Why CTE is silly

[JB Cases]

CTE, on the other hand, can't even be described in simple, easy to understand steps. You yourself admit that after years of study and effort you still don't know if what you're doing is CTE. And those who say they do know CTE can't seem to describe all the steps either - after the initial half-ball lineup they all start mumbling under their breaths about "shifts" and "pivots" and eyes of newts.

So Ghost Ball may be hard to master, like any aiming method, but it has a giant step up on "mystery" systems like CTE: it can be described.

pj
chgo

CTE can be described in easy to understand steps. I have described it to you several times already.

What you want is for someone to print a manual on how to do CTE. That's about to be here on video.

It's about to go mainstream. You will get what you say you want. And even if you find fault with it which it doesn't take Miss Cleo to predict that you will, it will still be something which is the best information available from the source.

 

[sfleinen]

The cloth resting point? You mean the point where the invisible ghost ball would rest on the cloth if it were an actual real physical object?

You think that this is SO EASY.

Well here is an experiment you can do. And let's use GMT's premise that being off by a human hair's width will result in a failed shot - (unless subconsciously adjusted for) -

Take a piece of paper, a ball, and a fine tip sharpie.

Put a dot anywhere on the paper. Put the ball on that dot. now take your sharpie an put dots all around the ball at what you think is the Ghost Ball center.

Should be an easy exercise since you are sitting at your desk, with all the time in the world, not standing above the table with a cue stick in your hand under pressure to shoot.

When you are done pick up the ball and measure the distance from the original dot to the estimated dots and see how well you were able to measure JUST the distance alone. This doesn't even take into account being able to accurately place the invisible ball along the right line which SOME people can't consistently do with a REAL ball.

Here a video of me trying this experiment ONCE and only once. Using the same measuring tool that would be available to me if I were at the table, my brain. Watch it and see how I did. I bet none of you who claim Ghost Ball as the greatest way to aim will even try it and put up your results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-L4QMNiVxk

Only 3 of the 11 dots were even within .15" (that's a fifteenth of an inch) of 2.25" from the center of the object ball. The rest were off by an average of a quarter inch.

Let's see how well you can do it.

And by the way Dave. I make your three shots with no adjustment in alignment, bridge length, or pivot using CTE. Just like with GHOST BALL I don't figure the angles or the offsets. I look, bend down, pivot, and shoot.

John:

First, EXCELLENT post -- nicely done, both here in the write-up, as well as in the video. The point you make is very compelling for anyone thinking they can just aim at a spot on the cloth, in order to be accurate to within GetMeThere's tolerances. There are a few problems with this "purist" approach though:

1. GetMeThere is wrong about the accuracy required in POOL. Snooker, yes -- because of the size ratio of the balls to the pockets (premium accuracy is required), as well as the much greater distances than pool. However, in pool, there's a reason why they use the term "contact patch" -- it's not a point, but rather a contact "area." This area is very small, yes, but it's not a point. Because of the design of the pockets in pool, you can almost completely miss the pocket (i.e. contact the cushion near the pocket) and still pocket the ball. (Of course this point is only applicable for the corner pockets, less so with the side pockets, but I digress.) Thus, in pool, you can be fairly "off" in your accuracy such that you don't hit the precise "point" on the cloth or the object ball, but yet still score.

2. Many folks who describe themselves as using ghost ball to aim (myself included) actually use a combination of techniques to do checks and balances. When I line up the shot, I first check to see the contact point on the object ball -- I'll "get behind" the object ball, in-line with the pocket, to see that contact point. Then, I'll envision the ghost ball at that location. Keeping my eyes fixated on that, I'll then move behind the cue ball, and envision how much of the object ball is "eclipsed" by the ghost ball (i.e. fractional aiming). I then bend down into the shot -- all the while never taking my eyes off this vision I just created. Only until I begin my practice strokes, do I engage my eye pattern (i.e. cue ball, object ball / ghost ball pair, cue ball, object ball / ghost ball pair, etc. -- back and forth, but mainly focusing on and aiming at the ghost ball, dead center [goes back to that "whack-a-mole" game where I'm shooting the mole dead-center in the face]). Finally, I deliver the cue. Although I say I'm a pure ghostballer, I actually use a combination of techniques for checks and balances. If I were to use *only* the contact point on the cloth, as your video demonstrated, I'd most likely be off on a lot of shots.

3. The most accurate ball pocketers in the world are snooker players, without a doubt. (That's not to say snooker players "automatically translate to being better players at pool than pool players" -- let's get that one out of the way, right now, before someone jumps on me.) I'm just saying snooker players are much more accurate in pocketing than pool players. I don't think anyone will argue against this, when they see a Ronnie O'Sullivan, or Neil Robertson, or Shaun Murphy, et al. thumping the back of those small pockets at incredible distances. With that foundation established, it might prove helpful to note that amongst this school of pocketing accuracy, only one aiming system is ever taught -- ghostball (or "dummy ball" as the Brits like to call it). It's "called" ghostball, but it actually includes the checks and balances I described above -- the fractional ball aiming I mentioned above.

You are correct, John, that the human can't possibly accurately envision the center of an imaginary object down to a *point*, as one would do with a Sharpie marker. That's not what ghost ball is. The term "contact patch" (with "patch" being the key operative word) is a dead-giveaway to not only the area of contact on the object ball, but also on the cloth itself. Even then, with that slight relaxation of accuracy implied by the word "patch," the other checks and balances come into play to hone the final "fire control solution" before delivering the cue.

Your point is not lost, however, that ghostball has its limitations -- we are human, afterall. If we were accurate beings, pool would've never caught on as a "fun" activity. Assuming we learn the "basics" of delivering the cue accurately, and of the basics of pattern play (i.e. speed and spin of the cue ball), pocketing itself would be a "no brainer" and we'd all be clearing the table every time -- never (or rarely) missing. How long would pool have lasted as a popular activity if that were true? Obviously, it isn't.

It was a great video, and a good point made, but it overlooked a lot of things.

Oh, and don't get me wrong -- I'm not a CTE basher. As I've always said, "ya go what ya gotta do to pocket the ball." If CTE is more conducive to the shooter, then so be it. If the "ghostball technique" (which includes those checks and balances I talked about) is more conducive to the shooter, then so be it.

What gets my goard, though, is when someone tells me that the technique I adopted -- the "ghostball technique" (checks and balances included) -- is "wrong", or that I'd be a much better player ("I'd go up 'x' number of balls") if I adopted this "other" technique. You know, the old sales pitch. Then, I'll go get the 12-gauge and metamorphose into "kill the wabbit" mode.

-Sean

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Dave Alciatore,

I think that you need to really think about some of these videos you are putting up.

The ones you link to above are just plain awful. You intend to show me how to use "the imaginary ball" (your words) by putting a real ball there then removing it? And of course you are using "training" balls which have convenient lines on them.

Your video is a great example of why Ghost Ball fails. Simply put it's super easy to transmit as a concept and incredibly HARD to execute consistently in real life.

Which is why CTE is the way of the future. With CTE you learn how to align to the shot using only the balls which EXIST and don't need to imagine any. Nor do you need to point your cue tip to an APPROXIAMATE spot on the cloth and then pivot (the dreaded word) around that point (hoping that you managed to keep the tip in the same spot) and then pull the cue back OVER the cue ball while trying not to hit IT as you then try to keep all that straight so you can FINALLY get down on the shot.

As opposed to - walking up to the table behind the cueball, see the center to edge line and align to that, put the cue down, pivot to center and shoot. Rinse and repeat. Shot after shot until all the balls are gone.

I will bet you any amount of money that we can take two RAW beginners off the street and give them both five hours of instruction - you get your guy for five hours and Stan Shuffet gets his guy for five hours - and Stan's guy will out shoot your guy clearly.

You do great for pool but you need to jsut stay out of CTE threads until you go and learn CTE. You don't know it and your fence sitting and constant self-promotion with pointing to your little clips is NAUSEATING. And this is coming from a person who invented self-promotion.

You know damn well that all of us here in this discussion are CLEAR about what Ghost Ball is and we especially don't need a basic primer on it.

Just go away. IF you are truly a scholar then go get the real deal. I will even lend you some money to go get it if you need it.

John, this post is shameful. Dr. Dave knows more about pool and aiming than you ever will, and never suggests that anybody's voice shouldn't be heard. Dave adds actual light to the subject when he posts; you add nothing but heat.

If I had to choose which of you would "go away" from CTE discussions, it would be you in an instant.

pj <- my vote
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
CTE can be described in easy to understand steps. I have described it to you several times already.

No, you haven't. You think you have, but that's because you don't have a clue how to describe it or how to tell that you're not describing it. This was confirmed for me when we got together. After hours of talking to you in person and seeing your personal demonstrations at a pool table, you only confirmed what I already suspected: you don't even know what you don't know.

pj
chgo

 

[sfleinen]

Dave Alciatore,

I think that you need to really think about some of these videos you are putting up.

The ones you link to above are just plain awful. You intend to show me how to use "the imaginary ball" (your words) by putting a real ball there then removing it? And of course you are using "training" balls which have convenient lines on them.

Your video is a great example of why Ghost Ball fails. Simply put it's super easy to transmit as a concept and incredibly HARD to execute consistently in real life.

Which is why CTE is the way of the future. With CTE you learn how to align to the shot using only the balls which EXIST and don't need to imagine any. Nor do you need to point your cue tip to an APPROXIAMATE spot on the cloth and then pivot (the dreaded word) around that point (hoping that you managed to keep the tip in the same spot) and then pull the cue back OVER the cue ball while trying not to hit IT as you then try to keep all that straight so you can FINALLY get down on the shot.

As opposed to - walking up to the table behind the cueball, see the center to edge line and align to that, put the cue down, pivot to center and shoot. Rinse and repeat. Shot after shot until all the balls are gone.

I will bet you any amount of money that we can take two RAW beginners off the street and give them both five hours of instruction - you get your guy for five hours and Stan Shuffet gets his guy for five hours - and Stan's guy will out shoot your guy clearly.

You do great for pool but you need to jsut stay out of CTE threads until you go and learn CTE. You don't know it and your fence sitting and constant self-promotion with pointing to your little clips is NAUSEATING. And this is coming from a person who invented self-promotion.

You know damn well that all of us here in this discussion are CLEAR about what Ghost Ball is and we especially don't need a basic primer on it.

Just go away. IF you are truly a scholar then go get the real deal. I will even lend you some money to go get it if you need it.

John:

OUCH. You were doing so good, and now this shameful post. "John 2.0" was doing so much better. I do hope that "pitbull lockjaw" of locking onto a concept and not letting go (i.e. "John 1.0") is not coming back. You have a lot to offer, but this pitbull lockjaw has got to go. It's what causes the threads you're involved in to do the "death spiral" into the ground and ultimately get deleted by the mods.

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

Just like you say in your video, in reference to CTE:
Ghost-ball is "easy to use at the table once somebody shows you."

Here are some other typical CTE-like responses that can also apply to ghost-ball aiming:

You can't diagram or describe the system in 2D. Pool is 3D!!!

It is your "visual intelligence," "eye-body connection," and "experience at the table" that make the system work.

It might not work on paper or at your desk, but it is "the nuts" at the table.

Whoever invented this system is an "aiming genius."

You just don't know all of the details. If you paid a certified ghost-ball instructor and really tried to learn and use the system, it would work really well for you at the table.​

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Actually every one of those comments is true. Ghost Ball IS "easier" to "see" on the table as opposed to on paper.

But I will bet you that if you repeat the experiment on the table with hole reinforcers to mark the spots the shooter picks as the GB center then you will have similar results as my simple paper experiment.

And in fact PEOPLE do pay CERTIFIED Ghost Ball Aiming Instructors to help them get better at using the Ghost Ball system. They are called BCA Certified Instructors.

Are you one?

Now to some serious comments:

Nobody said it was easy. If it were, pool would be boring. As with any system, you get better the more you practice.

On the contrary, many people have said exactly that in regards to Ghost Ball, that it's both easy to understand and easy to use.

Also, I think DAM is a better approach, where ghost-ball is supplemented by other visual information and a structured and consistent pre-shot routine.

Then you're wrong. Your whole bullshit approach here is wrong. You could have gone and learned CTE and then made a truthful and scientific analysis but instead you decided to poke fun and ridicule something you don't even know how to do.

Concerning CTE, I could easily create and post a video that shows errors in judgment of:
1.) the center of a ball
2.) the projected edge of a ball
3.) a projected line through the center of one ball and the edge of another ball
4.) a parallel shift of a line a certain number of "tips" or to a projected line through the edge or center of a ball
5.) a pivot to the center of a ball
6.) the "effective pivot length" needed for a particular shot

I could also demonstrate how these things can change significantly with:
1.) head alignment, tilt, height, and distance from the CB
2.) bridge length
3.) distance between the CB and OB
4.) the amount of body motion during the pivot
5.) the amount of bridge shift/tilt/bend during the pivot

THEN DO IT. Show us ALL that you understand CTE, how to implement it and where the problems are.

You can't because you don't know CTE. That's why your entire CTE section is all just a collection of excerpts from things OTHER PEOPLE have said about CTE from their perspective. YOU don't even know enough about it to know whether the writings and videos people have posted are correct or not. That's why you throw it all up so that you can act as though you have done something worthwhile.

Do your video on CTE - I am eager to see it.

This is a long this of things that require judgment and feel, compared to ghost-ball. An the real problem is that none of this takes into account the actual amount of cut or CB-OB contact point needed to pocket the ball, as ghost-ball does.

Ghost Ball does not take into account the AMOUNT of cut needed. All Ghost balls IF used properly and accurately is show you a path to shoot the cue ball to on a straight line. No where in the Ghost Ball instructions does it say that any cut angles are being calculated. The shooter doesn't need them - visualize two straigt lines - one line through the object ball and back out through the Ghost Ball and then a line through the Ghost Ball center. Bingo there you go. No one says to themselves this is a 63 degree cut when using GB.

Your LONG LIST is WRONG. Because your paradigm is wrong. Go learn CTE from a qualified instructor, you know who they are, and then come back and talk to us.

I don't think you would like a CTE video like this very much, so don't push me.

Regards,
Dave

Consider yourself pushed, shoved, bulldozed, whatever it takes. Show us that you understand what CTE is, how to do it and then the shortcomings if any. Go ahead.

I personally do not believe you will do anything of the sort. What you will do is you will get Stan's video and you will study it and then you will pick it apart once you have at least instruction from the source. WHICH is FINE. Once Stan's video is out then it's in the wild and open for critique.

But do whatever you want but for the love of Mosconi please stop posting your links to your kindergarten instruction. If you MUST post a link then post one to Mike Page's pool in ten minutes video. That's infinitely better than the drivel you post linking to your own WHEN YOU KNOW BETTER.

 

[eezbank]

This is gonna get ugly! :slap::slap::slap:

 

[JB Cases]

John:

OUCH. You were doing so good, and now this shameful post. "John 2.0" was doing so much better. I do hope that "pitbull lockjaw" of locking onto a concept and not letting go (i.e. "John 1.0") is not coming back. You have a lot to offer, but this pitbull lockjaw has got to go. It's what causes the threads you're involved in to do the "death spiral" into the ground and ultimately get deleted by the mods.

Respectfully,
-Sean

I am tired of the condescension Sean. I hope that this thread dies because it should never have been born in the first place.

Dr. Dave is condescending and his posting of his stupid Ghost Ball video was the last straw for me.

It's really hard for me to see someone who actually does do a lot for pool be such an ass when he doesn't have to be.

He's a scholar who has chosen to invest his time into pool. If there is something out there that's a mystery then go solve it. Real simple. Don't keep needling and being condescending.

Honestly to me he is worse than GetMeThere because Dave knows better. He knows that he can truly be a part of the solution to bring the WHY of CTE to players everywhere. But he won't. Instead he straddles the fence and condescends and calls people sham artists (in not so many words).

So if this is not the John you want to see then sorry but it's the John who wants to be here right now saying what needs to be said.

 

[JB Cases]

No, you haven't. You think you have, but that's because you don't have a clue how to describe it or how to tell that you're not describing it. This was confirmed for me when we got together. After hours of talking to you in person and seeing your personal demonstrations at a pool table, you only confirmed what I already suspected: you don't even know what you don't know.

pj
chgo

No, I have described it to you. What I have not done is instruct you. Even if I had wanted to instruct you I could not because I am not qualified to do so.

I know plenty of people who can jump balls but they cannot instruct someone to jump balls. I, on the other hand, have learned how to teach jumping and can in five minutes have almost any person alive jumping balls.

When we met we had no time to really discuss it and you kept interrupting me anyway. I felt as though you wouldn't even try it, not even to try it as I was demonstrating it. So I think that it probably would have been better for us not to discuss it at all.

I did however come away with a better understanding of your perspective. Which is why I would not presume to try and teach someone to use CTE without pre-qualifying that I am not an expert and my ability to teach it is very limited.

 

[GetMeThere]

....Only 3 of the 11 dots were even within .15" (that's a fifteenth of an inch)....

I guess we're not going to be treated to any sophisticated and revealing graphics from YOU, eh JB....?

1/15 = 0.066666..." THAT'S a fifteenth of an inch, expressed as a decimal.

 

[JoeyA]

Dave knows better. He knows that he can truly be a part of the solution to bring the WHY of CTE to players everywhere. But he won't. Instead he straddles the fence and condescends and calls people sham artists (in not so many words).

I for one, hope that Dave doesn't bring the real CTE/Pro One to players everywhere. It would be almost like stealing.

Stan Shuffett who has worked very hard to refine CTE/Pro One to a point where everyone can understand it, use it and improve their game with it.

A lot of people have said a LOT of things in poor taste about the users of CTE/Pro One ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE.

This new video that Stan has coming out will DETAIL all of the particulars of CTE/Pro One. I hope that those who are willing to shell out the dough for the video, won't just throw it out there for everyone else to get it for free.

I will say this. If you get the video, you WILL have some problems with CTE/Pro One working all of the time. This happened to me in my lesson with Stan and having him explain PRECISELY what he was doing when he made the shot and at the same time reinforcing some of the finer points of what he was doing, made all of the difference in the world. I strongly recommend the one on one instruction for CTE/Pro One.

For those of you who know me, I am prone toward seeing the positive side of just about everything but I will not lie about what I have learned. As time goes on I will be sharing the improvements in my game or any degradation in my game. For the time being and maybe permanently, I am putting contact point to contact point, overlapping balls, stick edge aiming, ghost ball aiming and anything else I do to make a ball on the shelf. CTE/Pro One has not been described as I was taught and it is a precise aiming system with certain shots that must have "adjustments" made. These problem shots are manageable with Stan's input.

I think if the naysayers see the video and apply themselves, they will find out exactly what I have found out and that CTE/Pro One is a PRECISE AIMING SYSTEM and another good method for helping you to play better pool.

In all fairness, while I won't mind seeing some of the naysayers eat a little crow, in their defense, they haven't seen what I have seen and don't know what I do know now about CTE/Pro One.

Everyone will see some value in CTE/Pro One and if you don't then I will simply say that you will never be able to play at a high level of play.

It is kind of crazy because I have used portions of CTE and have often referred to it as an alignment system and that alignment is a GREAT TOOL by itself. It is much more than that. What's really crazy is seeing myself posting similar things to what others who have gone before me. To the uninitiated, it has to sound like a cult but you can believe one thing, a LOT of people are going to change their minds about what has been said about CTE/Pro One and some apologies are going to be spreading across the Internet, and hopefully some of those apologies will come from both sides of the fence for different reasons.

JoeyA

 

[JB Cases]

I guess we're not going to be treated to any sophisticated and revealing graphics from YOU, eh JB....?

1/15 = 0.066666..." THAT'S a fifteenth of an inch, expressed as a decimal.

Thanks, I thought I was probably not right but too lazy to double check it.

Then I meant to say that the closest guess to the exact GB position was .066" away from center.

 

[duckie]

[BEveryone will see some value in CTE/Pro One and if you don't then I will simply say that you will never be able to play at a high level of play.

JoeyA

Prove it, oh yeah, thats right you can't just like everything else CTE'r claim.

 

[Dead Crab]

*******************
I will say this. If you get the video, you WILL have some problems with CTE/Pro One working all of the time.
********************

I think I just changed my mind about buying the video.

 

[GetMeThere]

1. GetMeThere is wrong about the accuracy required in POOL.

WHOA! Gotta stop that one there!

In my error range chart I specificed the error range as a range of 2", center to center. That's approximately a "2 ball wide" pocket--when viewed at its WIDEST. Most shots, e.g., down the rail, give far LESS than a 2-ball-wide pocket opening, so a 2-ball-wide pocket opening still indeed serves as a decent estimate: touching the rail a couple of diamonds up, on a close-to-the-rail running shot STILL can easily fall within a 2-ball-pocket. That's easily seen by just extending the line toward the pocket from the start point of the OB through the second diamond up (I'm not taking great efforts to describe this because I think it will be obvious to most).

Most importantly, I took the "2 inch, center-to-center of CB error range" directly from an article or post made by Bob Jewett that also discussed "error range." I used his experienced judgment as a starting point, gave some thought to it myself, and decided that it seemed reasonable.

If you think an approximate "2 ball pocket" range is "wrong," tell us what you think a realistic correct range is.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

WHOA! Gotta stop that one there!

In my error range chart I specificed the error range as a range of 2", center to center. That's approximately a "2 ball wide" pocket--when viewed at its WIDEST. Most shots, e.g., down the rail, give far LESS than a 2-ball-wide pocket opening, so a 2-ball-wide pocket opening still indeed serves as a decent estimate: touching the rail a couple of diamonds up, on a close-to-the-rail running shot STILL can easily fall within a 2-ball-pocket. That's easily seen by just extending the line toward the pocket from the start point of the OB through the second diamond up (I'm not taking great efforts to describe this because I think it will be obvious to most).

Most importantly, I took the "2 inch, center-to-center of CB error range" directly from an article or post made by Bob Jewett that also discussed "error range." I used his experienced judgment as a starting point, gave some thought to it myself, and decided that it seemed reasonable.

If you think an approximate "2 ball pocket" range is "wrong," tell us what you think a realistic correct range is.

You can cheat a pool pocket. If you've ever seen the instructional video by Don Feeney on sighting and aiming, he shows the 3 centres of the pocket. Depending on the angle the ball approaches the pocket at, the pocket can be as wide as 6-7". The pocket is bigger when the OB is closer to the rail. However, the speed of the object ball heading to the pocket also affects the size of the pocket. To make a blanket statement that you need X degrees of accuracy to pocket a ball is false.

 

[dr_dave]

... Show us that you understand what CTE is

I think I have already done this on my CTE resource page. Have you read the complete document recently? I revised and improved it over the last few days.

What you will do is you will get Stan's video and you will study it and then you will pick it apart once you have at least instruction from the source. WHICH is FINE. Once Stan's video is out then it's in the wild and open for critique.

I most certainly look forward to studying Stan's DVD and Spidey's tome when they come out. Honestly, I don't think I will learn any new information from these sources; although, I hope I do.

I think the descriptions and illustrations for "how and why CTE works" on my CTE resource page still apply to Pro-One, SAME-AIM, or any other variation of CTE. If they don't, I will be sure to update the information as I learn more.

Regards,
Dave

 

[GetMeThere]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-L4QMNiVxk

I congratulate you for trying to do an experiment (now if we could only get you to try REAL experiments with CTE!).

But this one isn't exactly relevant.

ALL of my data is based on visually FLATTENING the CB and OB into 2D discs, and superimposing the visual image of the CB onto the OB. The distances I give relate to distances that would be shown by sliding those two superimposed discs against each other.

In your example, the dot could be an INCH off (or 20 miles) and still be within "a hair's breadth" within the meaning of the figures that I give.

To do the experiment correctly you would have to collapse it all into 2D, and measure errors distances only as the perpendicular distances from the correct CB-OB line.

 

[duckie]

I got left this shot the other day playing 8 ball. I'm shooting the 5 ball.

CueTable Help

This is what I did

CueTable Help

Explain to me how CTE can be used on this shot or even fractional or parallel.

Using CTE, how do you find the spot on the rail to hit?

I made it using my GB ball method. Let see some really creative type shots, such as this, that can be made with CTE.

Post em.......

 

[GetMeThere]

CTE can be described in easy to understand steps. I have described it to you several times already.

What you want is for someone to print a manual on how to do CTE. That's about to be here on video.

I'm not so sure that JoeyA agrees with you on that one, John. It seems that he's ALREADY built in a fudge implying that you REALLY won't understand CTE unless you take lessons directly:

...The final CTE/Pro One video should be out before Christmas. I watched Stan's first draft of the video and it details everything that Stan shared in the one on one lesson but if I had not taken the lesson I can candidly tell you that I would have had some "issues" with the video by itself...

Overall, I can say that I have 100% agreement with one statement of JoeyA's--regarding both his review, and CTE itself:

Yeah, I will use the word "incredible" because that's what it is.

JoeyA's review, your testimony, and everything I've read about CTE is not credible.