Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.

[mista335]

Consistency is everything. Starting a separate thread would be conspiring to bash. And of course the prooners would have to snark. Most of them are on "there's no such thing as bad publicity" anyway. There's enough infomercial wafting off these threads. The critics just supply resistance to any budding consumer fraud.

11 pages and counting to this thread about the book. You just can't buy that publicity.

Keep up the good work guys.

C'mon Dan, I know you've got a lot more in you.

 

[ShootingArts]

What's so complicated ? ABC is left to right , no matter where you cut the ball.
2 DVD's later, another 440 page is needed to explain it ?
The Houligans insisted it was a simple system. Heck, you could get it over the phone .

A shame that everyone can't get on the same page with each other and each post some video of how they are shooting. It has been my experience when watching people doing many things, they aren't doing it the way they think they are, other people aren't always either.

I remember when we started video taping performances in other areas. People would have sworn on a stack of bibles that they weren't doing what video clearly showed them to be doing! People were giving out advice based on what they thought they did when they didn't do things that way themselves. I keep thinking about trying to use video myself but I'm afraid it will cobble me up worse than I already am!

My advice, a quiet mind and quiet hands will improve almost everyone's performance. Now if I can just practice what I preach 100% of the time!

Hu

 

[Dan White]

is it possible
lou/dan/joey/patrick hope i am not missing anyone
could start a thread
here is why cte is bs
and stay out of the threads by the cte people
it would give you ample space to post your views
the cte guys could or could not respond
and whoever is interested in cte
can have a thread NOT DERAILED by you guys on both sides that have argued for over 20 years now
PLEASE
PRETTY PLEASE

just askin nicely

The CTE guys said when the book comes out they are leaving AZ and migrating to facebook. For a long time (before the book came out) they actually did do that and this forum went pretty much dormant. They came back to announce the availability of the book and then they never left. Personally, I see nothing wrong with "arguing" about CTE as long as it is fact based. If that turns you off then just don't read the thread. If you want to learn CTE just watch the videos and buy the book as they keep saying. Don't try to learn it in an AZ forum. BTW, if you still haven't learned it after all this time doesn't that tell you something?

 

[Dan White]

11 pages and counting to this thread about the book. You just can't buy that publicity.

Keep up the good work guys.

C'mon Dan, I know you've got a lot more in you.

So by your logic negative ratings on Yelp or Google or the BBB are good for business?

 

[mista335]

So by your logic negative ratings on Yelp or Google or the BBB are good for business?

This isn't a star rating system.

This is clueless people who theorize from their armchairs verses people who actually make balls with CTE

 

[straightline]

Got lots of clues. Most of them dead on.

 

[Dan White]

This isn't a star rating system.

This is clueless people who theorize from their armchairs verses people who actually make balls with CTE

Who said anything about stars? Yelp and Google have stars but the bulk of the content is the verbal review. You seem to think negative reviews would be good for a restaurant, for example, simply because it generates buzz. I think you are confusing celebrities with businesses. The idea that there is no such thing as negative PUBLICITY has more to do with Hollywood starlets trying to gain name recognition. If Brad and Angelina are splitting up that gets their name in the paper. That's a far cry from saying that debating the legitimacy of an aiming system is good for that system.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

A shame that everyone can't get on the same page with each other and each post some video of how they are shooting. It has been my experience when watching people doing many things, they aren't doing it the way they think they are, other people aren't always either.

I don't think that works with aiming, which you do with your eyes and brain - hard to see what's going on in there with a video.

pj <- or even from the inside, apparently
chgo

 

[straightline]

Who said anything about stars? Yelp and Google have stars but the bulk of the content is the verbal review. You seem to think negative reviews would be good for a restaurant, for example, simply because it generates buzz. I think you are confusing celebrities with businesses. The idea that there is no such thing as negative PUBLICITY has more to do with Hollywood starlets trying to gain name recognition. If Brad and Angelina are splitting up that gets their name in the paper. That's a far cry from saying that debating the legitimacy of an aiming system is good for that system.

Metaphor escapes them since there's no center or edge.

 

[straightline]

I don't think that works with aiming, which you do with your eyes and brain - hard to see what's going on in there with a video.

pj <- or even from the inside, apparently
chgo

The DOD is using the cortical telemetry to develop self aiming weapons. Millions of lives will be saved.

 

[mohrt]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say on one hand that every perception sends the ob to a different pocket and then on the other hand say you can't make bank shots with CTE without knowledge of speed and spin. What does "CTE gives a shot line" mean? Either it sends the ball to the pocket or it doesn't.


You don't seem to follow what I am saying. You go a bridge too far.


I think that statement is what I have been asking for in the video. It is called full disclosure so that the viewer can make a more informed conclusion about what they are seeing. Stan is basically presenting scientific evidence. This kind of disclosure is a bare minimum requirement for that sort of thing.


Forgive me, but the fact that you don't seem to be able to demonstrate the banks with CTE after decades of promoting it speaks volumes. In fact, nobody but world class banker Stan has demonstrated it. If banking with CTE requires such a level of adjustment in speed and/or spin that only a world class banker can do it then what good is it for banking?


I appreciate your comment. We can agree on one thing. There is "knowing" a shot because you've done it many times and you put trust in your brain to execute it properly, and then there is knowing a shot because you have a reference system to fall back on. There are many of these for position play moreso than for aiming. So I can be in a certain position and know where the cue ball will end up because you've practiced that shot in drills and you recognize it. Ultimately we play in the former mode, allowing the game to flow and trusting that you know what you are doing, at least for most of the shots.

CTE is deceptive at first. It can work for many shots depending on the set up and distance, but ultimately it is the player who does what is necessary to pocket balls, IMO.

Components of making a shot, namely: aim, speed, spin, stroke. CTE gives you the aim. You still need to deliver a straight stroke. A large percentage of shots pocket cleanly with just the correct aim, which is great as this gives you a lot of speed/spin choice for CB control. Banks are amplified: now you have the rail involved, and speed and spin become a much more important factor. The common denominator amongst all of this: the aim. The most crucial component of any given shot, and CTE solves that part of it. If you can aim with a staggering high degree of accuracy, this will no doubt positively affect your ball pocketing percentage. Speed spin and stroke are still important, and play different factors for different shots. All part of shot making experience.

 

[Poolmanis]

How about if one can estimate cut angle precisely without knowing of CTE?
How do you CTE guys think it would work?
My thoughts about CTE is that there is a lot of table geometry involved in this.

 

[JC]

The DOD is using the cortical telemetry to develop self aiming weapons. Millions of lives will be saved.

So they aim better and the life is saved. Cool!

 

[JoeyInCali]

How about if one can estimate cut angle precisely without knowing of CTE?
How do you CTE guys think it would work?
My thoughts about CTE is that there is a lot of table geometry involved in this.

Or look at the contact point and hit it .
Amazingly , I've seen CTE'rs ( supposedly ) line up the last ball to the pocket ( complete with bending over ) and hit the contact point .
This after all claims you don't need to know the contact point with CTE. Or ghost ball for that matter.
We know the pros line up the contact point in combination shots .

 

[straightline]

How about if one can estimate cut angle precisely without knowing of CTE?
How do you CTE guys think it would work?
My thoughts about CTE is that there is a lot of table geometry involved in this.

Stuff that imaging software needs to know.

 

[straightline]

So they aim better and the life is saved. Cool!

Right arm bro...
OK cyber soldier jokes aside, there seems to be no reason for CTE. ???

 

[straightline]

Or look at the contact point and hit it .
Amazingly , I've seen CTE'rs ( supposedly ) line up the last ball to the pocket ( complete with bending over ) and hit the contact point .
This after all claims you don't need to know the contact point with CTE. Or ghost ball for that matter.
We know the pros line up the contact point in combination shots .

What's odder is the contact points are fundamental to every shot, easy to determine, and really stupid to ignore.

 

[Dan White]

How about if one can estimate cut angle precisely without knowing of CTE?
How do you CTE guys think it would work?
My thoughts about CTE is that there is a lot of table geometry involved in this.

The answer to your question is found in the inscribed angle theorem. Brian Crist was smart enough to apply this to a pool table and call the method Poolology. The exact solution involves arcs so to make the system usable he estimated the arcs to be straight lines. In a nutshell, his system allows you to know the exact fractional aim point for any two randomly placed balls on the table. There is no need to adjust for contact points or throw in most cases. You simply aim the center of the cue ball at the fraction and shoot. Most of the time the calculation is trivial math. This is the system that CTE pretends to be, IMO. It tells you what fraction to aim in order to pocket the ball no matter where those balls are. The system also recognizes that eventually the brain just sees the shot and so the use of Poolology is largely moot.

If a system is real it just plain works. You can have success with Poolology within 5 minutes at the table.

 

[Poolmanis]

The answer to your question is found in the inscribed angle theorem. Brian Crist was smart enough to apply this to a pool table and call the method Poolology. The exact solution involves arcs so to make the system usable he estimated the arcs to be straight lines. In a nutshell, his system allows you to know the exact fractional aim point for any two randomly placed balls on the table. There is no need to adjust for contact points or throw in most cases. You simply aim the center of the cue ball at the fraction and shoot. Most of the time the calculation is trivial math. This is the system that CTE pretends to be, IMO. It tells you what fraction to aim in order to pocket the ball no matter where those balls are. The system also recognizes that eventually the brain just sees the shot and so the use of Poolology is largely moot.

If a system is real it just plain works. You can have success with Poolology within 5 minutes at the table.

I have seen poolology videos but i think there are small inaccuracies in his methods. I use same approach though. I was just wondering if I try make curtain video too.. to demonstrate that it is possible to do with only knowing table geometry and how to aim different cut angles.
I think it would not be hard.

 

[Dan White]

I have seen poolology videos but i think there are small inaccuracies in his methods. I use same approach though. I was just wondering if I try make curtain video too.. to demonstrate that it is possible to do with only knowing table geometry and how to aim different cut angles.
I think it would not be hard.

I made such a video and posted it here recently. Start a thread in the aiming forum showing the innacuracies. Brian enjoys discussing the fine points of his method. Maybe he will agree with you on some things and maybe he can clarify others.