Prove CTE does not work.

[JB Cases]

JB has always seemed to jump right on everyone right after a post, must not have like how my picture of binocular vision and how the eyes really work to focus on one point not two.

Um, contrary to popular belief I don't actually spend 24 hours a day on AZB. Sorry that I didn't "serve" you as quickly as you wanted me too.

 

[JB Cases]

Are you really visualizing two edges? What does your two eyes really do?

Now prove your 1/2 tip pivot is equal to a sweep

What? You post a diagram from 1956 out of context and ask for the movement description of a teacher of a method to be proven as if your diagram disproves it.

#1 CTE is a METHOD of sighting for the purpose of aligning one's body to the cue ball in order to lay the cue down to address the cue ball for the purpose of setting on the correct line so that it's POSSIBLE to make another ball go into a pocket.

#2. All the terms used in this method are made up by the teachers of it so as to best explain the observed phenomena of higher consistency in correct shot line choice when utilizing this method.

#3. What is thought to happening with the eyes may not actually be happening but the results of using the system remain the same.

#4. No amateur debater here on AZB is going to "win" this argument by pulling random bits of research off the internet because the math and biophysics literally don't matter. Just as the math behind ghost ball doesn't matter. No one cares.

#5. All people care about is whether a method works, and whether it can work for them.

So with that in mind, grab a video camera, go to the table and prove CTE does not work. You have the DVD so you have a head start. Go on and disprove it in front of a camera.

 

[JB Cases]

I don't see any reason this can't be a decent thread, well other than the problem of JB starting this thread out with a straw man argument. The CTE proponents do this a lot. You continually make claims that the skeptics say that CTE DOES NOT work. That's really not the case. What the skeptics continually say is that CTE does not work as advertised. There's really a pretty big difference between the two. It's pretty much impossible to prove what's inside the head of another player when they pull the trigger so video evidence used to support or tear down CTE is pretty pointless.

There are quite a few apparently honorable people on this forum that claim that they use CTE (of one sort or another) that play pool at a very high level. We should all take them at their word. So - CTE clearly works. So it just becomes a matter of clearly defining what it is that "CTE" even is.

In a previous thread, before it was closed I was narrowing down what the main issue is that skeptics have with CTE. That issue is whether or not there is subconscious adjustment. I equated subconscious adjustment to what Stan and others refer to as "Finding the visuals". To which Morht put forth the following very well worded response:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4708240&postcount=170




So here we are. The question now becomes do these unique "perceptions" on the 2x1 playing surface account for all the possible shot angles on the table. This is what the CTE proponents claim. I'm not yet convinced that this is accurate.

Now if someone were to ask me how I go about doing something on the table and I explained it to them and they said something like, "You know that's probably not exactly what's going on." I would probably say something like, "You know -- you might be right. Let's see if we can figure this out." But when it comes to CTE, lines have been drawn in the sand and everybody always comes out swinging. Quite frankly, I will never lose any sleep over this stuff one way or the other. There are much more important things to worry about in life than how to aim at a billiard ball. To me, this is just a mild curiosity. So here I am.

So back to this perception thingy:

Does the 2x1 table surface (along with the 90 degree angles) really play a role in acquiring the "visuals"? There are two reasons I have a hard time with this:

1. Side pockets and corner pockets are completely different. I know this is obvious but what's the explanation for how you can acquire the visuals the same way for a shot into the corner pocket as you can for a shot into the side pocket? If I'm lining up a shot into the side pocket and I was playing on a table that was perfectly square how would that change anything? I can't see (no pun intended) how that would change anything other than how far I would have to stretch across the table to make the ball. So this would eliminate the 2x1 playing surface as an intrinsic part of the perception process at least for the side pocket shots.

2. The 2x1 playing surface requirement for CTE seems to not be necessary for any shots. iusedtoberich (how rich? may I ask) pointed out that a snooker table is not exactly 2x1. Also, let me point out that many tables throughout this country are setup with the wrong rail configuration (k55 vs k66) and this can slightly throw off the 2x1 table dimensions. Would CTE not work on these tables? Stan has said that CTE would work on snooker tables so I would imagine that it would also work on a slightly incorrectly dimensioned pool table. How does CTE account for these variables? I bet it happens during the acquiring the visuals phase. If you can adjust for a slightly modified table why can't you adjust for a table that is more significantly modified? At what point would the system break down?

The bottom line for me is -- I don't think the CTE proponents have the answers to these two questions. Something is going on during the perception phase that has not yet been sufficiently explained. When I aim, I just overlap the contact point. Sometimes I can't quite perfectly overlap this point and I just rely on feel to get me there. I'm not so certain that CTE users aren't doing the exact same thing and if it turns out that this is what they are doing -- what would be the harm in that?

Ok, then someone should get a camera and prove that it does not work as advertised. May I suggest that they print off and actually read out loud the specific "advertisment" that they claim does not work before going on to disprove it.

As for the rest of your statement, I have long said if it's subconscious adjustment then so what? Let's imagine that it is and I follow the steps and the result is a much higher level of finding the correct shot line which leads to a higher level of shotmaking, i.e. improvement. Then the system still works because somehow it's taught my subconscious how to improve my skill. Subconcious by it's nature is unknowable to the layman so in effect it doesn't matter in this discussion. We speak here of the conscious and deliberate choices to aim and the results.

Unless we are zen masters who are totally in touch with our inner selves and in control at all times we are ruled by conscious and subconscious thought. Only the conscious thought is available to us to use as cognitive tools for discussion.

So if one can consciously claim that something does not work, at all as some have claimed, or as advertised as others have claimed, then one should be able to consciously attempt to prove those assertions on the pool table in front of a camera.

 

[JB Cases]

What if that's not enough ?

If you face a shot where one method doesn't work you adjust if you know how. Is that really a question? In case making when presented with a problem that doesn't fit what we normally I do then I find a different solution. I could give you specific examples but it probably wouldn't matter to you since your mind is already closed it seems.

Take two cellphone place the an arms length away. Read them both at once. Thank you case closed. You eyes will fix on one. That is why it is easier to focus on a point on a contact point on a ball or cloth.

Done.

By the way, tried it bought both DVD's talked to great pool players, and great pool players who are professors of mathematics.

And because you have thus far failed then it doesn't work? I should call up Bob Park and tell him that because I can't (yet) get my edges to look as great as his, despite owning is book, that he is wrong and the edges he shows on his own work are fake.

Neil, You must be referring to me. I actually have bought the 2nd DVD, and studied it, and tried it on my table. As well as countless other products over the years. I've spent a lot of time gambling, practicing, setting up shots, etc etc. The end result is I'm in the exact same pecking order in my local pool halls. Just as every other single player is. No one changes speeds over the years. No one (unless they are new to the game).

Boy are you wrong. I mean I don't know how you can be an engineer of any type and not understand the complete fallacy in your statement. Throughout the sports world, the entertainment world, and the corporate world are legendary stories of people who trudged along for year in mediocre positions who then jumped up in speed because of transformative situations. Learning a new method that they followed diligently, finding a mentor, trauma, or whatever there are plenty of stories of people who changed for the better in a big way.

You seem resigned to your mediocre status. Maybe you need a change in attitude first.

What is your speed? I know you are decent, but you are no champ. Why not? Why aren't you 3 speeds better than you were 3 years ago? Why aren't you Brandon Shuff's speed? Why isn't Brandon Shuff Corey's speed? Why isn't Corey Shane's speed?

Corey spends his time on the golf course while Shane spends his on the pool table. If you compared both players I bet Shane probably has double the amount of deliberate practice as Corey does.

It comes down to the amount of time and the quality of that time put in.

Its because everyone falls into a *standard distribution* of abilities. I happen to fall on the lower end of the pool distribution. I dedicated my life to the game, and can barely break into B territory. You have done the same, and are on a higher end of the distribution. Barton has done the same, and he's on the low A range of the distribution. Why people fail to see this is beyond me. You all must think everyone can get to Shane's speed given enough time and practice. The same is true for ANY activity you can name. From estimating the distance between two dots on a piece of paper, to hitting a baseball, to math class, to striking a pool ball. Sure, you can improve all of these with practice, no doubt. But once you've spent years doing something, thats all you are going to get. You have already taken your place in the standard distribution. And if you made the "tests" easy enough that everyone would get an "A" then the test simply is not hard enough to show the standard distribution.

Again, research shows you can not only improve all those things with practice you can DRAMATICALLY improve them with practice. Using yourself as the sample size is ridiculous as a "man of science" ought to know.

Brandon Shuff just learned Pro1 last year or the year before. Has he played any better than before? I don't think so. He's still a middle of the pack pro player. Stevie more same thing. Is he any better in the past 5 years than he was 15 years ago? Remember, he was in "hiding" before his tournament run and was a gambler. We can go all day with this. People do not significantly improve, except when they are first learning something.

Why don't you ask Brandon? Or ask Stevie? Both of them are available on Facebook and you can get your answers DIRECTLY from them instead of speculating and imprinting your own inadequacies on them.

To Barton, you always challenge me with beating a "ghost" of crazy abilities (for me) like the 9 ball ghost or one pocket ghost. What if I challenged you to something "realistic"? You told me your high run in straight pool was I believe 98, years ago. Well, since that time, you've jumped up and down that you are so much better *because* of your lessons with Stan in the past year, and other things you picked up on the road. So, lets see if you really are better. Best your high run by 30%. See if you can run 130. You must certainly be able to run just 30 more balls with all the new knowledge you have gained the past few years?

Actually I have never challenged you to beat any ghost. We have barely had any interaction until your silly 4 ball ghost challenge. I said YOU beat the 4 ball ghost because YOU put it up here with a misleading headline designed to insult CTE users.

I have other things in life to attend to than getting to any significant speed in pool. I haven't picked up a pool cue in the past month. It's called LIFE. That said I am a better player from all my lessons and time with great players who were willing to share with me.

Its easy when learning a new technique to think you are better. I did the same thing with Perfect Aim. I jumped up and down on these boards that it was the best thing since sliced bread. 4 years later, I still shift my head around to get my eyes as Gene says in the right spot. But guess what, I still lose to the exact same guys I've been losing to for the past 20 years. And still beat the same guys I used to beat. Its easy to think you are better at something, especially when learning something new. But the proof is in the pudding. How you actually play. Has your pecking order changed? We've all been around pool all our lives, and someone having their change in their pecking order is *extremely* rare.

Then aiming is not your problem. You should have picked up on that already. We have. Again using yourself as an example of what applies to everyone else is silly and deep down you understand this.

Compensation.
Does BHE zero out cue ball squirt all the time ?
Or makes the throw and squirt offset each other ???

What if your stuck near the rail and you have to bridge in front of the pivot point ?

Then you adjust to what's needed. In my play I find that BHE compensates for squirt pretty damn good most of the time.

So CTE doesn't work when BHE does not work ?

CTE brings you to the center ball no spin line. You can adjust off that as needed.

Then there are those that have never been better than a C player, but still try to push this stuff on others. If some of them stopped spending so much time hocking this nonsense and trying to avoid actual proof and instead spent time practicing, maybe they'd get better, too. Well, some of them, anyways.

Actually it is simply ENTHUSIASM. It is excitement that they have something that infuses even more love for the game. People like you seem to love to kill that enthusiasm. No one is pushing this on you. YOU CHOSE TO OPEN AND READ AND RESPOND to this and every other thread about CTE that you have ever been a part of.

That's the same as picketing an abortion clinic. No one is at your door demanding you try CTE. No one is standing over you at the pool room demanding you try CTE.

You came here, you want to be here, so in fact it's EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, you are forcing your views on those of us who would like to be left alone to explore any and all methods we choose to spend OUR TIME on.

Speaking of C players..

So, you've got a 9' Diamond at home, fancy cues, lessons and apparently are some sort of CTE genius. Tell the crowd, since you were an APA 6 over a year ago, are you a 7/9 yet? I mean, hell, you just started playing a year or so before that, right? You've got to be capped out now since this system is the tits.

I'm just busting your chops, because I know the answer will be a simple, "No." So, let's review this.. Stevie Moore pedalled CTE and his performance went down.. JB pushed it relentlessly for years and still takes to the table like a newbie.. you've got all of these things, fight for it like it's your life, but you've only marginally improved at best. I'm beginning to see a pattern.

Stevie's performance WENT UP after learning CTE. His dedication and practice ALSO went up the year following adding CTE to his game. After that he tapered off on his participation and dedication somewhat, partially I think due to a really bad beat during one trip to China where they forgot to list him and he had no place in the tournament after traveling halfway around the Earth. There are more factors to high level play than how to aim, as we have all said constantly.

What gets me is the way you folks want to have it both ways. You say that there is more to playing great than aiming but if someone doesn't perform well then it's because of their aiming?

 

[JB Cases]

Also, for Banks I still haven't received any offer from you to play some. I am heading to the west coast later and we should be able to make some arrangements for you drill me. We can play bank pool. $100 a game sound alright to you?

 

[iusedtoberich]

Joeyincali, looks like you and I got a good dose of "reality". Happy shooting all

 

[JB Cases]

Joeyincali, looks like you and I got a good dose of "reality". Happy shooting all

CTE users always have happy shooting.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Unless we are zen masters who are totally in touch with our inner selves and in control at all times we are ruled by conscious and subconscious thought.

I don't think so.

We can change our self image thereby changing both our conscious and subconscious.

Here is a brief look into what Dr. Maltz termed the automatic success mechanism, the heart behind both the way I aim and CTE imo.
http://www.power-of-visualization.com/automatic-success-mechanism.html For a better understanding read Maltz classic book that presents ideas still being used by sports psychologists everywhere, Psycho-cybernetics.

 

[JB Cases]

I don't think so.

We can change our self image thereby changing both our conscious and subconscious.

Here is a brief look into what Dr. Maltz termed the automatic success mechanism, the heart behind both the way I aim and CTE imo.
http://www.power-of-visualization.com/automatic-success-mechanism.html For a better understanding read Maltz classic book that presents ideas still being used by sports psychologists everywhere, Psycho-cybernetics.

The point is we don't know all that there is to know about ourselves. Do you know why you turn right automatically when you go into a store? Did you know that MOST people do this without thinking about it. Why is that?

That observation came from anthropologists hired to study shopper's habits. It's from a book called the Science of Shopping. I set up my booths based on the observations described in that book to make sure as best I can that visitors to my booth feel comfortable. Do I know WHY people turn to the right first? I have no idea and if it was in the book I forgot. All I know is that people do it.

Do you know that some scientists theorize that your brain is actually controlled by the microrganisms that live in your gut? Yes that's right microscopic parasites that control you.....

Anyway all this is far off the topic of the thread which is an invitation to those of you who think CTE does not work to go to the table and film yourselves proving it.

Can you do that?

 

[JB Cases]

Hate to post this here but the other thread was closed. Sent to me by a reader who does not wish to participate on AZB.

"Lou said this in post #44: "I is a very systematic player, but what you saw was my PSR of the moment. My PSR today is not the same."
Lou Figueroa

You have been an advocate of PSR (Pre-Shot-ROUTINE) for a long time and have experimented and changed it a number of times over the years in an attempt to better your game. On the other hand, you've been an antagonist who enjoys badmouthing anything involving Aiming SYSTEMS or those who develop them. What if it was called PSBAR (Pre-Shot-Ball-Alignment-ROUTINE) instead of SYSTEM? Does it now become more acceptable and palatable in the same way PSR is to you? PSR gets your feet, stance, body, eyes, and cue aligned to the shot, yet getting the eyes, CB, OB, and tip of cue aligned to the shot angle is somehow out of the realm of what great players do and totally unnecessary.

You and Spimp13 posted this: (Spimp13) "I personally use "feel" when I shoot...possibly a subconscious ghost ball on occasion. For some reason I can visually see every angle before I shoot cut shots. This doesn't mean I will always make it, but I always see it (in my mind). I just find it hard to believe if I adopt a so called aiming system that I could get better than my current ability (APA 7 in 8 ball). Would it get better 1 ball, or 2 balls...possibly and it's hard to knock it until you try it but just don't see how much better I could get. I believe everyone has a plateau on their ability wherever that level may be...I just think I am pretty much there and don't see how doing a whole brand new system will help more than my current ability...just an opinion though and yes I always try to listen and read with an open mind about them."

(Lou) Spimp, I just think some folks, such as yourself, have the ability to visualize better than others. I shoot the same way and can see the angle too. And when I'm playing my best I can also see the path the CB will take after pocketing the ball. If you can do that why would you need a "system?"

Well Lou, if you're as good as you'll ever be or hope to get there's absolutely no reason at all to need a "system." NOBODY is forcing you to change or cares what you do. You're the one who wants players to NOT DO or try something because you deem it worthless.

BUT, it's NOT about you or Spimp. There are a lot of players on this forum and other forums who are looking for ways to get better and aiming ROUTINES are just one of the ways.

Those individuals CAN'T come to YOU or SPIMP for help either. How can "just seeing the shot angle and feel" be transferred to someone else who hasn't been around the game for years and years and hit a million balls. How do you explain it to be understandable and executable with accuracy and consistency? YOU CAN'T!!

Many others have who are not only very good players but also great instructors who CAN verbalize and demonstrate the process.

Here's your chance, Simp's, robsnotes4U, and all the rest to be altruistic and help pool players throughout the world. Verbalize your aiming or ball connection process (or any process) in intricate detail so it can be transferred for successful use to a beginner, an intermediate player, or seasoned player who has the curiosity and desire to experiment and make his/her own decision whether it's beneficial."

 

[(((Satori)))]

The point is we don't know all that there is to know about ourselves. Do you know why you turn right automatically when you go into a store? Did you know that MOST people do this without thinking about it. Why is that?

That observation came from anthropologists hired to study shopper's habits. It's from a book called the Science of Shopping. I set up my booths based on the observations described in that book to make sure as best I can that visitors to my booth feel comfortable. Do I know WHY people turn to the right first? I have no idea and if it was in the book I forgot. All I know is that people do it.

Do you know that some scientists theorize that your brain is actually controlled by the microrganisms that live in your gut? Yes that's right microscopic parasites that control you.....

Anyway all this is far off the topic of the thread which is an invitation to those of you who think CTE does not work to go to the table and film yourselves proving it.

Can you do that?

Yes you are getting off topic but the post I provided is very relevant.

CTE gives the task of aiming over to the subconscious. That is a good thing. The beauty behind CTE is that it is a system that activates a person's automatic success mechanism. It sets a clear goal (Center pocket) and it gives the user a self image that says I can do this... to the extent that 1) they believe the system works & 2) they believe they can work the system.

Knowing this do you really want me to prove anything?

 

[JB Cases]

Yes you are getting off topic but the post I provided is very relevant.

CTE gives the task of aiming over to the subconscious. That is a good thing. The beauty behind CTE is that it is a system that activates a person's automatic success mechanism. It sets a clear goal (Center pocket) and it gives the user a self image that says I can do this... to the extent that 1) they believe the system works & 2) they believe they can work the system.

Knowing this do you really want me to prove anything?

Well, the initial post was really more to the mechanics of the system which I think is most in contention.

I don't see how you will prove or disprove the psychology behind it.

For me it's always been a results based thing. I do the steps and observe the results. If they are better than what I was doing before then I stick with it.

People claim it can't possibly work or not work as claimed then I say here is your chance to do videos and prove it.

Guess no one is up to that task.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Well, the initial post was really more to the mechanics of the system which I think is most in contention.

I don't see how you will prove or disprove the psychology behind it.

For me it's always been a results based thing. I do the steps and observe the results. If they are better than what I was doing before then I stick with it.

People claim it can't possibly work or not work as claimed then I say here is your chance to do videos and prove it.

Guess no one is up to that task.

You have been "getting results" since the times when you "thought" you were doing the steps correctly because you had a clear goal and some belief in what you were doing and you turned the task over to the sub.

I have no doubt that since you have seen Stan your belief in the system has gotten even stronger thereby giving you even better results today.

 

[JB Cases]

You have been "getting results" since the times when you "thought" you were doing the steps correctly because you had a clear goal and some belief in what you were doing and you turned the task over to the sub.

I have no doubt that since you have seen Stan your belief in the system has gotten even stronger thereby giving you even better results today.

I am so glad to know that you know my mind better than I know it. From wherever you are in the world you can reach acorss the ether and discern exactly what my mind is doing while I am experiencing the conscious effort to apply a method. That's amazing.

My belief comes from the results.

I don't know about you but I for one have taken it to the table with questions and skepticism. A lot of the early videos I have done were done because I was working through the concepts and testing them out.

The table doesn't lie.

If I line up using a method and make the shots then the result is clear. If I can do it over and over on demand then the results are clear. It's that simple really.

Now, I want you to show me that it doesn't work. Go to the table and prove that CTE physically does not work.

 

[(((Satori)))]

I am so glad to know that you know my mind better than I know it. From wherever you are in the world you can reach acorss the ether and discern exactly what my mind is doing while I am experiencing the conscious effort to apply a method. That's amazing.

My belief comes from the results.

I don't know about you but I for one have taken it to the table with questions and skepticism. A lot of the early videos I have done were done because I was working through the concepts and testing them out.

The table doesn't lie.

If I line up using a method and make the shots then the result is clear. If I can do it over and over on demand then the results are clear. It's that simple really.

Now, I want you to show me that it doesn't work. Go to the table and prove that CTE physically does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0


In the above video the CB to OB distances are the same... Now if the visuals and pivot are also the same then you will achieve the same cut angle after execution of the shot. Changing the location of the balls on the table is not going to miraculously force you to move wider in order to see the same visuals.

This can be proven but I'm not willing to take the time to make a video for you.

 

[cookie man]

Read Neil's answer.

And it looks like CTE'rs are no all on the same page what CTE is really all about.
Or how it's used.
No wonder, Stan is coming out with another dvd.

If thats the way it looks to you so be it. The people who learned from Stan are all on the same page although we all probably customize it to fit into our each individual style of play. Haven't heard about another dvd from Stan, unless you're talking about the one that came out months ago. Not surprised you wouldn't know it's already out as your arguments are the same outdated old arguments from the past. Sorry it's your life's journey to try and lead people away from CTE, but your fighting a battle that's already been lost.

 

[cookie man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0


In the above video the CB to OB distances are the same... Now if the visuals and pivot are also the same then you will achieve the same cut angle after execution of the shot. Changing the location of the balls on the table is not going to miraculously force you to move wider in order to see the same visuals.

This can be proven but I'm not willing to take the time to make a video for you.

Wish you would make the video, then we would know you actually tried it on the table. You arguments shows you know little about cte.

 

[JB Cases]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0


In the above video the CB to OB distances are the same... Now if the visuals and pivot are also the same then you will achieve the same cut angle after execution of the shot. Changing the location of the balls on the table is not going to miraculously force you to move wider in order to see the same visuals.

This can be proven but I'm not willing to take the time to make a video for you.

Well then if you're not going to make a video I guess we just have to go with Stan's teaching and follow his directions.

4000+ views on just that video. Climbing daily. Much more than this thread and whatever you written during your time. You better get cracking on those disprove CTE videos to catch up to Stan. Between all of us that have made videos there are more than 400,000 views on YouTube.

I don't know what that translates into as far as people trying it out but I know that wherever I go someone asks me to show them.

Seriously, just go to the table and make the video. Then we will have something to discuss because until now all you have to discuss are the videos where those who teach CTE and those who are studying it are demonstrating their understanding of it.

 

[BasementDweller]

Ok, then someone should get a camera and prove that it does not work as advertised. May I suggest that they print off and actually read out loud the specific "advertisment" that they claim does not work before going on to disprove it.

As for the rest of your statement, I have long said if it's subconscious adjustment then so what? Let's imagine that it is and I follow the steps and the result is a much higher level of finding the correct shot line which leads to a higher level of shotmaking, i.e. improvement. Then the system still works because somehow it's taught my subconscious how to improve my skill. Subconcious by it's nature is unknowable to the layman so in effect it doesn't matter in this discussion. We speak here of the conscious and deliberate choices to aim and the results.

Unless we are zen masters who are totally in touch with our inner selves and in control at all times we are ruled by conscious and subconscious thought. Only the conscious thought is available to us to use as cognitive tools for discussion.

So if one can consciously claim that something does not work, at all as some have claimed, or as advertised as others have claimed, then one should be able to consciously attempt to prove those assertions on the pool table in front of a camera.

I see you're not interested in addressing my 2 points and that's fine.

As far as the whole conscious vs. subconscious thing goes, surely you must admit that from the beginning of this whole aiming debate -- the CTE proponents have made the claim that there's NO SUBCONSIOUS adjustment. Wouldn't you agree that this has been a point of contention from the beginning?

Now, if what CTE actually does is it somehow more easily engages a player's subconscious mind than the other aiming methods do that would be truly revolutionary, especially when you consider how critical the subconscious mind is when it comes to playing great pool. For me, it's one of the trickiest parts of pool. Letting go of my conscious thought always came easily for me in the more physically demanding sports but in pool it can be very difficult to quiet my mind but its most certainly when I play my best pool.

Up until this point in time almost all CTE users have been very reluctant to even consider that something is going on subconsciously. Instead they come out with theories that try to explain some of the more mysterious aspects of this method. The table geometry (2x1 ratio and 90 degree pocket angles) is what is referenced the most often and I just don't see how the table geometry can have anything to do with the "perception" process. I mentioned two reasons why I believe this. Maybe it's time to throw out this table geometry theory and move on to figuring out a better explanation for what's happening on the table.

 

[Shawn Armstrong]

4000+ views on just that video. Climbing daily. Much more than this thread and whatever you written during your time. You better get cracking on those disprove CTE videos to catch up to Stan. Between all of us that have made videos there are more than 400,000 views on YouTube.

"2 girls 1 cup" got something like 19M views on YouTube.

While we're on YouTube vids, here's one that everyone should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI_zfwxy94A

Just over 3000 views. And much more informative than anything that's been posted regarding CTE. Get a hot beverage, sacrifice 7 minutes, and just listen.