CTE Marketing

[iusedtoberich]

I won't speak for the "fab four" as you put them, but generally, science is not like religion or politics. If there are 2 sides to an issue in Science, with strong opinions on either side, once FACTS are discovered and prove that one side is correct, the other side usually accepts the facts, and the argument ends. This is like a paradigm shift.

The people you mentioned seem to have a scientific spirit about them, and my money goes that if CTE is ever proven with independently verifiable FACTS to be accurate without knowledge of the pocket location, then there would be no arguments, just acceptance.

 

[LAMas]

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."

I concur that you need to know where the pocket is with respect to the locations of the OB and CB. I think that some shooters are able to sense where the pockets are with respect to the geometric features of the table like the rails and the other pockets. If that is possible, then one can derive the line from the "invisible pocket" to the OB and another line from the CB to the OB and recognize the cut angle.

Once you determine the cut angle, you don't need to have the pocket in your sight.

Using CTE and the 3 or 4 fractional points on the equator of the OB i.e., center of the OB = 1/2 ball; 1/4 OB from it's edge and the edge (3 points); or even 1/8 ball from it's edge (4th point), one can judge where to aim and adjust from those points to send the CB to the GB.

These points will get you close to 85 degrees, 60 degrees, 30 degrees and 40 degrees respectively.

I wouldn't use CTE for cut angles from 0 to 30 degrees for the shift is away from the edge of the OB to prepivot aim lines on the cloth or rail behind the OB. I would recommend using double distance aiming.

This is also true if you practice a derivative of CTE like the edge of the CB to the fractional points on the OB before making the necessary adjustments for:

CIT, cloth characteristics, speed and english if any....etc..

That said, where's the next cold Coors?

Just sayin.:smile::thumbup:

 

[GetMeThere]

I concur that you need to know where the pocket is with respect to the locations of the OB and CB. I think that some shooters are able to sense where the pockets are with respect to the geometric features of the table like the rails and the other pockets. If that is possible, then one can derive the line from the "invisible pocket" to the OB and another line from the CB to the OB and recognize the cut angle.

Once you determine the cut angle, you don't need to have the pocket in your sight.

Using CTE and the 3 or 4 fractional points on the equator of the OB i.e., center of the OB = 1/2 ball; 1/4 OB from it's edge and the edge (3 points); or even 1/8 ball from it's edge (4th point), one can judge where to aim and adjust from those points to send the CB to the GB.

These points will get you close to 85 degrees, 60 degrees, 30 degrees and 40 degrees respectively.

I wouldn't use CTE for cut angles from 0 to 30 degrees for the shift is away from the edge of the OB to prepivot aim lines on the cloth or rail behind the OB. I would recommend using double distance aiming.

This is also true if you practice a derivative of CTE like the edge of the CB to the fractional points on the OB before making the necessary adjustments for:

CIT, cloth characteristics, speed and english if any....etc..

That said, where's the next cold Coors?

Just sayin.:smile::thumbup:

All more or less true....
1) hardly an "exact" system
2) and it's essentially "shooting by feel" with the addition of assigning some numbers to what you "feel/estimate."

That's not a "system," and certainly not an "aiming system" (it might be an aiming "method" that would simply better be called "aiming by feel"), and it's POSITIVELY not an "exact, center pocket aiming system" (as advertised).

Edit: And most importantly, I never said you have to actually SEE the pocket. What you need is the INFORMATION required to hit the OB exactly toward the pocket--and that information doesn't reside in CB and OB positions alone.

 

[JoeyA]

I won't speak for the "fab four" as you put them, but generally, science is not like religion or politics. If there are 2 sides to an issue in Science, with strong opinions on either side, once FACTS are discovered and prove that one side is correct, the other side usually accepts the facts, and the argument ends. This is like a paradigm shift.

The people you mentioned seem to have a scientific spirit about them, and my money goes that if CTE is ever proven with independently verifiable FACTS to be accurate without knowledge of the pocket location, then there would be no arguments, just acceptance.

I would hope there would be acceptance but I doubt that there will be any.

I hope that there will be apologies by them primarily to Stan but I doubt that there will be any.

If I'm right, they will owe some other CTE users an apology as well but I doubt that there will be any.

On my end, I've never argued about CTE/Pro One working or not working and don't plan to. I've expressed exactly the way that I have experienced CTE/Pro One and there's really nothing to argue about as far CTE/Pro One is concerned.

 

[GetMeThere]

....I've never argued about CTE/Pro One working or not working and don't plan to....

You don't "argue" whether or not CTE/Pro One works, yet you assert that "apologies will be necessary?" Isn't that a contradiction? Doesn't the assertion that apologies will be necessary mean that you assert it "works?" (and I'm ignoring, for the moment, the number of times you have emphasized that it's EXACT--and if it's exact, it certainly "works").

 

[LAMas]

All more or less true....
1) hardly an "exact" system
2) and it's essentially "shooting by feel" with the addition of assigning some numbers to what you "feel/estimate."

That's not a "system," and certainly not an "aiming system" (it might be an aiming "method" that would simply better be called "aiming by feel"), and it's POSITIVELY not an "exact, center pocket aiming system" (as advertised).

Edit: And most importantly, I never said you have to actually SEE the pocket. What you need is the INFORMATION required to hit the OB exactly toward the pocket--and that information doesn't reside in CB and OB positions alone.

What is an exact aiming system?

Could it be ghost ball? To me, my ghost ball and it's center is sometimes smaller or larger resulting in a slight error.

Could it be double distance aiming where thin cuts must be aimed at the cloth or the rail behind or...resulting in slight errors.

What is problematic about CTE are the number of set up steps; CTE, shift and the pivot back to center of the CB that are required with their attendant possible cumulative error. It just isn't as parsimonious as double distance aiming or GB.

I have said this many time in different threads, but it facinates me that some here embrace it and it's derivatives because they know the untold story that I don't.

For me it is academic.

Just sayin...another cold one please.:smile::thumbup:

 

[eezbank]

I would hope there would be acceptance but I doubt that there will be any.

I hope that there will be apologies by them primarily to Stan but I doubt that there will be any.

If I'm right, they will owe some other CTE users an apology as well but I doubt that there will be any.

On my end, I've never argued about CTE/Pro One working or not working and don't plan to. I've expressed exactly the way that I have experienced CTE/Pro One and there's really nothing to argue about as far CTE/Pro One is concerned.

I hope that you will start another thread Joey. I enjoy reading about your CTE journey. It's a shame that a select few try to disrupt your threads.

 

[brophog]

I won't speak for the "fab four" as you put them, but generally, science is not like religion or politics. If there are 2 sides to an issue in Science, with strong opinions on either side, once FACTS are discovered and prove that one side is correct, the other side usually accepts the facts, and the argument ends. This is like a paradigm shift.

You're treating science as far more dichotomous that it really is. Science is nothing more than using induction and (to a lesser extent) deduction to evaluate the natural world. The idea of 'proof' in science is non-existent. Mathematics can create 'proofs' in the sense you describe, but science makes an argument. Previously believed scientific theories, even ones nearly universally agreed upon, are later considered no longer valid by someone's elses work. We 'disprove', if you prefer that word, scientific theories every day.

The term 'fact' isn't even used in the way you suggest. A 'fact' in science is not an undeniable facet, it is merely an observation. The scientific community is full of theories being debated, and a great many of them never get unilaterally agreed upon in the manner you suggest.

Your entire assumption that 'the argument ends' goes against the very nature of science. If that were the case, mankind's knowledge would be grossly stunted in comparison to what it is today. Science is all about not treating the argument as having been ended and finding new ways to challenge ideas.

Sorry to launch into a rant within a rant, but that clarification was sorely needed here. For this discussion, or any other discussion of its kind to be considered 'scientific', we would need to make observations and do testing, and for that we would need the procedure itself made publically available for testing and analysis. Until that is done, this is all empty rhetoric.

 

[GetMeThere]

What is an exact aiming system?

Ghostball is the only one I know of--and of course it's "exactness" refers only to geometry, friction makes all systems "inexact" in practice (well, EXCEPT CTE, of course)

What is problematic about CTE are the number of set up steps...

What is problematic (i.e., impossible) about CTE is the "magical idea" that the necessary information to pocket OBs resides completely in the OB and the CB. Magic is a fairy tale.

...they know the untold story that I don't.

All evidence points to DELUSION rather than "untold stories." In fact an awful LOT of stories have been told--none make sense, and (revealingly) that senselessness seems not to give CTE believers pause.

I could start to believe in "untold stories" the minute CTE believers started ADMITTING that CTE makes absolutely no sense but...aha!....there's a secret. But there is no hint of "secrets" behind CTE, and lots of inferential material suggesting delusion and misunderstanding, instead.

 

[LAMas]

brophog,
Welcome to the fray.
I gave you a greenie for a sage newbee.:smile::thumbup:

 

[GetMeThere]

You're treating science as far more dichotomous that it really is. Science is nothing more than using induction and (to a lesser extent) deduction to evaluate the natural world. The idea of 'proof' in science is non-existent. Mathematics can create 'proofs' in the sense you describe, but science makes an argument. Previously believed scientific theories, even ones nearly universally agreed upon, are later considered no longer valid by someone's elses work. We 'disprove', if you prefer that word, scientific theories every day.

The term 'fact' isn't even used in the way you suggest. A 'fact' in science is not an undeniable facet, it is merely an observation. The scientific community is full of theories being debated, and a great many of them never get unilaterally agreed upon in the manner you suggest.

Your entire assumption that 'the argument ends' goes against the very nature of science. If that were the case, mankind's knowledge would be grossly stunted in comparison to what it is today. Science is all about not treating the argument as having been ended and finding new ways to challenge ideas.

Sorry to launch into a rant within a rant, but that clarification was sorely needed here. For this discussion, or any other discussion of its kind to be considered 'scientific', we would need to make observations and do testing, and for that we would need the procedure itself made publically available for testing and analysis. Until that is done, this is all empty rhetoric.

All true...but irrelevant. Science is not an issue in the discussion of CTE. It's a question of objectivity and logic regarding simple phenomena. In case you aren't aware of the topic, CTE is a putative aiming system that claims that certain alignments and shifts, based solely on geometry between OB and CB (and mere consideration of whether the pocket is to the left or the right) can be used to generate an aiming alignment to reliably pocket balls. A simple thought experiment shows that CBs and OBs can be aligned in DIFFERENT PLACES on the table, yet have the same relative relationships. Here's an example (to see the pool table diagram of 3 different shots scroll down a bit). If only information from the OB and CB is used to "aim" those three different shots, the same aiming alignment will be produced--but DIFFERENT aiming alignments are in fact required to make all three of those shots. Therefore, one can logically conclude that CTE can't work. The Scientific Method isn't necessary.

 

[Nick B]

All true...but irrelevant. Science is not an issue in the discussion of CTE. It's a question of objectivity and logic regarding simple phenomena. In case you aren't aware of the topic, CTE is a putative aiming system that claims that certain alignments and shifts, based solely on geometry between OB and CB (and mere consideration of whether the pocket is to the left or the right) can be used to generate an aiming alignment to reliably pocket balls. A simple thought experiment shows that CBs and OBs can be aligned in DIFFERENT PLACES on the table, yet have the same relative relationships. Here's an example (to see the pool table diagram of 3 different shots scroll down a bit). If only information from the OB and CB is used to "aim" those three different shots, the same aiming alignment will be produced--but DIFFERENT aiming alignments are in fact required to make all three of those shots. Therefore, one can logically conclude that CTE can't work. The Scientific Method isn't necessary.

What he said...perfect.

 

[LAMas]

GMT,
In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. LOL

Having read many threads on CTE and those that teach it and it's derivatives, I conclude that many of their students aren't intuative.

Spidy offers a circle with the OB at the center and the CB on the circumference to guide the student to walk around the OB and arrive at some stance behind the CB looking at the OB.

Having that to work with, you can't expect the student to have an epiphany and grasp the concept of the GB. You have to walk before you run...so to speak. Students that have an innate spacial comprehension will fare better than those that don't. GB requires spacial comprehension.

Double distance aiming on the otherhand...not as much. You teach the student how to find where the line from the pocket exits the OB and call that the contact/impact point on the OB equator. You ask him to comprehend the center of the OB from where he is positioned as above and ask him to double the distance from the contact point to the center of the OB to the outside of the contact point with his cue tip to arrive at the aim line (to the GB) and just shoot.

You ask him to do that a hundred times and then analize the results. If he gets a positive feed back i.e. balls going into the pocket, that will reinforce his learning.

If he can't visualize the doubled distance, then you must try another tactic. Perhaps he can see the center of the CB and the edge of the OB and aim his cue on that line; then, perhaps he can be instructed to see the center of the OB as well and then the 1/4 ball from the edge...and then the 1/8 ball from the edge.

If this is possible, then you can have him to parallel shift his cue to the correct distance to the side of the CTEL (as explained by Hal and others) and simply pivot back to the center of the CB and shoot.

He might/can/will recognize by then where to point his parallel shift from CTEL for 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degree cut angles and start pocketing balls when the OB is close to the pocket. This will give him a positive feed back and encourage him to persist and not give up.

All that I am sayin is that it might work for some where other methods may not and be a way to accelerate the learning process. We who can run racks, know that this is just the start for there are other adjustments that need to be understood and incorporated like friction.

If he is encouraged to persist and not get discouraged, he will transcend the rudiments and elevate his understanding and perhaps spacial comprehension to master double distance aiming, fractional aiming and the GB aiming.

If he makes that kind of progress, he will discard the parallel shift and pivot and visualize the shot before him adjusting for friction, speed and english etc., as he gets into his stance, gets down on the shot and fine tunes his aim with practice strokes before he shoots.

We who can run racks, know that you can get into "dead stroke" or the "the zone". We all wish that all students can accomplish and enjoy that feeling.

Again, just sayin.:smile::thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

All true...but irrelevant. Science is not an issue in the discussion of CTE. It's a question of objectivity and logic regarding simple phenomena. In case you aren't aware of the topic, CTE is a putative aiming system that claims that certain alignments and shifts, based solely on geometry between OB and CB (and mere consideration of whether the pocket is to the left or the right) can be used to generate an aiming alignment to reliably pocket balls. A simple thought experiment shows that CBs and OBs can be aligned in DIFFERENT PLACES on the table, yet have the same relative relationships. Here's an example (to see the pool table diagram of 3 different shots scroll down a bit). If only information from the OB and CB is used to "aim" those three different shots, the same aiming alignment will be produced--but DIFFERENT aiming alignments are in fact required to make all three of those shots. Therefore, one can logically conclude that CTE can't work. The Scientific Method isn't necessary.

Your logic is seriously flawed.

 

[cookie man]

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.

You are sooooooo wrong. You really need an education on CTE. To me this kind of thinking is so funny. It amazes me that you post the same denials over and over. For the sake of casual conversation would you mind telling me why exactly you post in CTE threads? You think it doesn't work, you think it's silly, why bother?

 

[lfigueroa]

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.

JMO, yours is far too calm and rational an assessment of the situation to be absorbed by Joey & Co. Thanks for trying.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

I won't speak for the "fab four" as you put them, but generally, science is not like religion or politics. If there are 2 sides to an issue in Science, with strong opinions on either side, once FACTS are discovered and prove that one side is correct, the other side usually accepts the facts, and the argument ends. This is like a paradigm shift.

The people you mentioned seem to have a scientific spirit about them, and my money goes that if CTE is ever proven with independently verifiable FACTS to be accurate without knowledge of the pocket location, then there would be no arguments, just acceptance.

iusedtoberich, in a nutshell that's about it. But I suspect your insight will fall on deaf ears.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

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".

lol, Joey, is this what you have referred to recently about you being available to be a "rah-rah man," I'm just curious.

It should be noted that Stan has said the DVD will stand on it's own and I think everyone you mentioned is just hanging around waiting to see it, open mind and all that. CTE, as described to date, is not scientifically valid -- people have talked to Hal and others, there have been plenty of discussions over the years and recent diagrams that prove that.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Joey in CTE dreamland:
I hope that there will be apologies by them primarily to Stan but I doubt that there will be any.

Of course there won't be any apologies to Stan. All any of us have said is that CTE can't work without "feel" or knowing where the pocket is. Those are obvious truths that any graduate of grammar school should know, and unless Stan has managed to change the laws of physics and geometry they'll still be true after his DVD comes out. I'd say don't be silly but we're way past silly.

If I'm right, they will owe some other CTE users an apology as well but I doubt that there will be any.

You mean for exposing their utter cluelessness about simple geometrical and logical facts, causing them to melt down one by one into blithering Divas? That seems to be the personality disorder that is either a prerequisite for becoming a CTE Apostle, or it's handed out with the robe and sandals when you take the Vow of Silence.

I'd say CTE's main cheerleaders owe Stan an apology for making CTE seem like an exclusive club for Gilligan's Island survivors, except it turns out that's a broader demographic than I thought and CTE sales will actually be better for it.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

... the people (gmt, Lou, PJ, or Dr. Dave) you mention ... have purported to know exactly how it works and how it doesn't work.

Joey,

Why do you keep writing this when you know it is not true, especially applied to me?

I have clearly stated multiple times that I don't know the details of Pro-One or understand how they can be applied to consistently and accurately pocket a wide range of shots of various CB-OB distances and cut angles. I don't know because the details of Pro-One have never been openly shared on any forum, in any published book or video, on any website, or in any published instructional article.

I have read, studied, and tried at the table everything posted about CTE over many years. I have also had phone conversations and e-mail exchanges with Hal, Ron, Stan, and Spidey over the years via phone and via e-mail, and I have studied and tried at the table everything they have suggested to me, but I still don't claim to know the important currently-missing details of Pro-One. I honestly hope Stan's DVD will change that. I am certainly looking forward to viewing it and learning from it.

You and others have claimed that Pro-One is a version of CTE ... or even "The Version" of CTE. If this is the case, then some of the illustrations and explanation on the CTE resource page must certainly apply, and many of the benefits associated with align-and-pivot systems like CTE might also apply. However, we won't know for sure until Stan's DVD and/or Spidey's tome are released. When they are, we will finally have definitive and readily-available resources that can be discussed. Then all of the marketing claims and anecdotes can be put into perspective and maybe appreciated better. I do look forward to learning more about how Pro-One addresses some of the limitations described on the CTE resource page. If it does, I will certainly be a strong supporter of the system, and will help "spread the word."

Sincerely and respectfully,
Dave