Why CTE is so controversial

DTL

SP 219
Silver Member
Okay...

Since you tried twice, I am going to try again, but I think for the first time with you.

Take the 5 shots from Stan's YouTube Video(relatively recently removed).

Now expand the table proportionally so that it remains in the 2:1 ratio...

But... it gets SO BIG that the corner pocket is 50 miles away & can NOT be seen & neither can the rails.

Essentially nothing can be seen but the green, sorry the blue, of the cloth.

What is there that is objectively seen that is different for any of the 5 shots?

What is there that objectively dictates to You, the shooter, to get onto a different physical position while using the same 15 visual?

Answer that with rational reasonable truthful logic & an atom bomb drops & destroys all of this stuff.

Please do not say closing or seeing out of one eye for one shot & then out of the other eye for another shot, as that is moving the goal post into another Galaxy?

PS You STILL have NOT apologized.

What the F are you talking about, lol.

You're getting desperate.

I'll take this as a "no".
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
If I get what you're saying, in my mind it wouldn't change anything.

Problem is, we'll never be able to test this using someone who has never played pool, one who's brain doesn't immediately starts processing visual data at light speed at address, without all that bias .......meaning you'll never find a proficient player who has never played.

Soooo... it requires a subjectively learned data base?
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
It sounds like you're saying CTE doesn't really "work". I don't believe that - I'm sure it works for its users as well as all the other aiming methods work for their users.

It's how it works that's the main bone of contention here - is the usual amount of "skilled estimation" required or not? CTE claims to be the exception to that rule - some of us think that's a fantastical enough claim to warrant questioning, especially for a commercial product.

But that's a different topic than whether or not it's a useful aiming system. I think it's as good as any system and has some interesting non-fantastic features, like the aim-&-anchor (ABC/CTE) reference lines and the small pivot as a focusing mechanism (see the "Fractions With Pivots" thread).

Pointing out the fantastical nature of some of the claims about how it works can sound like criticizing the whole system - I don't mean it that way. I think CTE can seriously work as an effective aiming aid - unfortunately, I think its fantastical "packaging" obscures that.

pj
chgo

I agree, but with perhaps one nitpick. "IT" does not work... as per asserted. People work WITH it.

I know or think that YOU understand that... the problem is that "they" do not... & to say "it works" is inaccurate given the context of the asserted declaration of WHAT it is.
 
Last edited:

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
If you move the table, you’ll still have to re-address the balls for the new perception.
Like I re-address for each new perception using contact points. Or like others do using other aiming methods. We can't describe how it's done either.

pj
chgo
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
BC21,

First of all, thank you for a succinct and reasonable response to my video.

As for CIT, here are a couple things. Anytime I'm shooting a shot near 30 degrees (which would be maximum CIT) I try to minimize it if I can. I do this by doing two things. 1) adding some top or bottom spin. I haven't inspected my video closely, but I'm pretty confident that I habitually put a touch of bottom spin on shots like these, given the choice. Watch the CB exit path, you'll see. 2) speed. I don't baby these shots in, I give them a bit of punch. With those two factors in play, the CIT is minimized.

Now as for the difference between these shots, lets pay attention to shots 1 and 4. So they are about 3-4 degrees apart, I'll take your word for it. My main concern would be range of error to cut the ball. If you place two balls inside the pocket you are aiming at, you'll see the width of error you have to work with. If you are using 4.5" pockets, the balls would be touching, meaning your error is 2.125 inches (ball center to ball center). My table is 9', so at 6 or so diamonds away, you have to be pretty damned exact to pocket the ball.

If you setup shots 1 and 4, freeze a ghostball on the contact point of each one, then stand behind the CB and see the thickness of each cut, you will see that the difference between shots 1 and 4 is fairly significant. You *have* to be accurate here to hit that pocket with a ~1 degree margin of error. As I've stated before, I don't do anything post pivot to CCB to change the shot. At that point I'm on the shot line and CCB is my target. I DO look at the OB last. I'm never thinking "oh this needs to be a touch thinner", etc. CTE gives me CCB to pocket the ball. Although each of these shots has a unique physical orientation, I can get there through the same 30 inside perception. Our eyes are the most accurate instrument of our bodies. The perceptions are exacting. They do NOT work like a protractor on 2D paper.

I agree with all of this. But the the difference between shot 1 and 4 is about 1/16 of a ball, meaning shot 4 is 1/16 thinner than shot 1. That's not much. I made a video of shooting these shots with a 5/8 aim, but my power went off due to a damned tornado coming through town, and so the video was cut short.

Just like the 30 inside, I can use a 5/8 for each shot, though #4 is pushing the limits and a slightly thinner aim would be more accurate.
 

Mirza

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This would be a great trick! And that is how the system is described to work -- once you have the perception, that "fixed" cb, all you have to do is come in from exactly 1/2 tip offset and pivot or sweep back to ccb. But I don't think your experiment would be too successful for anyone, including Stan. Even though he insists that the cue is being tweaked to a "perfect" ccb alignment, I believe keeping the ob in view is part of what of determines that alignment.

And you would be wrong. Maybe you should accept that fact more often.

See my previous post.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
And you would be wrong. Maybe you should accept that fact more often.

See my previous post.

I am wrong often. That's how opinions work. It was my opinion that the ob would probably need to remain in sight in order to determine you pivot correctly onto the shot line. Thanks for video link. I had forgotten about this video, but did give it a thumbs up sometime in the past, so I know I've seen it before. Anyway, my favorite part isn't the curtain bit....it's the "Pool Playin' Fool" tune! Is that a Stan Shuffett original? Good song.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Monty please observe the response above when you wonder why CTE has been such a point of contention. The fact is a serious look at what is happening has never been entertained by CTE supporters in this forum. Spider once said on video that he doesn't give a sh!t how CTE works. Fine, but if that is the case then maybe he should not take part in these kinds of conversations among people who ARE interested.

:thumbup2:
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
The most interesting aspect of that video is that Stan is the voice on that background track :D

I like that song, thought I heard Stan singing the lyrics while he was lining up some of those shots.

Here are my curtain shots....https://youtu.be/KEYqJ5w6nFI

A tornado was coming through and the video gets cut off abruptly due to power failure. But I manage to make a few shots. Props to you for posting your video and doing so well in the blind.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
lol, really?

Here's my proof: go to a pool table, take out your cell phone, and go turn on the camera function.

You with me so far?

Set up any shot you want and look at your screen. Now move the camera to compensate for someone taller, and then someone shorter than you. Then move the camera closer or farther away from the table to compensate for someone who stands closer or farther from the table to visualize a shot. Lastly, move from left to right. It won't take much to see the "visual" change to reflect someone who prefers to stand a little more to the right or left of a shot.

All those are different perceptions of the same shot.

AND I did not say no one could be successful with an aiming system. What I was saying is that it is foolish to base an aiming system on everyone seeing the shots in exactly the same way.

Lou Figueroa

Of course you can base an aiming system on everyone seeing shots the same way. Take a look at "Perfect Aim". If you are not seeing the shots the correct way, it's clearly not going to work. You even said yourself farther up in this post: "And the trick from there is just creating a consistent methodology around that perception." So now you are saying this is foolish?
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Of course you can base an aiming system on everyone seeing shots the same way. Take a look at "Perfect Aim". If you are not seeing the shots the correct way, it's clearly not going to work. You even said yourself farther up in this post: "And the trick from there is just creating a consistent methodology around that perception." So now you are saying this is foolish?


lol, Perfect Aim is not an aiming system -- it is a sighting system to keep your dominant eye in its most dominant position.

And the funny thing -- now that you mention it -- is that according to the system, different players will have different dominant eyes ergo they will see the shots differently because of different perspectives.

Lou Figueroa
 

DTL

SP 219
Silver Member
Second try at this........to show that it IS possible to get 2 different cut angles using the same perception/pivot, even when the CB/OB are the exact same distance from each other......with both eyes open.

Note: none of the diagrams are to exact scale.

I'm extremely right eye dominant. So when I try to put my tip on center CB, I'm actually slightly to the left. To me it looks like I'm on CCB, but I'm not. Because of my severe right eye dominance, I'm unknowingly looking at the CB at a slight angle. This was first pointed out to me by Dave Bollman......and then again a few years later by Stan Shuffett. Subsequent video analysis showed that my stroke swoops slightly to the right on my final forward stroke to compensate for this.....another thing I wasn't aware of doing. I'm positive that this was the reason I never won a US Open, lol JK :grin:.

Anyway, one day I was watching a Mike Page youtube video (he has some pretty good ones) where he says the best way to line up a near 90 degree cut is by sighting down the 2 contact points (edge to edge in this case). So I go to my table 15 feet away and set up a near 90 degree cut to the left. I address the shot and, knowing I'm right eye dominant, I close my left eye to ensure I'm right on the edge-to-edge line. To my surprise it didn't look right at all. I was confused. So with both eyes open I then closed my right eye and, surprised even more, I found I was then looking right down the edge-to-edge line.....with my left eye:eek:.

So another thing that I didn't know about my game was, that even though I'm very right eye dominant, my brain can switch to the other eye when more beneficial. Many players do this without even knowing it, again with both eyes open. From one extreme to the other (90 degree cut to left - 90 degree cut to the right) the eyes can switch dominance......and can dial left/right all across that spectrum depending on the shot angle. The trick is to know how to use this to one's advantage - but that's another story (3rd eye trainer). ......or ? Perfect Aim.

Having said all that, now to the main point of this post.

View attachment 523307

Diagram #1 shows 3 shots - a straight-in (red ball), a near 90 degree cut to the right( blue ball), and a near 90 degree cut to the left (orange ball). The CB here is yellow. As you can see the player is using the right eye exclusively for the cut to the right and using the left eye exclusively for the cut to the left (when using one eye 80-100% for sighting it's just like having the other eye closed). For players that do this, all the shots in between these two extremes, the eyes will dial back and forth with a 50/50 for the straight-in. And when they get out to 75 - 100% one eye or the other, they start seeing the center of the CB at an angle relative to the shot line (shot line being the center of the CB to the center of the ghost ball). This is a problem, because if wanting to use a center CB hit, they're actually slightly off one way or the other which can cause squirt resulting in a thick hit and unwanted spin..........again, that's another story.

View attachment 523308

Another way of illustrating this is in diagram #2. Here are another 3 shots. The middle ball is a dead bank across the corner, the left ball is a cut to the left side pocket, and the right ball is a cut to the right corner. The thing on all 3 of these shots is that they all share the exact same CB AND ghost ball positions. C1 is the CP-to-CP position for the cut to the left, C2 is the CP-to-CP position for the bank, and C3 is the CP-to-CP position for the cut to the right. See possible eye dominance percentages noted for each shot. Note here, with the exact same head position and CB/ghost ball positions, the player could see different center CBs (and perhaps a different edge, too) on all 3 shots.

View attachment 523309

Now my last diagram (promise), #3. This shows another 3 shots. The shot on the left is the beginning of the 15 perceptions with an inside pivot. The shot on the right is the end of the 15 perceptions with an inside pivot. The middle shot is a tweener between the extremes of the 15 degree w/inside pivots.The orange area represents the ghost ball. Lets say for argument sake that all 3 shots are the exact same distance from each other. Keeping in mind all of the discussions about diagrams #1 and #2 above, as each shot becomes more acute to the left, the player (some players) left eye will become more in charge or more involved or more dominant (without them even knowing it, just based on a different position on the 2X1 surface of the pool table) and they'll see a different center CB for all three shots (and perhaps a different edge, too).....which could give them a different cut angle even when they are using the same 15 inside for all 3 shots.

Does anyone get what I'm talking about here?

Anyway, like I said before in the other thread, this has not much of anything to do with CTE....and never discussed on any DVDs. It's just ONE way of showing that, even with exact same distances and exact same perception/pivot, you can get different results in terms of cut angle. There are other ways ;)...... stay tuned, you won't want to miss it.


DTL
too much time on my hands

Only one poster responded to this. You know who, with his usual psychobabble mumbo jumbo word salad type posts. Crickets otherwise.

So I'll assume nobody is disputing my points.
 

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Only one poster responded to this. You know who, with his usual psychobabble mumbo jumbo word salad type posts. Crickets otherwise.

So I'll assume nobody is disputing my points.

I am, just don’t want to go into only to have you rationalize something that can’t be done.

I dispute a player can see only with one eye.....for one thing, the other eye for another and this based on my understanding of convergence of the eyes line of sight.

Now what you do with the imagine from your eyes in your mind is another thing.

Second, you can’t accurately portray a 3D world in two dimensions and from a point of view that is directly overhead. No one ever has this perspective when shooting.

Perceptual sets are at play here......meaning you will ignore one thing in order to believe another thing.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
lol, Perfect Aim is not an aiming system -- it is a sighting system to keep your dominant eye in its most dominant position.

And the funny thing -- now that you mention it -- is that according to the system, different players will have different dominant eyes ergo they will see the shots differently because of different perspectives.

Lou Figueroa

Perfect Aim is not an aiming system. :rolleyes: I'll inform Gene.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
Only one poster responded to this. You know who, with his usual psychobabble mumbo jumbo word salad type posts. Crickets otherwise.

So I'll assume nobody is disputing my points.

What I find unbelievable, and very disputable, is this: I do believe each of those three shots in the side pocket can be shot using a 15 inside, but they all don't track toward center pocket. Do you honestly believe that when the shot reaches the "extreme" limit for a 15 inside (or a 15 outside, or a 30 inside or outside), the ob is still tracking to center pocket? Do you think it magically goes to center pocket right up to the point where you have to use a thinner or thicker perception, and then that perception just happens to lead to center pocket as well?

I have shown in video that the same aim line can work over a wide range of shots due to differences in CIT and using the entire width of the pocket. If you shoot a 15 inside and the ob goes center pocket, moving the ob left or right of this spot will cause the same 15 inside to send the ob left or right of center pocket. This is why the 15 inside (and all the other perceptions and pivots) have limitations, or "extremes", as you said. Eventually the cut will be too thin or too thick and another perception will be needed in order to keep the ob from missing the pocket.
 
Top