start with the outside edge of your cue tip lined up with the outside edge of the cueball. Pivot towards centre. Your pivot should be leading you towards the centre of the object ball.

For cuts greater than 30 degrees, but less than 65, the pivot comes from the inside edge of the cueball. When you pivot to centre, you should be going towards the outside edge of the object ball, away from the centre.

For thin cuts, the pivots are edge to edge. Thinner than 80, pivot from outside edge to centre on the cueball, with the starting alignment being cutting edge of cueball to the cutting edge of the object ball. For razor cuts, line up outside edge to outside edge, and pivot away from the edge.

Feel free to hack and slash the system. I thought Hal was completely full of shit when he was on the phone with me. However, this version takes into account the angle of the shot, and gives you reference starting points for each cut. Do I use this system today? Sometimes. I've got most of these shots in my memory bank. However, I struggle with some thinner cuts, seeing the right point of contact. So, I go back to this system, and I rarely miss.

Certain things cannot be explained on paper. If you need a diagram to show you a system works, stick with Virtual Pool. You will have a chance of winning there, but not on a real table that has elements like chalk dust, humidity, and friction between surfaces. If I was to draw all the vector diagrams associated with a pool shot, I'd have to account for rotational force transferred to the object ball, jump/bounce affecting the aim on shots struck with force, and a multitude of others.

I struggled with the mathematical explanation for why it works. Then, you reach an age where you really don't care about the why, and come to grips with the fact that it seems to work.

Well...

Thanks for supplying details. They sound similar to ones I've read. Hopefully, Dr. Dave can include your details in his CTE resource area.

The trouble with the system you outline is that it only produces, I don't know, 4, 5, 6, 8 or so different actual "shots." But there are far more than that for all possible shots at less than 60 (or 65, or 80) degrees. The system simply DOESN'T provide any information for all the others.

It's obvious to me that the others (well, ALL of them, really, since nobody I know can distinguish 30 degree shots from 28 degree shots by estimation alone) are made by "feel" or "pool player estimation." So, if they're made by estimation, I have to wonder why you just don't ADMIT THAT, and why you don't just go ahead and MAKE shots purely by estimation--and forget all the "edge-lining" and pivot waving stuff--since THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, ANYWAY!


As far as "Then, you reach an age where you really don't care about the why, and come to grips with the fact that it seems to work."

I haven't reached that age yet. I'm thinking I might hit it around 110-115. I'll let you know what I think about it, then....but something tells me at that point I won't "really care" about letting you know, either.

 

[dr_dave]

The direction of the pivot, and the starting point, are determined by the angle of the cut. This is why you need to know the half ball hit angle. The alignment point on the object ball is always the outer edge. The starting point on the cueball is always the edge. However, it can be the inside or outside edge. That is determined by the cut angle.

For shots less than 30 degrees, line up the centre of the cueball with the edge of the object ball. Start with the outside edge of your cue tip lined up with the outside edge of the cueball. Pivot towards centre. Your pivot should be leading you towards the centre of the object ball.

For cuts greater than 30 degrees, but less than 65, the pivot comes from the inside edge of the cueball. When you pivot to centre, you should be going towards the outside edge of the object ball, away from the centre.

For thin cuts, the pivots are edge to edge. Thinner than 80, pivot from outside edge to centre on the cueball, with the starting alignment being cutting edge of cueball to the cutting edge of the object ball. For razor cuts, line up outside edge to outside edge, and pivot away from the edge.

Thank you for posting this. This is one of the clearest and most detailed descriptions I've seen to date; although, I'm not sure the "CTE proponents" will accept it as an "official" version of CTE. FYI, I've quoted it (from you) on my CTE resource page.

Good job,
Dave

 

[GetMeThere]

I hope Stan's DVD changes this by filling in all (or at least some) of the missing details.

I hope you're right....but I'm not holding my breath. There's already a "peremptory" from JoeyA implying that the DVD alone may not be enough to really explain and clarify what CTE IS. And let's not forget the couple of encouragements already given that Stan REFRAIN from releasing the DVD because people won't honor some vague "secrecy concern" regarding it.

Nevertheless, it seems it would HAVE to contain more information than what is both around and IDENTIFIABLE to one accountable person. So far, you've gotten at least one complete set of CTE systemic elements that were subsequently WITHDRAWN by the one who offered them (JB).

Still, for me, the simple bottom line is that the relative pocket position is ignored (as Stan's cryptic responses to me in the last couple of posts show). Without that THERE CAN BE NO EXACT POCKETING SYSTEM. And it's not necessary to have further CTE elaboration to know that.

 

[Mikjary]

I was one of the fortunate ones that got a phone call from Hal back in the late 90s. I have used CTE in the past, as well as Ghost Ball, as well as fractional aiming, Equal/Opposite method, etc..

The method he taught me, which still works to this day with no adjustments, is different than what has been posted (or I haven't seen the correct version yet). You need to know which way you're cutting the ball, and there are a few magic starting points you need to know. You, first off, need to be able to identify a half ball hit.

The direction of the pivot, and the starting point, are determined by the angle of the cut. This is why you need to know the half ball hit angle. The alignment point on the object ball is always the outer edge. The starting point on the cueball is always the edge. However, it can be the inside or outside edge. That is determined by the cut angle.

For shots less than 30 degrees, line up the centre of the cueball with the edge of the object ball. Start with the outside edge of your cue tip lined up with the outside edge of the cueball. Pivot towards centre. Your pivot should be leading you towards the centre of the object ball.

For cuts greater than 30 degrees, but less than 65, the pivot comes from the inside edge of the cueball. When you pivot to centre, you should be going towards the outside edge of the object ball, away from the centre.

For thin cuts, the pivots are edge to edge. Thinner than 80, pivot from outside edge to centre on the cueball, with the starting alignment being cutting edge of cueball to the cutting edge of the object ball. For razor cuts, line up outside edge to outside edge, and pivot away from the edge.

Feel free to hack and slash the system. I thought Hal was completely full of shit when he was on the phone with me. However, this version takes into account the angle of the shot, and gives you reference starting points for each cut. Do I use this system today? Sometimes. I've got most of these shots in my memory bank. However, I struggle with some thinner cuts, seeing the right point of contact. So, I go back to this system, and I rarely miss.

Certain things cannot be explained on paper. If you need a diagram to show you a system works, stick with Virtual Pool. You will have a chance of winning there, but not on a real table that has elements like chalk dust, humidity, and friction between surfaces. If I was to draw all the vector diagrams associated with a pool shot, I'd have to account for rotational force transferred to the object ball, jump/bounce affecting the aim on shots struck with force, and a multitude of others.

I struggled with the mathematical explanation for why it works. Then, you reach an age where you really don't care about the why, and come to grips with the fact that it seems to work.

Thank you for posting. This is very similar to 90/90 aiming. The setups can be pivoted from either direction by moving your initial aiming line. I have a set of diagrams you might be interested in describing pretty much what you are doing. You will see some similarities and different starting points, but I think the same pivot system. Shoot me a pm with your email if you'd like to take a look.

Best,
Mike

 

[Neil]

Well...

Thanks for supplying details. They sound similar to ones I've read. Hopefully, Dr. Dave can include your details in his CTE resource area.

The trouble with the system you outline is that it only produces, I don't know, 4, 5, 6, 8 or so different actual "shots." But there are far more than that for all possible shots at less than 60 (or 65, or 80) degrees. The system simply DOESN'T provide any information for all the others.

It's obvious to me that the others (well, ALL of them, really, since nobody I know can distinguish 30 degree shots from 28 degree shots by estimation alone) are made by "feel" or "pool player estimation." So, if they're made by estimation, I have to wonder why you just don't ADMIT THAT, and why you don't just go ahead and MAKE shots purely by estimation--and forget all the "edge-lining" and pivot waving stuff--since THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, ANYWAY!


As far as "Then, you reach an age where you really don't care about the why, and come to grips with the fact that it seems to work."

I haven't reached that age yet. I'm thinking I might hit it around 110-115. I'll let you know what I think about it, then....but something tells me at that point I won't "really care" about letting you know, either.

You have eyes, yet you do not see. You have ears, yet you do not hear. You read, but you don't understand. Try DOING what it says, then maybe you WILL understand. You keep missing the obvious because your desire to denigrate outweighs your ability to see.

 

[dr_dave]

As PJ and others have pointed out, the versions of CTE that have been offered so far do work exactly as advertised for certain ranges of shots. Furthermore, if you also adjust (consciously or subconsciously) your eye/body alignment and/or your effective pivot length (see my CTE resource page for more info), the basic procedures can "work" for every shot at the table, regardless of the CB-OB distance, bridge length, or cut angle. CTE also offers other benefits to some people. I don't think any of this is "silly."

IMO, if CTE proponents could agree with the "explanation" in my paragraph above, there would be no need for debates like this; but they claim there are still some secret missing pieces of the puzzle that non-CTE-people don't know about yet. If this really is the case, I hope Stan's DVD will reveal some of these secrets; otherwise "silly" threads like this will probably continue.

Regards,
Dave

I hope you're right....but I'm not holding my breath. There's already a "peremptory" from JoeyA implying that the DVD alone may not be enough to really explain and clarify what CTE IS. And let's not forget the couple of encouragements already given that Stan REFRAIN from releasing the DVD because people won't honor some vague "secrecy concern" regarding it.

Nevertheless, it seems it would HAVE to contain more information than what is both around and IDENTIFIABLE to one accountable person. So far, you've gotten at least one complete set of CTE systemic elements that were subsequently WITHDRAWN by the one who offered them (JB).

Still, for me, the simple bottom line is that the relative pocket position is ignored (as Stan's cryptic responses to me in the last couple of posts show). Without that THERE CAN BE NO EXACT POCKETING SYSTEM. And it's not necessary to have further CTE elaboration to know that.

 

[stan shuffett]

I hope you're right....but I'm not holding my breath. There's already a "peremptory" from JoeyA implying that the DVD alone may not be enough to really explain and clarify what CTE IS. And let's not forget the couple of encouragements already given that Stan REFRAIN from releasing the DVD because people won't honor some vague "secrecy concern" regarding it.

Nevertheless, it seems it would HAVE to contain more information than what is both around and IDENTIFIABLE to one accountable person. So far, you've gotten at least one complete set of CTE systemic elements that were subsequently WITHDRAWN by the one who offered them (JB).

Still, for me, the simple bottom line is that the relative pocket position is ignored (as Stan's cryptic responses to me in the last couple of posts show). Without that THERE CAN BE NO EXACT POCKETING SYSTEM. And it's not necessary to have further CTE elaboration to know that.

I can watch a game of 9 ball and tell you with precision all visuals and pivots according to the way the balls lay on the table. I will not need to get behind the OB and sight to the pocket and so forth. That does not mean that one can't do that, it's just not necessary. No contact points, no ghost ball, no angles to guess at......just good ol' CTE knowlege and experience.

 

[duckie]

I can watch a game of 9 ball and tell you with precision all visuals and pivots according to the way the balls lay on the table. I will not need to get behind the OB and sight to the pocket and so forth. That does not mean that one can't do that, it's just not necessary. No contact points, no ghost ball, no angles to guess at......just good ol' CTE knowlege and experience.

Does this apply to kick, rail first, combo, caroms, and banks or just straight,direct hit shots?

Oh and what about safetys?

Oh and if ya get really good at GB, you don't always have to get behind the OB for sighting.

FWIW

 

[GetMeThere]

I can watch a game of 9 ball and tell you with precision all visuals and pivots according to the way the balls lay on the table. I will not need to get behind the OB and sight to the pocket and so forth. That does not mean that one can't do that, it's just not necessary. No contact points, no ghost ball, no angles to guess at......just good ol' CTE knowlege and experience.

I don't have any problem whatsoever believing that.

I'm sure that you know that lots of good "feel" players can also watch a game and know when people are pointing right at the OB, or are going to miss. When I watched Spidey's video with half the table blocked off I found myself wanting to tell him "cut it a little more, that's right, right about there" in order to aim shots that I had a very poor view to seeing. I've watched pro games and known before the pro shot that he was cutting too thin or too thick--not always; you don't always get an ideal viewing angle. But if you've played enough pool, you can VERY OFTEN know just by watching whether a player will miss.

I don't have the slightest doubt that someone can combine "pivoting" with learning how to hit shots to pocket balls.

My problem arises with the use of the word "system."

CTE surely possesses systematic elements; EXACT systematic elements. Aligning a CB center with an OB edge is an EXACT systematic element--an exact formula. So is pivoting "back to the center of the CB." But you have to then think about WHAT those systematic elements DO for you. In most examples I've heard of (like the one recently supplied by Shawn Armstrong), if you followed JUST THOSE systematic elements you would find yourself aiming at the SAME PLACE for many DIFFERENT SHOTS.

So...I'm sure that's no mystery to you.

But what next? Well, I can tell you: There is simply NO WAY that one can come up with a "formula" to exactly and systematically end up pocketing all balls on all pocket shots unless an element is included which EXACTLY and SYSTEMATICALLY aligns the OB with the pocket (or some reference on the table)!

I don't think CTE incorporates a systematic element in which the OB is exactly aligned with the pocket.

Instead, I think (as many others do) that a final, likely SUBCONSCIOUS ADJUSTMENT takes place. We can see that in Shawn Armstrong's example: he doesn't KNOW how he does it, he doesn't CARE--it just WORKS!

We know it because if there is no SYSTEMATIC computation to get the ball into the pocket, BUT THE BALL STILL GOES IN THE POCKET, then there must be some sort of HUMAN (and probably subconscious) computation.

So??

SO....that means that, in CTE, what actually GETS THE BALL INTO THE POCKET is not an EXACT SYSTEM, based on prescribed, systematic, alignments and computations; it's an internal, semi-conscious, FEEL, learned over time, that does the trick.

Therefore, I don't see CTE as a "SYSTEM". It surely isn't an EXACT SYSTEM. And it's..."misleading" to call it an aiming SYSTEM. I think people making shots "with CTE" are making shots by feel, and there seems to be no good reason why they would NEED to wave the cue around making pivots and such....

But maybe "CTE" has a use! As I've said before, it might certainly be something else--mentally ASSOCIATING an extent of pivot with different shots at different angles might turn out to be a very USEFUL MEMORY technique. It might turn out to be DAMN USEFUL for playing pool. But it's not an AIMING SYSTEM. And most people expecting to have an "aiming system" will be disappointed with CTE for that reason--it doesn't in ANY WAY systematically provide an aiming solution that pockets balls.

 

[BRKNRUN]

My problem arises with the use of the word "system."

CTE surely possesses systematic elements; EXACT systematic elements. Aligning a CB center with an OB edge is an EXACT systematic element--an exact formula. So is pivoting "back to the center of the CB." But you have to then think about WHAT those systematic elements DO for you. In most examples I've heard of (like the one recently supplied by Shawn Armstrong), if you followed JUST THOSE systematic elements you would find yourself aiming at the SAME PLACE for many DIFFERENT SHOTS.

So...I'm sure that's no mystery to you.

But what next? Well, I can tell you: There is simply NO WAY that one can come up with a "formula" to exactly and systematically end up pocketing all balls on all pocket shots unless an element is included which EXACTLY and SYSTEMATICALLY aligns the OB with the pocket (or some reference on the table)!

I don't think CTE incorporates a systematic element in which the OB is exactly aligned with the pocket.

Instead, I think (as many others do) that a final, likely SUBCONSCIOUS ADJUSTMENT takes place. We can see that in Shawn Armstrong's example: he doesn't KNOW how he does it, he doesn't CARE--it just WORKS!

We know it because if there is no SYSTEMATIC computation to get the ball into the pocket, BUT THE BALL STILL GOES IN THE POCKET, then there must be some sort of HUMAN (and probably subconscious) computation.

So??

SO....that means that, in CTE, what actually GETS THE BALL INTO THE POCKET is not an EXACT SYSTEM, based on prescribed, systematic, alignments and computations; it's an internal, semi-conscious, FEEL, learned over time, that does the trick.

Therefore, I don't see CTE as a "SYSTEM". It surely isn't an EXACT SYSTEM. And it's..."misleading" to call it an aiming SYSTEM. I think people making shots "with CTE" are making shots by feel, and there seems to be no good reason why they would NEED to wave the cue around making pivots and such....

But maybe "CTE" has a use! As I've said before, it might certainly be something else--mentally ASSOCIATING an extent of pivot with different shots at different angles might turn out to be a very USEFUL MEMORY technique. It might turn out to be DAMN USEFUL for playing pool. But it's not an AIMING SYSTEM. And most people expecting to have an "aiming system" will be disappointed with CTE for that reason--it doesn't in ANY WAY systematically provide an aiming solution that pockets balls.

If we had just sarted by using the words "alignment method" instead of "aiming system" we probably would not have had 2450 posts.

The thing is that those words are interchanged freely when communicating about how we pocket balls....even though the when disection takes place....the meaning may be different and the chosen words to describe it become very important.

Yes folks...even 3-line, 90/90, paralell "alignment", center to center, Joe Tuckers Number "method" Same Aim, Ghost Ball, etc. etc..... are all really just an "alingment methods"

I mean really.....all of these methods are really just a tool to help us get the right feel before we pull the trigger.

Who on this board can say the have never cut something....anything...a peice of wood, strip of leather, whatever...you did your due diligance and measured it twice...but just knew it did not (feel) like you had the right spot when you made the cut...and sure enough....it was either too long or too short.......It may have been right (after) you cut it that you all of a sudden felt...this does not look right..

Everything we do has some kind of "feel" involved...quite often we use "tools" to get the right feel.

 

[azhousepro]

This thread has been closed. I did not take the time to go through and remove each and every personal attack (as well as edit each message where the personal attacks were quoted).

It has been brought back from the grave because there were some decent comments in the thread.

Mike