CTE experiment, with civil discussion

[JB Cases]

If you make claims that people pocket balls above their level, I won't call you a liar. If you make claims that every single pro aims the same way, and they're all in on some secret and don't want the rest of the world to know about it... then yes, I'm calling you a liar. You don't actually believe that, do you?

---

As for a bet, what sort of bet will "prove" claims about CTE? The whole thrust of the arguments against CTE is that there are subconscious adjustments being made. There's no way to "prove" a guy using CTE isn't making subconscious adjustments. If they're truly subconscious, even the SHOOTER doesn't know he's doing it. How is a guy standing 6 feet away gonna know?

Showing me some guy sinking balls will not sell me. But you have a good chance of selling me if you can show it's geometrically sound on paper.



Being diplomatic and being backhanded are not the same thing. He is stating very plainly what he believes: in a nutshell, it doesn't work on paper but can be helpful to some people anyway. But it requires the shooter the shooter to make adjustments. If the shooter follows it rigidly and literally, he's going to miss balls. Dr. Dave didn't come to that conclusion by pure happenstance.

You have to remember, this is a very very old argument. Dave's opinion is based on having seen all the arguments a thousand times. The CTE guys have had at least ten years to sell him on it, to prove it's geometrically correct, to list the exact, concrete steps needed to cut in those three balls, etc. With all the posts he's made on it, you CANNOT accuse him of casually dismissing it.



You don't get to write articles by being a great player. You get to write articles because you know what you're talking about and can communicate it effectively.



So why's he include it on his page if he thinks it's bunk? He has stated before: he believes it can work... just not to the extent people claim and not without subconscious tweaking. Dave honestly feels he understands it, but it just doesn't work as advertised. If you think he's mistaken and doesn't really understand it, correct specific misconceptions on the page. BTW, notice all copy/pasted info south of Stan Shuffett gives other perspectives on CTE besides his own.



Not exactly. Being a reasonably smart guy, I saw ghostball on paper and said "ok, that looks like it makes sense". And then I could easily test it. I could put a second object ball in the ghostball position, smack it, and the ball went in the hole. To this day I can repeat that test with anyone older than, I dunno, 10... and it will also make sense to them.

CTE did not make sense on paper the first time I saw it, and 600 posts later it continues to not make sense on paper, and I have zero simple repeatable test I can take to the pool table to prove it works. That's the key difference.

Additionally, in practice, it has not worked. I'm not looking at it JUST on paper and never tried to hit a ball with it.



Sigh... they all find reasons to back out. I guess it's my bad attitude. It's impossible to win with CTE guys - you chide dr. dave for not making an effort to learn it. Well, I'm making that effort to learn it. I'm expressing doubt and skepticism (based on the fact that it doesn't seem to work on paper), but I'm openminded enough to reserve final judgment until I ACTUALLY TRY IT.

If you don't want to take the 5 or 10 minutes (supposedly all that's needed) to show it to me, then I have no option than to judge it based on what I've seen on paper.

[snipped chris stuff]
First, if it gets your hackles up at being called a liar, don't imply chris is lying. My impression is that chris doesn't make his gambling money by deceiving people. He just matches up. Maybe before his speed became known, he hustled. I don't know.

What I do know is pros have their own aiming methods, they aren't all identical, and you are far too intelligent to play little games where you hint that they may secretly be using CTE and just hiding it from us... when obviously many (I'm gonna say most) of them do not.

Sigh... they all find reasons to back out. I guess it's my bad attitude. It's impossible to win with CTE guys - you chide dr. dave for not making an effort to learn it. Well, I'm making that effort to learn it. I'm expressing doubt and skepticism (based on the fact that it doesn't seem to work on paper), but I'm openminded enough to reserve final judgment until I ACTUALLY TRY IT.

But not open minded enough to restrain yourself from calling the people who could teach you what they know liars and charlatans?

Well Matt, if you think that my comments are 'backing out' then so be it.

I didn't imply Chris is lying. Chris didn't say that you don't need a system or that he uses any - all he said is get out and play and you read more into it and tried to use it as an example of a pro saying no systems are needed.

The point is that you then conveniently forget that that there are pros who have stated in interviews that they use certain systems and methods for aiming. CJ Wiley even has a video on it.

Stevie Moore and Matt Krah come to mind as two professional players who reportedly use Stan Shuffet's Pro1 (CTE) system.

My point is that if you really WANT TO LEARN then don't be so nitty about it. Because I can tell you right now that there are people who are happy to help people learn if you approach them the right way.

Calling them liars and snake oil salesmen isn't the right way.

As for Dr. Dave and his page. He doesn't understand it. He puts a lot of opinion on the site that is not his own because he doesn't understand it.

It's clear through his comments that he thinks it's all BS and psychological trickery. THAT is why he latches onto Mike Page's comments and like comments from others so fiercely.

Where is the video disproving CTE?

I mean if Dave does actually understand it then put up the video. Who among us all has more resources in this endeavor?

Dave has the video equipment, he has the means, he has excellent players around him who can surely execute at a high level. He has plenty of grad students to use as guinea pigs.

Wouldn't that be better than to have a page of opinions?

If he really knows what CTE is then why not post a 100% accurate explanation of it and the videos to go along with it?

 

[JB Cases]

A couple of times in this post you say that there are shots that you can only make consistently with CTE, I would be interested in seeing a couple of Wei table diagrams of shots you usually miss, but can make consistently with the system.

Lou Figueroa

Ok here you go;

CueTable Help

CueTable Help

CueTable Help

CueTable Help

CueTable Help

CueTable Help

These are all shots I have trouble with when I try to shoot them using GB or "instinct/feel"

By the way I didn't say I use CTE. I said when I use a system. When I use a system to line up then I make all of these shots more consistently than when I don't use a system. And when I use a system I make harder shots more consistently then when I don't use a system.

Now, I am going to go play some pool.

 

[JB Cases]

Wow, the video of Corey and Niels pretty much says it all. You can see it on just about every shot Corey takes.

Thanks to whoever posted it.

 

[lfigueroa]

By the way I didn't say I use CTE. I said when I use a system.

lol. This is why I usually leave you alone. It's a thread entiltled "CTE experiment..." I specifically say in the post you responded to, "CTE works because you want it to work...All that's happening with this CTE hooey..."

And then you talk about "the system" over and over, refer to CTE saying, "Let CTE continue to be it's own underground thing..." as if that was what you had been speaking to, rather than some other spoon bending Jedi Mind Trick.

You are slick, John.

Lou Figueroa

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Good News - A video will be coming out from a respected Instructor that should put this dog and pony show to rest.

Stan Shuffett will be releasing a video for sale later this year that teaches his CTE based Pro One aiming system and an explanation of the original CTE method.

Should sell well if priced at a reasonable price point under $30.00.

 

[CreeDo]

I suspect we're getting to the point where my posts are too long so you're skimming. So here's the short one.

1. I will call Hal a liar when he makes outrageous claims like "every single pro uses CTE and they all have agreed to keep it a secret from everyone else". Some pros? sure. ALL of them? No. And there's no conspiracy. You won't address this point because you know it's radioactive - the guy you admire has made nutty claims that you can't possibly defend as truth.

2. Again, you can't prove a negative. How can someone "disprove" CTE? What would that look like on camera? Dave's argument is it's happening at a subconscious level. Even the shooter doesn't know he's making subconscious tweaks, how do you expect to capture this tweaking on camera? With an MRI?

3. If dave doesn't get it, blame the guys who intentionally muddy the learning process by refusing to teach the "5 minute version". Dave is not dumb and he's certainly done his hours of homework, including talking to Hal personally.

If dave gets taught the steps in a clear, concise way, his page will reflect that. If he gets taught in riddles and cryptic diagrams and dozens of unlinked bits and pieces, his page will reflect that. Feel free to point out any pieces he's missing and I'm sure they'll go right up. Anyway, have you considered the possibility a person can "get it" and it STILL doesn't work for them? And they therefore are entitled to a negative opinion of it?

 

[JB Cases]

I've gotta call you on this. I've seen a lot of generalizations by CTE proponents about CTE and implications that the "doubters" are just citing opinion instead of any real evidence. Back up what you're saying and cite, specifically, where dr_dave's page is wrong, what you think is dr_dave's opinion as opposed to fact.


Where is he wrong? Why is it wrong?


So are you implying that the system predates the modern ear?


It's already been dissected, as described, at a mechanical level. Where the current knowledge base sits it's not a mechanically functional system. It must be "massaged" by the individual to be functional. What is incorrect on dr_dave's page that is preventing the system from working?

As stated above much of CTE is subconcious. Is it possible that if you are truly aiming on a subconscious level that you are adjusting the outlined conscious mechanical construct so that the balls are sunk?

I give up.

I went and played tonight and used what I think is CTE and played great. So here's the deal, I am happy with where my game is at.

I don't know why CTE (or my version of it) works nor do I care.

I am happy to make all sorts of shots and win game. I also use Dave Alciatore's 45 degree system for figuring middle of the table paths with my CTE aiming and this helps me to play better position.

This time I really AM DONE with this discussion.

As a friend recently reminded me,

'to those who know, no explanation is necessary and to those who don't know no explanation is sufficient.'

To me this whole thing is a "Zen and the Art or Motorcycle Maintenance" type of debate and if you don't understand the reference then I suggest you look it up.

Best to you all in your quest to play better pool. That's why we are all here isn't it?

If CTE or other such "aiming systems" are not readily available in easy to understand follow the directions formats then great for the people who don't think that they work. Less people will become "corrupted" by trying to learn them.

If in fact Stan Shuffet and friends produce a video that does in fact explain it in detail in easy to understand terms then I am confident that such aiming methods will be more widely adopted and also understood.

Until then however I am confident that the debate will continue and those who know will be happy with what they know and those who don't will be continually frustrated by the exuberance shown by those who know.

For me I have to realize that I don't have the time to devote to teaching what I know nor do I have the proper amount of time invested in mastering what I know to teach it.

This in fact is the number one reason that Hal Houle asked me and all of us not to divulge the systems online. He didn't want us to pollute them through misguided exuberance coupled with a lack of mastery.

It's true that I can show anyone the system I learned from Hal in two minutes. (Not CTE). Then it might take 5 minutes or 30 minutes or an hour or never for them to "get it".

Just like any kicking system, any banking system, the proper technique for jumping balls, how to draw your ball, etc,... the basic technique is taught in minutes and then it takes years to fully master it. That's called life.

Frankly, I am sick of it. David Alciatore puts up three shots and several people say that they can make all three shots by approaching the shots the same way and Dave says it's impossible without some sort of adjustment.

Then we get into whether there are adjustments and if so how much and the biggest proponent and student of CTE on AZ goes on record to say that there are no adjustments. And he is then called a charlatan and fraud and snake oil salesman and profiteer by those who say that they want to learn.

It's frankly sickening to me that people treat each other this way when the ultimate goal on both sides is to play better pool.

All we all want is to be successful and make more balls disappear.

So I am out if it. I know what I know and am happy with it. When Stan Shuffet's video comes out then it will either settle the issue or not but it will be a step in the right direction as far as I am concerned.

I agree with the people who are frustrated by the lack of clarity on this. I also agree with the people who know that it works and are bound by promises not to attempt to explain it on the net. It's frustrating for them too to have to try and tell people what they know without violating the promise.

I can tell you this definitively; IF you go back and really read the few instructions that Hal did put out there and you follow them then I predict that you find yourself making more shots. And if not then what have you lost other than a little time trying something new?

Peace to everyone.

 

[JB Cases]

lol. This is why I usually leave you alone. It's a thread entiltled "CTE experiment..." I specifically say in the post you responded to, "CTE works because you want it to work...All that's happening with this CTE hooey..."

And then you talk about "the system" over and over, refer to CTE saying, "Let CTE continue to be it's own underground thing..." as if that was what you had been speaking to, rather than some other spoon bending Jedi Mind Trick.

You are slick, John.

Lou Figueroa

And I responded to your post specifically talking about aiming systems in general and making it cleat that I had no particular insight into "CTE". Your stance that aiming systems in general are "hooey" has been the same for over ten years.

Let me rephrase my statement so that it's clearer, let CTE (and other aiming sytems) be their own underground thing, passed from person to person, until such time as SOMEONE can make it public in a way that is easy and clear to understand.

Is that a little easier for you to grasp?

 

[JB Cases]

I suspect we're getting to the point where my posts are too long so you're skimming. So here's the short one.

1. I will call Hal a liar when he makes outrageous claims like "every single pro uses CTE and they all have agreed to keep it a secret from everyone else". Some pros? sure. ALL of them? No. And there's no conspiracy. You won't address this point because you know it's radioactive - the guy you admire has made nutty claims that you can't possibly defend as truth.

You have not just called Hal a liar you have called me a liar. I was the ONLY person in this and other threads who offered up evidence that the systems work by virtue of showing them to rank amateurs and seeing an IMMEDIATE increase in their pocketing ability. So you chose to use my claim as an example of outrageous claims.

2. Again, you can't prove a negative. How can someone "disprove" CTE? What would that look like on camera? Dave's argument is it's happening at a subconscious level. Even the shooter doesn't know he's making subconscious tweaks, how do you expect to capture this tweaking on camera? With an MRI?

I understand Dave's argument, which is highly convenient in absence of detailed analysis.

In other words to show a SUBCONSCIOUS adjustment one would have to have a control of how to make the shot using Ghost Ball, presumably this could be set up with a robot of sorts. Then one could film in detail the motions of the player who uses something else besides Ghost Ball to line up and it SHOULD BE clear to the analyst where the adjustment is happening that brings the shooter on the ONLY possible line to make the ball.

I mean, we can agree that there is ONLY ONE line which makes the ball right? If we can't agree on that then there is no need to discuss this further.

If so then any system which gets the player to that line is a valid system. The fact of the matter however is that you have proponents of the system who swear that there is no such adjustments happening and opponents who say that there must be such adjustments. That line in the sand will never be crossed with words on this forum.

To me it's really simple. One side or the other has to prove it on video with proper analysis. Otherwise it's all just hot air on both sides because both sides have their acolytes who swear by their "reasoning".

3. If dave doesn't get it, blame the guys who intentionally muddy the learning process by refusing to teach the "5 minute version". Dave is not dumb and he's certainly done his hours of homework, including talking to Hal personally.

So he says. Again to me it's a Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance thing. I am sure that someone can talk to Hal for hours and still not "get it". If he doesn't get it then he should simply say that he doesn't get it.

If dave gets taught the steps in a clear, concise way, his page will reflect that. If he gets taught in riddles and cryptic diagrams and dozens of unlinked bits and pieces, his page will reflect that. Feel free to point out any pieces he's missing and I'm sure they'll go right up. Anyway, have you considered the possibility a person can "get it" and it STILL doesn't work for them? And they therefore are entitled to a negative opinion of it?

Probably so. But on the other hand maybe he should just leave it alone altogether if he doesn't have the information.

No I don't consider the possibility that a person gets it and it still doesn't work. Things either work or they don't. This would be like me saying that I understand how algebra works but I still don't know how to do it. If I can't do it then I don't really understand it do I? I mean I can certainly understand it on a conceptual level but until I can do it then I really don't understand it on a practical level.

If CTE or any other "aiming system" does not work then it would have died out long ago.

Instead the opposite is true and now aiming systems are taught in highly regarded pool schools and being referenced in books and videos.

Just because Dr. Dave doesn't "get it" yet doesn't mean it's bunk. Just because he has now latched onto "subconcious adjustment" as a way to explain how something works which he doesn't understand does not mean that he is right about it.

"Subconcious Adjustment" is a convenient way to describe any activity that you can't explain.

Well, all I know is that if I am subconsciously adjusting to make balls that I otherwise could not consciously make then I am totally happy with that.

I make a conscious choice to line up a certain way according to a set of instructions and using that I make a lot of great shots over and over.

To me that's all that matters and after all this vitriol I don't feel compelled in the least to try to explain it any further.

I will happily wait for people like Dave Segal and Stan Shuffet who are scholars of this to come out with their videos and books and when they do and they are accepted I can then happily say that I knew this stuff well before.

 

[dr_dave]

Good News - A video will be coming out from a respected Instructor that should put this dog and pony show to rest.

Stan Shuffett will be releasing a video for sale later this year that teaches his CTE based Pro One aiming system and an explanation of the original CTE method.

I, for one am looking forward to it.

See thread below:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=185620

Thanks, Dr Dave - I can't help but think that your quest for knowledge might have prodded things along.

Thanks for the link. I'm glad Stan is doing this. I think it is a long-overdue DVD, and it seems like it will generate a lot of interest. I wish Stan luck with his project, and I look forward to seeing his work.

Regards,
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

And I responded to your post specifically talking about aiming systems in general and making it cleat that I had no particular insight into "CTE". Your stance that aiming systems in general are "hooey" has been the same for over ten years.

Let me rephrase my statement so that it's clearer, let CTE (and other aiming sytems) be their own underground thing, passed from person to person, until such time as SOMEONE can make it public in a way that is easy and clear to understand.

Is that a little easier for you to grasp?

lol. What you've made easier for me to grasp is that I should trust my instincts, about folks like you, a bit more often

Lou Figueroa

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

You know what I just got home from playing pool, used CTE on a couple of problem shots I was not sure what do with. Funny thing happend ball went in the hole 80% of the time When I went to CTE for help, and I do not think I have complete grasp of CTE.

 

[cookie man]

Should sell well if priced at a reasonable price point under $30.00.

You have got to be kidding.

 

[cookie man]

Roger<----Now knows all he needs to know about CTE!
Roger about to learn alot more.

 

[JB Cases]

lol. What you've made easier for me to grasp is that I should trust my instincts, about folks like you, a bit more often

Lou Figueroa

If that is how you really feel then that's fine with me. I am not sure what group you are lumping me in with but I guess I prefer them to people "like you" who think that you have all the answers to everything.

People like me just get happy that something works. In my field we have discussions about things which people do that are unconventional but work nonetheless.

For example I wouldn't have thought to skive leather using a big heavy curved blade - however I now know that there are some people who tried it and figured out how to do it and now they teach others how to do it.

There is a certain technique to it and it requires learning that technique and then after that practice to become proficient and make it second nature.

Had no one who knows how to do it taken the time to show someone else then only a handful of people would know it.

So Lou, get your panties in a bunch if you want. You asked me for shots that I consistently had trouble with and I gave them to you. You misquoted me and I corrected you, sorry that this offends you.

Last night I went to play and I played one set using "CTE" (as I understand it). All of those shots that I diagrammed came up at one time or another and I made most of them. In fact my opponent who played very good himself was constantly tap tap tapping telling me "good shot".

So if people like me who are perfectly happy to have found something that makes them happy to play pool and don't mind telling others about it offends you then I would really agree with you that you should trust your instincts and stay away from "people like me".

You have every right to believe that the only way to make balls is to do the million ball method. If that's the world you choose to live in then fine.

You want to call other people's choice which makes them happy to play pool hooey? Well that's your right as well. I don't find it to be particularly nice or civil and I personally find it to be a bit naive to paint everyone else with a "stupid" brush because they don't subscribe to your view of how to play pool.

Of course you and Dr. Dave and Mike Page and others who are in your camp now have your version of the "holy grail" concerning Aiming Systems and it's the crossword formed by Subconscious Adjustments. Well I have to admit that it is much nicer than the "believe in the force Luke" sort of insults you used to hurl in every post against me and other users of Hal's systems.

So you go your way. I will go mine. If someday we ever do happen to find time to play some then I will happily donate some to you playing one pocket and you can then use it forever to tell everyone how my "aiming system" didn't help me to beat you.

As it stands however I am 1:0 against you for the only time we matched up in that rinky dink RSB event and I was consciously using "the system".

More than consciously, I was willfully and deliberately and overtly using the aiming system that you so derided me for using in the months prior.

So score 1 for Hal Houle's disciple and 0 for one opponent. Not much "evidence" but personally it's great for me and probably "people like me".

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

You have got to be kidding.

Dead serious Billy Mays made millions with products with a price point of $20.00-$30.00.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
Of course you and Dr. Dave and Mike Page and others who are in your camp [...]".

Hey John --

I ain't in no stinkin camp!

 

[JB Cases]

khfdskh

Hey John --

I ain't in no stinkin camp!

True, but I think that Dr. Dave wants to adopt you considering how he seems to think that what you wrote on this thread about how you think that CTE is essentially BS and more of a psychological crutch than a physical repeatable set of instructions for aiming that works geometrically.

Or did I read it wrong?

Maybe it's more that Dr.Dave and Lou etc.... are now in your camp.

I can't remember if we have ever played since I learned the systems but I think we did and you still beat me so score 1 for the skeptic's side. I do have the excuse of being simultaneously engaged in the booth sales though......at least a little.....

 

[Roger Long]

Roger<----Now knows all he needs to know about CTE!
Roger about to learn alot more.

Cookie:

I said I now know all I NEED to know about CTE - and I'll stick by that - but I didn't say I know all I WANT to know.

If you're referring to Stan's video, I'm in agreement with you. I plan to buy his video as soon as it becomes available. My own interpretation of CTE may be wrong, and I'd like to check it against someone who really knows the truth. I think Stan is the man who can best explain that truth, and I'm sure he will ask a fair price for his video.

Now if you're asking yourself why I am willing to put up money to purchase Stan's video, but I am not willing to put up money for a "webinar" from someone else, that's simple...I trust Stan. :smile:

Roger

 

[mikepage]

True, but I think that Dr. Dave wants to adopt you considering how he seems to think that what you wrote on this thread about how you think that CTE is essentially BS and more of a psychological crutch than a physical repeatable set of instructions for aiming that works geometrically.

Or did I read it wrong?

You read it wrong.

I think it's neither a "psychological crutch" nor a "physical repeatable set of instructions for aiming that works geometrically."

I should say though, that I only met with Hal Houle twice in person. Once was the time in Los Angeles (at Danny K's) when I talked to him some but mostly listened to him instruct others for the afternoon. I was at the table next to him. I listened quite a lot because we had already been talking about his ideas quite a lot on RSB.

The other time was a few years later at Family Billiards in San Francisco. This was shortly before he moved east to PA. That second visit, we talked aiming one-on-one at the table.

We never talked about CTE. We talked essentially about fractional aiming and a few other ideas.

I've also talked to him about aiming several times on the phone, but again mostly about backhand english, etc, never about CTE.

Outside this group, my only exposure to CTE was when I had a meeting in DC about two years ago, and I drove up past Baltimore to Top Hat Billiards to learn CTE from Spidey. We worked through it pretty thoroughly for about 30-40 minutes. Then we spent the afternoon playing 9-ball, straight pool, and banks. Several times during our games we stopped to discuss a pivot or an approach to a shot. I was watching him the whole time.

I had a fun time, and despite my objections Spidey graciously picked up the tab.

I can't remember if we have ever played since I learned the systems but I think we did and you still beat me so score 1 for the skeptic's side. I do have the excuse of being simultaneously engaged in the booth sales though......at least a little.....

We've played on three tables: your triple-shimmed valley bar box, a GC at the Cue Club, and your hideous psychedelic-clothed table. I know I played you both before and after your awakening. You seemed to me to play about the same before and after. We've always been pretty evenly matched, imo.

Come to think of it,

I've played Spidey,
I've played PJ,
I've played You,
I've played Fred A.,
I've played Joey A,
I've played Lou
I've played Scott Lee
I've Played Bob Jewett
I've played Smorgasbored
I've played Tom Simpson

I've gambled with most of you.

And I've got you all clocked ;-)