CTE Marketing

[JB Cases]

LOL. What planet are you from today? Saying four people are four people isn't "denigrating", John. It's counting.

pj
chgo

Oh Pat, so literal aren't we? I think it's perfectly clear what the intent is but if you want to continue the charade how about you list your resume and Lou's resume in pool and then we will put up the list of accomplishments of the four instructors.

Since you are all about "transparency" and "clarity" we can let the public decide whose "opinion" on CTE carries more weight, two super nobodies like you and me. Three if you count Lou. Or four top instructors with major accomplishments in the game.

After when is an expert actually an expert? Would you say that you have more expertise than Randy Goetlicher when it comes to pool in general? Or how to play pool?

Or more expertise than Scott Lee? Would you feel qualified to teach Stevie Moore anything like Stan Shuffet has done? Would you feel qualified to bet Landon Shuffet's career in pool on your instruction?

Do you know more about pool and pool instruction than Tom Simpson?

So you can be petty and just "do the math" if you want to. I hope that you will do the math on accomplishments and the math on risk vs. reward as well. Those are also simple math concepts.

When I do the math I come up with four of the country's best instructors teaching CTE. Four people with a long extensive list of accomplishments in pool. Four people who have been deeply involved in pool for more than 20 years. Four people who have been not only students of the game but also instructors who have taught thousands of others over the years.

I see four people who have built solid reputations and who depend on their ability to teach as their sole source of income. I see four people who have way more to lose by teaching something that is questionable.

What are the odds, as long as we are doing simple math, that four separate instructors, all with sterling reputations, would all come to teach Hal's methods with each having an individual approach? I could understand if one of them just went crazy and abandoned all reason and decided to teach some off-the-wall crazy theory. Happens all the time.

But four of them? Four of the BEST and most highly regarded, well experienced instructors in America all teaching CTE?

This is who you want to reduce to "just four guys"?

Good luck with that.

 

[Nick B]

John,
Ignoring PJ cridentials...what if he's right? Do I have to ignore what you have to say because I believe I can outplay you (correction know I can)? Let's not attack Patrick with such fluff and stick to the facts.

Nick

Oh Pat, so literal aren't we? I think it's perfectly clear what the intent is but if you want to continue the charade how about you list your resume and Lou's resume in pool and then we will put up the list of accomplishments of the four instructors.

Since you are all about "transparency" and "clarity" we can let the public decide whose "opinion" on CTE carries more weight, two super nobodies like you and me. Three if you count Lou. Or four top instructors with major accomplishments in the game.

After when is an expert actually an expert? Would you say that you have more expertise than Randy Goetlicher when it comes to pool in general? Or how to play pool?

Or more expertise than Scott Lee? Would you feel qualified to teach Stevie Moore anything like Stan Shuffet has done? Would you feel qualified to bet Landon Shuffet's career in pool on your instruction?

Do you know more about pool and pool instruction than Tom Simpson?

So you can be petty and just "do the math" if you want to. I hope that you will do the math on accomplishments and the math on risk vs. reward as well. Those are also simple math concepts.

When I do the math I come up with four of the country's best instructors teaching CTE. Four people with a long extensive list of accomplishments in pool. Four people who have been deeply involved in pool for more than 20 years. Four people who have been not only students of the game but also instructors who have taught thousands of others over the years.

I see four people who have built solid reputations and who depend on their ability to teach as their sole source of income. I see four people who have way more to lose by teaching something that is questionable.

What are the odds, as long as we are doing simple math, that four separate instructors, all with sterling reputations, would all come to teach Hal's methods with each having an individual approach? I could understand if one of them just went crazy and abandoned all reason and decided to teach some off-the-wall crazy theory. Happens all the time.

But four of them? Four of the BEST and most highly regarded, well experienced instructors in America all teaching CTE?

This is who you want to reduce to "just four guys"?

Good luck with that.

 

[JB Cases]

John,
Ignoring PJ cridentials...what if he's right? Do I have to ignore what you have to say because I believe I can outplay you (correction know I can)? Let's not attack Patrick with such fluff and stick to the facts.

Nick

Right about what exactly?

If he is right then he should prove it. Until then his opinion, like mine and yours doesn't mean anything.

What facts? Here is a fact. Four of America's top billiard instructors with a long list of credentials and accomplishments are teaching CTE. They don't have to teach CTE. It's not essential to their businesses if they do.

That's not fluff. Simple facts easily proven.

So the conclusion I draw from those simple facts is that CTE is valid and teachable.

Thus my personal opinion, based on my personal experience with CTE and the endorsement of top instructors is that it works and that it works as they think it works and not as Pat Johnson thinks it works.

I use CTE. I don't have to. What you or Pat choose to do is your personal decision.

 

[dr9ball]

So the conclusion I draw from those simple facts is that CTE is valid and teachable.

Thus my personal opinion, based on my personal experience with CTE and the endorsement of top instructors is that it works and that it works as they think it works and not as Pat Johnson thinks it works.

While I'm NOT a top 4 instructor, I too am incorporating SAME-AIM (a CTE hybrid from RandyG) into my teaching as one of the aiming methods I teach students. In fact I gave a lesson on it to 3 students today. Feedback from students so far is they like it. Like anything else, it's not going to make them nor anyone else a pro over night, nor next week etc. I feel it's a worthwhile system that will give good results for those who practice and use it correctly.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

John:
... my personal opinion, based on my personal experience with CTE and the endorsement of top instructors is that it works and that it works as they think it works and not as Pat Johnson thinks it works.

Name the top instructors that you know how they think CTE works.

pj
chgo

 

[JB Cases]

Name the top instructors that you know how they think CTE works.

pj
chgo

I know you think that this is a trick question.

The four instructors are Randy Goetlicher, Stan Shuffet, Scott Lee and Tom Simpson.

Your main assertion is that CTE works by feel and subconscious adjustment. They don't think so.

I don't think so.

 

[JoeyA]

CTE/Pro One Video

WOW Dead Crab. I missed the article. Thanks for the link.

Roger wrote a nicely written article. He says some things that are QUITE TRUE like the fact that many of us see the visual pictures of aiming differently.

He is not correct that CTE was a product that was designed for the sole purpose of marketing.

Stan Shuffett refined and defined CTE as CTE/Pro One and I am betting that it will be a big hit with pool players. The reason it will be a big hit are many and I may start another thread listing the benefits of CTE/Pro One.

There are REAL benefits to be gained by using CTE/Pro One and I'm still curious if others will "get it" or not.

There is so much misinformation about this aiming system out there. the misinformation is on websites of people who are well respected in the pool world. People think that they know how CTE/Pro One works but they haven't taken the time to find out how it works or spent the money on taking a lesson, or practiced diligently with it but yet, THEY ARE EXPERTS ON CTE/PRO ONE.

Me.... I hope Stan makes a million dollars on his video. It would take 25,000 orders for him to make that million dollars but that gross sales, not net profits.

Ultimately, there will be weeping, wailing and nashing of teeth by the same naysayers who have never even seen CTE/Pro One as taught by Stan but there will be others who will be shouting from the rooftops that CTE/Pro is TOP SHELF. It really is kind of funny to me that people can vilify something that they have never seen.

I'm going to step out of line for a moment and just tell the AZBilliards community that Stan teaches CTE/Pro One FAR DIFFERENTLY than the way that Hal taught.

I guess it is because Stan:

A teacher by profession.
A HIGHLY skilled pool player.
Put in the time to refine and define CTE/Pro One.
A HIGHLY SKILLED coach to one of America's Best Players.
Is sought out by PROFESSIONAL POOL players from all over the globe. (They actually come to take his Foundation Course instead of the new CTE/Pro One course.) That's probably because it is relatively new. I'll bet that before it's over with Stan will be teaching CTE/Pro One to other professional players as well as individuals who are looking to learn how to aim better.

Others have sat on the sidelines and railed against CTE users who had a modicum of success with what Hal taught and now they find themselves in an embarassing position. They're just plain all wrong. With all of the ridicule that the naysayers have spewed about, you can be assured that if they use CTE/Pro One and never missed a ball for the rest of their lives, they still wouldn't admit that it is a GOOD AIMING SYSTEM.


A few of the naysayers will say, "Well.......that really isn't what I thought it was and it sure does work well but you see, I just didn't have the right information.

A few other naysayers will say, "You see, I told you so. It doesn't work for this shot and that shot" FTR, It does work with every shot but some shots require adjustments and those adjustments are taught in Stan's CTE/Pro One lesson.

A few will have trouble with it and complain that they are just not able to use it and maybe some people will not benefit from it.

But I predict that A LOT OF PEOPLE will benefit from it. A LOT OF PEOPLE.

And just for the benefit of new people reading this thread, you can order STAN SHUFFETT'S CTE/Pro One video by clicking here.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...Randy Goetlicher, Stan Shuffet, Scott Lee and Tom Simpson.

Your main assertion is that CTE works by feel and subconscious adjustment. They don't think so.

I've only seen Stan Shuffet say anything about that here, and he said adjustments are required with CTE, so you're evidently wrong about him. What makes you think you know what the others think?

I don't think so.

That's very interesting, but based on our meeting and conversation at a pool table I see no evidence that you know how you use CTE.

pj
chgo

 

[peteypooldude]

I know you think that this is a trick question.

The four instructors are Randy Goetlicher, Stan Shuffet, Scott Lee and Tom Simpson.

Your main assertion is that CTE works by feel and subconscious adjustment. They don't think so.

I don't think so.

I wonder what made Roger go out on a limb like he did , My guess is it was
another case of an uneducated CTE OPINION. Especially writing an article
like that knowing the credentials of the instructors you named who teach it. It was disrespectful and without merit.
I have to watch what I say because I do enjoy this site, but it is what
is.

 

[Slide Rule]

Surprising that Roger Long's third CTE column hasn't generated much response.

For those who missed it:
http://www.azbilliards.com/rogerlong/roger6.php

I see that Roger has told us what he really thinks. I knew that your write ups on CTE were going to be a hit job.

Was the actual process too elusive? Say goodbye to the good guy club.

pj couldn't have done it better.

 

[peteypooldude]

I see that Roger has told us what he really thinks. I knew that your write ups on CTE were going to be a hit job.

Was the actual process too elusive? Say goodbye to the good guy club.

pj couldn't have done it better.

I completely agree, and Merry Xmas Slide Rule

 

[Slide Rule]

If Roger had any clue to how many emails, PMs and phone calls I've taken over the last few years to help complete strangers for FREE -- he'd recant his conclusion that it's all about marketing. At one time last year, I had to promise my gf that I wouldn't take anymore calls because it was interfering with our time together.

If I ever work with someone face to face (which is RARE), I want to be paid for my time plain and simple. Since Roger doesn't work or give lessons for free--- that's hardly marketing. If Stan INVESTS a ton of money into production costs to make sure the quality of his video is good and charges people for the DVD to offset his initial investment, that's not marketing---- that's called basic business (unless Stan was a gazillionaire).

Since Roger doesn't work for free, give lessons for free or do "pro shop" work for free---- he's a hypocrite to call those who are trying to also make a living in the pool industry "marketers" who don't have knowledge or content. In my opinion, Stan isn't even "making a living" with these DVDs... he's merely offsetting his costs and time invested. If he does, good for him - that's America.

If Roger couldn't extrapolate enough info from AZB to figure out CTE - then maybe he should have PAID for a private lesson --- which is what he's also selling to his peeps in Arizona.

Great conclusion, Roger. Brilliant write-up. What is CTE.... drum roll...."MARKETING!" You could have at least copied some content from Dr. Dave's website and made a more technical conclusion than that. Not to prod--- but it was totally what I was expecting though when I heard Roger was writing a CTE article when he prob has 1 hour invested on the table with it.

Amen.

And I appreciate your PM assistance.

 

[JoeyA]

I know you think that this is a trick question.

The four instructors are Randy Goetlicher, Stan Shuffet, Scott Lee and Tom Simpson.

Your main assertion is that CTE works by feel and subconscious adjustment. They don't think so.

I don't think so.

I KNOW that it works by precision. lol

Patrick and a whole lot of other people are going to be eating crow for a long time to come. Websites will have to have large amounts of data erased from them to mitigate the damage to their reputations.

It's going to be quite funny to sit on the sidelines and listen to their back-pedaling and spin. Trust me, all of the naysayers will be trying to put on a different record.

Look, I'm feeling pretty good today. The Saints won another football game. The naysayers have laughed at, kicked, prodded and ridiculed CTE users for a LONG, LONG TIME (YEARS) without penalty and without being banned from the AZB forum.

When NEW CTE/Pro One users come forth to give their blessing that CTE/Pro One is an ACCURATE AND FINITE aiming system, should the CTE/Pro One users be allowed to do those same things to the NAYSAYERS? Aww, I'm just kidding, but maybe the naysayers would then be able to see themselves as others perceive them.

 

[ndakotan]

lost homework

I have no dog in the CTE hunt, I don't think CTE should be argued in this thread, and I don't see any point in further arguments. Neither side will convince the other of the validity of their arguments. That said, I fall on the "show me the proof of CTE", the physics should be straightforward. I have ordered the DVD to see what's on it, I have an open mind. I do use systems for kicking, but don't see the validity of aiming systems.

All of that said, I think the 3rd article (which is the subject of the thread), is a simple cop out and cheap shot on CTE. Since the author had the time to put in a three-piece article, I assumed he did some homework, figured something out for or against CTE, proved/disproved the validity, or did something constructive. I actually enjoyed the first two articles, and was thinking there would be an interesting point to the third. When I read the third article, it seemed like the author gave up or waited until the last moment to write the article, or his dog ate the article before the deadline and he had to write something. The question in the title of the article was never answered, other than to say it was a marketing ploy. It seems like a CTE opponent got a platform, and used it to bash an idea without substantiating anything. I have read that info in the forums, what a waste of a 3 part article.

 

[JB Cases]

I've only seen Stan Shuffet say anything about that here, and he said adjustments are required with CTE, so you're evidently wrong about him. What makes you think you know what the others think?


That's very interesting, but based on our meeting and conversation at a pool table I see no evidence that you know how you use CTE.

pj
chgo

Our meeting and conversation if you can call it that was meaningless. You have stated that and now you want to assign meaning to it.

Stan said that at a certain point you do let your natural feel take over. This applies to ANY type of "aiming" and executing in any sport. At some point the PERSON has to decide to pull the trigger. You confuse Stan's response as agreeing with your premise.

Your premise is that CTE is little more than starting at a half-ball aim and guessing the right line from there.

You are wrong on that point.

But it doesn't matter if you are wrong or not. The point is that you are powerless to stop CTE from being taught. I am confident that you will never be able to influence more than a few people with your opinions on this subject.

Well anyway, you got my point. I am certain that I can beat you playing pool and next time we meet I won't discuss CTE or how I aim. We can gamble a little playing one pocket and just have fun. I should not have tried to have a discussion with you on the subject as I am not qualified to do so.

Those "four guys" will continue to teach CTE and they will in turn teach others how to teach it and CTE will spread as Hal meant it to.

You and Lou and whoever else wants to can continue to be contrary as long as you like. Makes no difference whatsoever. I haven't been able to put a single other case maker out of business with my opinions about their lack of protectiveness and you have even less chance of getting people not to try CTE.

So if it pleases you to continue wasting bandwidth trying, go ahead. Make that your crusade. As I have said before contrarians are useful. Without you I doubt that there would a forthcoming DVD which is long overdue.

So thank you.

And with that I am really, Jesus really, OUT of here on this subject. Everyone else can handle themselves.

Anyone who calls themselves an instructor owes it to themselves and their students to learn CTE if for no other reason than to say that they know it. But if they don't then they don't.

For you Pat, Mike Page, Lou F. and anyone else who thinks CTE is bunk I have $500 waiting for you to take from me in one pocket even up no spot (unless I feel realy froggy and spot you). If you beat me then you get the money and the ability to say you beat the tin foil hat wearing clown. If you should lose however rest assured that I will let everyone know that the tin-foil hat wearing clown beat you using CTE.

Y'all have a great day now. It's lunch time here and I am going to turn around and hit some balls on my new table.

 

[JDB]

Right about what exactly?

If he is right then he should prove it. Until then his opinion, like mine and yours doesn't mean anything.

What facts? Here is a fact. Four of America's top billiard instructors with a long list of credentials and accomplishments are teaching CTE. They don't have to teach CTE. It's not essential to their businesses if they do.

That's not fluff. Simple facts easily proven.

So the conclusion I draw from those simple facts is that CTE is valid and teachable.

Thus my personal opinion, based on my personal experience with CTE and the endorsement of top instructors is that it works and that it works as they think it works and not as Pat Johnson thinks it works.

I use CTE. I don't have to. What you or Pat choose to do is your personal decision.

Hey John,

Who are the top (4) instructors teaching CTE? I am assuming you are including Randy G. and Stan Shufett.

Who are the others? I am just curious.

Thanks.

........read response afterwards and saw John mentioned the (4) instructors he was referencing....

 

[JDB]

I KNOW that it works by precision. lol

Patrick and a whole lot of other people are going to be eating crow for a long time to come. Websites will have to have large amounts of data erased from them to mitigate the damage to their reputations.

It's going to be quite funny to sit on the sidelines and listen to their back-pedaling and spin. Trust me, all of the naysayers will be trying to put on a different record.

Look, I'm feeling pretty good today. The Saints won another football game. The naysayers have laughed at, kicked, prodded and ridiculed CTE users for a LONG, LONG TIME (YEARS) without penalty and without being banned from the AZB forum.

When NEW CTE/Pro One users come forth to give their blessing that CTE/Pro One is an ACCURATE AND FINITE aiming system, should the CTE/Pro One users be allowed to do those same things to the NAYSAYERS? Aww, I'm just kidding, but maybe the naysayers would then be able to see themselves as others perceive them.

I have been patiently sitting on the sidelines waiting for the DVD I ordered for CTE?Pro One from Stan.

However, I don't understand your comment about people disagreeing with it will be back-peddaling.

I have read every thread and all they (GMT, Lou, PJ and Dr. Dave) have asked is for an explanation of how it works.

So if someone actually tells them how it works and they agree why would they have to back pedal? I think they would happy to finally have an explanation and would have nothing to back-pedal about.

JMO.

 

[GetMeThere]

So if someone actually tells them how it works and they agree why would they have to back pedal? I think they would happy to finally have an explanation and would have nothing to back-pedal about.

It's not necessary to be "told how it works" because, quite simply, it doesn't work. That can be known from Spidey--who has claimed to have collaborated with Stan (and Stan hasn't denied that). Spidey says that CTE does not require knowing where the pocket is in relation to the balls--and he made a video claiming to demonstrate that.

But no "aiming system" can send balls toward the pocket (or exactly into--center pocket ) if it ignores WHERE the pocket is in relation to the balls.

ALL versions of CTE discussed to this point (including Pro-One) involve some sort of "ritual" of alignment between CB and OB, and IGNORE the precise position of the pocket. Therefore, CTE cannot systematically produce an "aim" into a pocket.

Any reasonable 8-year old kid could understand that. And it's not necessary to know the "details;" and it's not necessary to "try it" in order to know that it doesn't work as an "aiming system" that "precisely pockets balls."

 

[champ2107]

It's not necessary to be "told how it works" because, quite simply, it doesn't work. That can be known from Spidey--who has claimed to have collaborated with Stan (and Stan hasn't denied that). Spidey says that CTE does not require knowing where the pocket is in relation to the balls--and he made a video claiming to demonstrate that.

But no "aiming system" can send balls toward the pocket (or exactly into--center pocket ) if it ignores WHERE the pocket is in relation to the balls.

ALL versions of CTE discussed to this point (including Pro-One) involve some sort of "ritual" of alignment between CB and OB, and IGNORE the precise position of the pocket. Therefore, CTE cannot systematically produce an "aim" into a pocket.

Any reasonable 8-year old kid could understand that. And it's not necessary to know the "details;" and it's not necessary to "try it" in order to know that it doesn't work as an "aiming system" that "precisely pockets balls."

hey genius just when you are around we will all call it a "system of pocketing balls" enough meaningless spam post already from you

 

[JoeyA]

I have been patiently sitting on the sidelines waiting for the DVD I ordered for CTE?Pro One from Stan.

However, I don't understand your comment about people disagreeing with it will be back-peddaling.

I have read every thread and all they (GMT, Lou, PJ and Dr. Dave) have asked is for an explanation of how it works.

So if someone actually tells them how it works and they agree why would they have to back pedal? I think they would happy to finally have an explanation and would have nothing to back-pedal about.

JMO.

None of the people (gmt, Lou, PJ, or Dr. Dave) you mention have taken a class with Stan Shuffett on his CTE/Pro One aiming system but they have purported to know exactly how it works and how it doesn't work.

They have gone everywhere except to the source. Hal Houle is a unique individual who liked to play with people and would often give different pieces of information to different people.

I've always talked about CTE/Pro One not CTE. I write it that way because of what I believe and that is that Stan has refined and defined CTE and clearly shows how you can aim PRECISELY using CTE/Pro One.

The FAB FOUR denounces Stan, ridicules CTE/Pro One and continues to say it doesn't work. It really is a joke. These people are ridiculing something that they haven't even seen. They've conjured up all sorts of negative information about CTE/Pro One and make out like they are experts on it.

They will have some aplogizing to do as CTE/Pro One evolves. I don't expect an outright, "get on your knees, kind of apology" to Stan from any of these guys. They will sit and spin and spin until they devoid themselves of any responsibility. They will say anything and everything to deny their actions, words and deeds.

They will say that people told them what CTE/Pro One was and they assumed that they knew the correct information, when all along they really didn't know the correct information so how can anyone hold them responsible for their omnipotent pontifications.

In spite of anyone having any success with CTE/Pro One they will point to the people who don't get it or don't want to use it and say, you see it doesn't work.

They will also say many other things to have the "tail" removed from their backs. You remember the childhood game "Pin the tail on the donkey"? It similar to that.

But it's all good and one day but not right away, there will be peace and harmony at AZB and everyone will sing the FAB FOUR's favorite song, "Kumbaya".