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

JB Cases said:
I have said all of this before but you and the rest have not even bothered to discuss it. You see Dan, the difference is that when you have anything that objects I take it to the table to test it out. When someone proposes a test I take it to the table to to see how cte handles that task. When pat posts a diagram claiming 27 discrete angles I set it up and shoot to see how cte does.
Click to expand...
You talk a good game but when it gets down to it your fall back position is basically "its objective because its objective and you'd know that too if you bothered to try it." Stan says that CTE aligns the balls to the pockets essentially for you (by overcutting the pocket) and this is 100% objective as long as you learn to see the objective points as directed by his method. I always know that if a person buys into this explanation then one of two things must be true: 1. They don't really understand what Stan is saying, or 2. They have no formal education in the sciences and do not understand how to test a hypothesis. I'm pretty sure you fall into category 2. I suppose there is a third category for those who have an emotional attachment to the issue and don't allow reason to destroy that dream. You're most likely in that group, too.

Your faith trumps all reason that has been presented to you in clear, simple examples of errors displayed in Stan's videos.
 
boogieman said:
Geesh, what a shitter this thread has turned into.

I just wanted to post that I finally ordered the Center Pocket Music book, and even decided to splurge and get the training ball. I'm not a real believer in training balls, but figured I might as well get the whole package.

I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to put all this into practice as I'm about to pull the trigger on fixing the rattle on my Olhausen.

How does one go about joining the FB group? I don't really need to join yet as I have no questions since I just now ordered the book.
Click to expand...
I think there is a blood oath involved somewhere in the application process. o_O

But seriously, it would be interesting to follow your progress with using CTE. You should realize that the objections most of us have are not with CTE being taught, it's with the claim that CTE lines you up to pocket all shots automatically because the table is 2x1 in dimension.

Are you a new or experienced player?
 
boogieman said:
Geesh, what a shitter this thread has turned into.

I just wanted to post that I finally ordered the Center Pocket Music book, and even decided to splurge and get the training ball. I'm not a real believer in training balls, but figured I might as well get the whole package.

I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to put all this into practice as I'm about to pull the trigger on fixing the rattle on my Olhausen.

How does one go about joining the FB group? I don't really need to join yet as I have no questions since I just now ordered the book.
Click to expand...
Go to Facebook page and enter in the search space the words CTE Aiming. It will take you to the site. You will see that it is private. Just type anywhere..."I'd like to be a member here". The administrators will check you out. They have the tools.
Since you've bought the book already, your name is on file and you would be approved immediately.
(a few have tried to sneak by and posted trouble making stuff like the detractors do in here. They're booted out in a heartbeat)
You will enjoy being around people who are studying a modern way to play the game. There are novices there and also men and women there who use CTE and can shoot lights out pool and demonstrate it. No drama.
You'll see my posts there sometimes....Pete Lowenstein is the name.
Good wishes to you
 
Dan White said:
You talk a good game but when it gets down to it your fall back position is basically "its objective because its objective and you'd know that too if you bothered to try it." Stan says that CTE aligns the balls to the pockets essentially for you (by overcutting the pocket) and this is 100% objective as long as you learn to see the objective points as directed by his method. I always know that if a person buys into this explanation then one of two things must be true: 1. They don't really understand what Stan is saying, or 2. They have no formal education in the sciences and do not understand how to test a hypothesis. I'm pretty sure you fall into category 2. I suppose there is a third category for those who have an emotional attachment to the issue and don't allow reason to destroy that dream. You're most likely in that group, too.

Your faith trumps all reason that has been presented to you in clear, simple examples of errors displayed in Stan's videos.
Click to expand...
I'll settle for being a no formally schooled non-scientific type......as long as what I'm doing at the pool table makes the balls go in the holes more efficiently.
I've always wondered why you formally schooled scientific types cannot seem to apply that same kind of "live and let live" approach to your own game? You're not buying the book, you're not going to work at the table to change your way of playing, and you're certainly not going to "protect the world" from CTE.
 
Low500 said:
I'll settle for being a no formally schooled non-scientific type......as long as what I'm doing at the pool table makes the balls go in the holes more efficiently.
I've always wondered why you formally schooled scientific types cannot seem to apply that same kind of "live and let live" approach to your own game? You're not buying the book, you're not going to work at the table to change your way of playing, and you're certainly not going to "protect the world" from CTE.
Click to expand...
It's a discussion forum where we discuss things about aiming pool. It is one tiny little corner of the internet. Sometimes we disagree on certain aspects and the "objectivity" of CTE is one of those things. If you don't like it then you don't have to read those posts. I thought you had all of us on ignore, anyway. What happened to that?

My comment on education in science was not meant to be a sleight. I know plenty of high school educated people smarter than I am. My point is that if you are someone like, oh, say a grammar school reading teacher you might not know how to test your theory properly. There are variables that need to be controlled, biases need to be eliminated as much as possible, and things like that. I have shown in a couple of instances where a video showed invalid results and every CTE supporter fluffed it off as nonsense. That led me to conclude, along with other evidence, that not really understanding how experiments work is kind of a prerequisite to accepting the CTE dogma.

I'm not saying CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it. I'm interested to see how boogieman does. Hopefully he will start a thread in the aiming forum about his journey with CTE. I am saying that it does not and cannot do what it claims to do.
 
I think L5 just doesn't grasp the flaws of CTE and takes the critique as an assault on his lifestyle. Boogie OTOH plows ahead, preferring to discover for himself. I have little doubt he'll share any relevant discoveries.
 
Dan White said:
It's a discussion forum where we discuss things about aiming pool. It is one tiny little corner of the internet. Sometimes we disagree on certain aspects and the "objectivity" of CTE is one of those things. If you don't like it then you don't have to read those posts. I thought you had all of us on ignore, anyway. What happened to that?

My comment on education in science was not meant to be a sleight. I know plenty of high school educated people smarter than I am. My point is that if you are someone like, oh, say a grammar school reading teacher you might not know how to test your theory properly. There are variables that need to be controlled, biases need to be eliminated as much as possible, and things like that. I have shown in a couple of instances where a video showed invalid results and every CTE supporter fluffed it off as nonsense. That led me to conclude, along with other evidence, that not really understanding how experiments work is kind of a prerequisite to accepting the CTE dogma.

I'm not saying CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it. I'm interested to see how boogieman does. Hopefully he will start a thread in the aiming forum about his journey with CTE. I am saying that it does not and cannot do what it claims to do.
Click to expand...
You stated in post #765..... (A). "I'm not saying that CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it"
and.....(B). "I am saying that it does not do what it claims to do"
If statement (A) is true, then using logic, how can statement (B) be true also?
 
straightline said:
I think L5 just doesn't grasp the flaws of CTE and takes the critique as an assault on his lifestyle. Boogie OTOH plows ahead, preferring to discover for himself. I have little doubt he'll share any relevant discoveries.
Click to expand...
1. How would YOU grasp the alleged flaws(?) of CTE when you state you've never studied it yourself?
2. All relevant 'discoveries' have been shared in here and in Stan Shuffett's videos for years and now in his Encyclopedia of Center Pocket Music as well. If you haven't bothered to grasp that by now, you never will.
 
Low500 said:
You stated in post #765..... (A). "I'm not saying that CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it"
and.....(B). "I am saying that it does not do what it claims to do"
If statement (A) is true, then using logic, how can statement (B) be true also?
Click to expand...
“Using logic” (lol), tell us why it can’t be true.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
“Using logic” (lol), tell us why it can’t be true.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
I thought you were the science person here?
If his statement A is true.....then how did the person learn to play well using it, if statement B is true in stating that CTE doesn't do what it claims to do?
 
Low500 said:
You stated in post #765..... (A). "I'm not saying that CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it"
and.....(B). "I am saying that it does not do what it claims to do"
If statement (A) is true, then using logic, how can statement (B) be true also?
Click to expand...
It claims to give you the shot line if you look at the balls a certain way. You don't have to recognize the shot line -- the method actually gives it to you because of the 2x1 geometry. That is what I am saying is false. Aside from that CTE is like any other aiming pre shot routine and some players may find usefulness in it. I'm sure some benefit from the structure it provides.
 
Dan White said:
It claims to give you the shot line if you look at the balls a certain way. You don't have to recognize the shot line -- the method actually gives it to you because of the 2x1 geometry. That is what I am saying is false. Aside from that CTE is like any other aiming pre shot routine and some players may find usefulness in it. I'm sure some benefit from the structure it provides.
Click to expand...
Good to see that you have finally confessed that it works.
 
Low500 said:
1. How would YOU grasp the alleged flaws(?) of CTE when you state you've never studied it yourself?
2. All relevant 'discoveries' have been shared in here and in Stan Shuffett's videos for years and now in his Encyclopedia of Center Pocket Music as well. If you haven't bothered to grasp that by now, you never will.
Click to expand...
Patrick Johnson said:
Using logic.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
That'll do. Also you now profess that everything about pool has been revealed by CTE? Oooh...
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Good to see that you’ve finally learned to read. We’ve said “it works” forever - just not the nonsensical way it’s promoted.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
You have NEVER, NEVER said it works! If it does work, explain how, why and where. What are CTE users seeing and doing that goes against the prescribed steps to convert it into what you think makes it work? And what steps are the ones supposedly flawed? It is all visual, you know, no pivots.

This goes for ANYONE in here, not just the Lord of physics, math, and geometry in pool...Patrick Johnson. EXPLAIN WHERE AND HOW.
 
Dan White said:
It claims to give you the shot line if you look at the balls a certain way. You don't have to recognize the shot line -- the method actually gives it to you because of the 2x1 geometry. That is what I am saying is false. Aside from that CTE is like any other aiming pre shot routine and some players may find usefulness in it. I'm sure some benefit from the structure it provides.
Click to expand...
Just because you say it's false doesn't make it true. PROVE IT, don't just say it.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Good to see that you’ve finally learned to read. We’ve said “it works” forever - just not the nonsensical way it’s promoted.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
That is a flat out lie.
You have NEVER said it works.
And tagging a little 'qualifier' on the end of your lie won't get you out of being caught in it.
I knew if I watched you and White long enough you'd run your mouths to the point where your other lies about being the "scientists of logic" would be exposed. Neither of you could pass simple high school Plane geometry and stand up to the chalkboard under pressure and work out some proofs. And then Solid Geometry would send you both into total tailspins.
"Scientists", my ass. The girl in the picture below knows exactly who and what you are. You are merely POOL PLAYERS, just like the rest of us
White's statements in post #765 did you in. I nailed him on the failures of his poor use of logic and neither of you can get out of it.
Pool Room w. caption.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top