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

[cookie man]

I have proven that some of Stan's statements about CTE are flat out wrong. It is right there in living color 100% fact in the throw video I analyzed. That doesn't stop the non-science crowd from dismissing it and there's not much I can do if you refuse to acknowledge reality.

Excuse me. You have proven nothing about CTE. Stan's statements are 100% correct. Your video was nothing and nobody, and i know that hurts, paid any attention to your worthless video. You have zero credibility on CTE. You have no experience with CTE. You've admitted you can't make balls with CTE. Why can't you make balls with CTE, that's right, you have no clue how to do the proper steps to use CTE. Can i lend you a dollar so you can go buy a clue?

 

[Dan White]

Excuse me. You have proven nothing about CTE. Stan's statements are 100% correct. Your video was nothing and nobody, and i know that hurts, paid any attention to your worthless video. You have zero credibility on CTE. You have no experience with CTE. You've admitted you can't make balls with CTE. Why can't you make balls with CTE, that's right, you have no clue how to do the proper steps to use CTE. Can i lend you a dollar so you can go buy a clue?

Truth hurts, doesn't it. You don't discuss the video on its merits. You just say "no it isn't" which led me to conclude that CTE supporters don't understand how science works.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Whether it's pro players who use CTE, top amateurs, regular league players, or any amateur that just loves to play pool...if CTE works for them who cares about science or why it works. We all know how to drive cars, who cares about what is under the hood and why or how it works?

It's not important unless the car breaks down and then you go somewhere to get it fixed.

 

[JB Cases]

I think you just like to argue.

Option 1: Leave this tiny corner of AZ with about 10 viewers alone and spend your time helping the vast number of new CTE users on facebook understand the system. CTE is not disussed here when CTE believers don't post... problem solved. Become a mentor and positive influence, or

Option 2: Get in the weeds with people you don't like and have little respect for. Engage in novel-length, hour long time consuming diatribes that don't make you look very good and haven't resolved anything for over a decade.

John chooses Option 2... go figger.

Dan White:

Option 1. Let Dan White and the other BULLIES mock and denigrate with no pushback.

Option 2. Don't let Dan White and the other BULLIES mock and denigrate with no pushback.

John chooses option 2 because bullies are assholes. Yes, Dan, I LIKE to argue. When there is a valid point to be made I don't like it when people like you try to smother it with BS and antagonistic denigrating tactics.

There is no good reason why YOU and your bullying buddies should be allowed to ruin every CTE thread here that you choose to. This is the largest true pool forum in America and possibly the world. Facebook doesn't count even though the membership numbers are higher because the format is not the same. This type of forum is topic specific and easily searchable. Google returns search results for the content posted on AZB. So when you and your truly nasty bullying buddies decide that you're going to troll and denigrate those wanting to learn and discuss CTE the end result is that you get to "define" CTE for the readers when no one disputes your claims.

Now, I get it that you don't want CTE folks to define CTE as objective, whether or not they say it is 100% or not. That word makes you upset and defies the romantic notion that any aiming system is or can be objective, in part or in full. I get it that you think it is "false advertising" but to this day you have not been able to PROVE that. Oh, yes, on paper, you think you that the proof is clear and undeniable. But you fail to understand the difference in perspective perception vs. fractional overlap hits. You want to stay in 2d here and focus ONLY on what can be mapped out there. And how do I know this? Because no matter what I have done to engage you and Pat and others you REFUSE to acknowledge it and stick with the same points that you have promoted ad nauseum layered with personal insults that you KNOW FOR SURE are going to make people bristle and react negatively.

When a CTE user says, "this feels like magic" as they excitedly tell the world about their improved results you can't help but to mock that person and tell them that the results that they are reporting are not real and were not achieved through the use of CTE but instead is just a trick of the mind leading to self-delusion. And when that person says, well for me it's following simple process instructions and I get down on the shot and shoot and the shot goes, everything in the process was conscious and deliberate so to my senses it was as objective as humanly possible for this task, you say well what other answer can one get from a self-deluded religious zealot? And you somehow think that this discourse would remain civil and productive?

Instead of doing the work to find out HOW the marriage of perspective and orientation using the eyes in specific ways leads to consistent results by virtue of the method you take the easiest way out and simply declare it to be the subconscious mind filling in gaps that you CLAIM are there.

The videos you have done are not serious, they are done only to denigrate and mock. That you even for a fraction of a second think that they are equivalent to the work that Stan and others have done on this subject is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst.

In the face of that, you're damned right that I would take option 2. You don't get to destroy Hal's work and Stan's work and Ron Vitello's work and the work of all the people who have been working in the genre of OBJECTIVE aiming system these past 20 years. I might leave you alone for a while if I find other interests that take precedence but you can be assured that I will come back and rebut your nonsense arguments whenever I feel like it. And one thing I can count on is that your nonsense will continue to be posted because it is my opinion that you dare not let anyone enjoy the benefit of any aiming method that has not received your approval.

Your objections have been noted. They have been answered. You are free to go and talk about all the other subjects in pool that are worth talking about. Nothing is keeping you here except your misguided notion that you have to protect the readers from falling down the rabbit hole of objective aiming. Even though you use objective aiming (center to center perception) coupled with feel based off of that objective visual perception. But CTE is not approved by you because you don't like the claims made by the teachers and practitioners despite your inability to disprove those claims.

Your move.

 

[JB Cases]

Truth hurts, doesn't it. You don't discuss the video on its merits. You just say "no it isn't" which led me to conclude that CTE supporters don't understand how science works.

This is what I mean. You are the one making conclusions based on limited and flawed data. In fact it is you who doesn't understand how science works. There are well educated engineers and others with technical backgrounds who use CTE and other objective aiming methods. You think that just because you have software that allows you to draw a line on screen while a video is playing that this means you are following the scientific method? No one here is following the scientific method to figure out CTE.

Have you ever done a backwards 2 1/2 somersault from a 3 meter diving board and come out perfectly to enter the water at just shy of 90 degrees? Can you imagine standing with your back to the water and thinking that you are going to jump into the air, tumble 2 times end over end in a balled position and then release perfectly to finish with another half somersault without seeing the water during the dive until the very end? Any idea how that is done? Probably not so I will tell you and the readers. It is done using a visual trick called spotting. You pick a fixed object and use it as your guide to orient to while spinning. Assuming that the rest of your technique is on point you will see the object once, then twice and then open up for the final half-rotation. Without that OBJECTIVE visual reference your results will be inconsistent and dangerous no matter how good your "feel" is. Divers need that technique to orient themselves in 3d space.

Just because you have done a video where you make claims about Stan's stroke and found ONE slight steering on a shot that was NOT lined up using CTE doesn't mean that CTE users or Stan are steering to make CTE work. But that's what you conclude and then berate me and others with your "you don't understand" science nonsense. The ONLY reason you have dozens of videos to look at and dissect is because Stan is producing them, doing the work to show proof of concept. But have you applied scientific analysis to the videos? Nope you have not. What you did is ISOLATE a few parts of one video and decide to form a general conclusion that covers Stan and all other CTE users.

The difference between us, and specifically between you and me, is that we make videos exploring with the idea in mind that maybe we aren't getting everything 100% right but we are sincere and honest in the presentation. We can discuss what was captured on video and talk about conditions, parameters, thought processes, techniques and so on in service towards a greater ability to apply the methods accurately and perhaps gain insight into the underlying mechanism that enables this method to work so well. Your motivation seems to be to just to look for anything that you perceive to be a flaw and to then make a statement of fact where you expect no dissent. When dissent comes you mock with the religious zealot/science ignorance slurs.

So please stop with that crap already, it's transparent and highly unbecoming.

 

[JB Cases]

Maybe maybe not. The redirection may occur during the draw back of the cue and would not be seen as a steer. Anyway, I think it is more probable anyway that the adjustments are baked into the perceptions, which is why it takes so long to make all the shots. It is HAMB with an intricate PSR thrown in, IMO.

Takes so long? Seriously you don't stop. When an experienced CTE user is playing the time to go from standing to shooting is deliberate and steady at a good brisk pace. But you dismiss that as well despite ample evidence to the contrary.

It is quite interesting that a video of Niels Feijen promoting ghost ball with the "no magic pill" comment was posted in another thread coupled with your nonsense about "takes so long" adds up to deliberately trying to stack criticisms to denigrate and steer people away from CTE.

But as the universe would have it we do have a match between ghost ball Niels and CTE Tyler in Tyler's rookie match in the Mosconi cup facing a die hard world class veteran Mosconi Cup player. The pace for both player's was about the same. The rookie missed two easy shots and one moderately tricky shot that were clearly because of nerves. And he won his opening match.

So, what do you say now? Are you with Joey Bautista in calling Tyler a liar? Do you want to call Tyler a religious zealot? Call him self-deluded? Tell him that he is steering the shots in? How do you want to KNOCK Tyler here? I am sure you can find something to make some unfounded knocking claims.

 

[straightline]

Tyler shoots well, low dog factor, doesn't flinch much - just like all the other pros. CTE in his game might stabilize it but it still looks like 100% pool, which duh, it is.

 

[JB Cases]

You are barking up the wrong tree. Analyze this:

CTE and Throw, Further Thoughts

Stan recently made a video on how CTE handles throw with soft vs hard hits. Since he has sworn off AZ, at least for now, mohrt posted up the video, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM&t=6s I thought this video was an important...

forums.azbilliards.com

Be sure to read Stan's comment, which only took 3 years in post#31.

Lol, now you're nitpicking about whether the shot went dead center or not.

Option 1. You are a NITpicking knocker with nothing better to do than to make nonsense posts knocking something you have no ability to perform.
Option 2. You are a good samaritan who is driven by the highest ethical standards to parse every word of every method and save the world's pool players from certain destruction if they dare to use a non-approved method of aiming.

What is knocker for life Alex.

I will give you 10-1 on the money if you bet at least ten thousand dollars in a shot making contest against Stan. 100 shots out of 500 shots picked randomly from a bucket. Whomever makes all the shots in the least amount of attempts wins. You can win $100,000 from me if you can beat Stan at this contest. Since you want to knock all the time and make insincere FAKE videos claiming that anyone can do what has been demonstrated just through nothing more than table time it ought to be easy money for you.

I will give you a tip on how you might win though. Learn CTE or some other good objective method and use it without telling anyone. Then you would have a chance to take me down and bust me to the point that I might give up the internet. But I think your personal obstinance might not allow you to do that. Even if you did try to learn CTE I think you still can't get there because I don't think you would try sincerely.

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? And since you're so nitpicky we can make a stipulation that any shot that brushes the rail on the way in DOES NOT COUNT. I would make a stipulation that the shot be no more than a half a ball away from center pocket but that would be completely unfair to you.

This passage below fits your attitude perfectly in my opinion.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” President Teddy Roosevelt.​

 

[JB Cases]

Tyler shoots well, low dog factor, doesn't flinch much - just like all the other pros. CTE in his game might stabilize it but it still looks like 100% pool, which duh, it is.

Of course it is pool. That's the WHOLE FREAKING POINT. Just because a person chooses to use one method or another or combination of methods to aim doesn't mean they are not going to be able to play pool and achieve successful outcomes.

 

[Dan White]

Takes so long? Seriously you don't stop. When an experienced CTE user is playing the time to go from standing to shooting is deliberate and steady at a good brisk pace. But you dismiss that as well despite ample evidence to the contrary.

I meant it takes a long time for many CTE users, the ones who stick with it, to say the light bulb went on and it all just clicked. I think it takes that much time to learn how to find a visual and then also tweak the shot so that it goes in. It takes time for that to gel. Just my opinion.

 

[Dan White]

Lol, now you're nitpicking about whether the shot went dead center or not.

Option 1. You are a NITpicking knocker with nothing better to do than to make nonsense posts knocking something you have no ability to perform.
Option 2. You are a good samaritan who is driven by the highest ethical standards to parse every word of every method and save the world's pool players from certain destruction if they dare to use a non-approved method of aiming.

What is knocker for life Alex.

I will give you 10-1 on the money if you bet at least ten thousand dollars in a shot making contest against Stan. 100 shots out of 500 shots picked randomly from a bucket. Whomever makes all the shots in the least amount of attempts wins. You can win $100,000 from me if you can beat Stan at this contest. Since you want to knock all the time and make insincere FAKE videos claiming that anyone can do what has been demonstrated just through nothing more than table time it ought to be easy money for you.

I will give you a tip on how you might win though. Learn CTE or some other good objective method and use it without telling anyone. Then you would have a chance to take me down and bust me to the point that I might give up the internet. But I think your personal obstinance might not allow you to do that. Even if you did try to learn CTE I think you still can't get there because I don't think you would try sincerely.

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. Are you? And since you're so nitpicky we can make a stipulation that any shot that brushes the rail on the way in DOES NOT COUNT. I would make a stipulation that the shot be no more than a half a ball away from center pocket but that would be completely unfair to you.

This passage below fits your attitude perfectly in my opinion.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” President Teddy Roosevelt.​

So I scanned through your last several posts and I get it. I'm a terrible human being and you are a saint. Got it. So why don't we discuss the throw video?

CTE and Throw, Further Thoughts

Stan recently made a video on how CTE handles throw with soft vs hard hits. Since he has sworn off AZ, at least for now, mohrt posted up the video, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM&t=6s I thought this video was an important...

forums.azbilliards.com

I think maybe you watched it and it seems that your conclusion is that the difference between the ball going center pocket and grazing the right facing is nitpicking. This is a half pocket difference but you call it nitpicking. So on the one hand you are saying that Stan is not capable of pocketing a ball into the corner pocket from the foot spot and be any more accurate than a half a pocket? Really? Then in the same post you are willing to bet $100G on how accurately that guy can shoot? If I had a shootout with some guy who couldn't control the ball to less than half a pocket from 2.5 diamonds away I'd own your car and your house. You can't have it both ways. Either Stan shoots dead nuts accurate or he doesn't. We both know he does and we both know the balls in that video are throwing an inch and Stan isn't aware of it because he isn't looking for it.

Interesting question for you: This video shows pretty plainly that the ball throws more when hit softly. How has Stan come to the conclusion that when you use CTE (and I guess only when you use CTE) the balls do not throw different amounts? I mean, did he just make that up or does he have some actual data to support it? He made this video to prove that point but actually he proved the opposite.

Stan says balls do not throw more or less when hit at different speeds when using CTE. Do you agree with this?

 

[cookie man]

Truth hurts, doesn't it. You don't discuss the video on its merits. You just say "no it isn't" which led me to conclude that CTE supporters don't understand how science works.

It must have hurt you. Where did this quote come from? "no it isn't" Are you making stuff up again to fit your narrative.

 

[JB Cases]

I meant it takes a long time for many CTE users, the ones who stick with it, to say the light bulb went on and it all just clicked. I think it takes that much time to learn how to find a visual and then also tweak the shot so that it goes in. It takes time for that to gel. Just my opinion.

No, that is wrong.
the amount of disinformation you will put out is amazing. If a guy "gets it" within a few days then what? I have had many people come through who got it within a few hours. One guy said to me, "this makes so much sense, like squaring up to the shot".

Again, the PERCEPTIONS from the offset position are not fudgeable. This isn't a situation where one shot is a sort of A and the other one is a sort of C. When there is a shot for which two perceptions can work then it is something like A outside = B inside. Not, somewhere in between.

Here is the bottom line that YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND, either because you choose not to or because you are incapable of it.

THiS IS NOT FRACTIONAL AIMING. FRACTIONAL AIMING is when you find a ball overlap and you shoot the cueball DOWN THE LINE THAT CREATES THAT OVERLAP IN EXACTLY THE FULLNESS OF THE HIT ALIGNED TO. Steve Davis has a video up somewhere where he describes the fractional overlap method of aiming and he says clearly that the fractions DO NOT WORK FOR ALL SHOTS. He states that the point of the fractional overlap is to figure out which one is the closest to the line of aim and then adjust minutely in-between to the shot line that is most likely to work.

CTE IS NOT THAT. Let me repeat this loudly for you.

CENTER TO EDGE AIMING IS NOT FRACTIONAL AIMING.

A 30 degree perception in CTE does not equal a 30 degree (half-ball) hit. This is what has you either confused or which you have chosen to deliberately ignore.

Yes, you will find some people out there who have trouble getting it with CTE and the reasons for this are varied and NOT because of subconscious adjustment. It is often because they need time to train their eyes and body to really sharply see the lines connecting the reference points. Or it is because they zone out on the instruction and skipped a step. Or they haven't really spent a lot of time on it. The only reason in your mind is doesn't work and the user must use faith and subconscious adjustment.

 

[Dan White]

It must have hurt you. Where did this quote come from? "no it isn't" Are you making stuff up again to fit your narrative.

My bad. You actually didn't comment at all in that thread. That was someone else.

So let me ask you. Stan says balls don't throw different amounts when you use CTE because of the overcut alignment no matter whether the shot is soft or hard. Based on Stan's video to prove that point do you agree? How about common sense? Do you agree or disagree based on nothing more than common sense?

 

[JB Cases]

So I scanned through your last several posts and I get it. I'm a terrible human being and you are a saint. Got it. So why don't we discuss the throw video?

CTE and Throw, Further Thoughts

Stan recently made a video on how CTE handles throw with soft vs hard hits. Since he has sworn off AZ, at least for now, mohrt posted up the video, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFrpI-5rKbM&t=6s I thought this video was an important...

forums.azbilliards.com

I think maybe you watched it and it seems that your conclusion is that the difference between the ball going center pocket and grazing the right facing is nitpicking. This is a half pocket difference but you call it nitpicking. So on the one hand you are saying that Stan is not capable of pocketing a ball into the corner pocket from the foot spot and be any more accurate than a half a pocket? Really? Then in the same post you are willing to bet $100G on how accurately that guy can shoot? If I had a shootout with some guy who couldn't control the ball to less than half a pocket from 2.5 diamonds away I'd own your car and your house. You can't have it both ways. Either Stan shoots dead nuts accurate or he doesn't. We both know he does and we both know the balls in that video are throwing an inch and Stan isn't aware of it because he isn't looking for it.

Interesting question for you: This video shows pretty plainly that the ball throws more when hit softly. How has Stan come to the conclusion that when you use CTE (and I guess only when you use CTE) the balls do not throw different amounts? I mean, did he just make that up or does he have some actual data to support it? He made this video to prove that point but actually he proved the opposite.

Stan says balls do not throw more or less when hit at different speeds when using CTE. Do you agree with this?

Yep, because it should be obvious to you that any player who is halfway pool literate will learn to adjust off the baseline aim as needed if needed. Stan knows that contact induced throw exists. He also knows, like most of us, that whatever teeny tiny adjustments for speed that might be needed are really easy to figure out. And most of them time the pocket has well enough margin of error that the cte given shot line gets the ball into the pocket without needing to adjust for speed. This is part of the pool sense that stan talks about.

It is painfully obvious that if an aiming method produces a shot line that is perfect at an average speed and that contact induced throw is a variable that can influence the reaction then the player must understand and adjust off of that given "perfect condition" baseline if needed.

There is absolutely nothing that you understand about pool that Stan doesn't know. You go through and nitpick while missing the larger picture. It's disgusting.

 

[Dan White]

A 30 degree perception in CTE does not equal a 30 degree (half-ball) hit. This is what has you either confused or which you have chosen to deliberately ignore.

You have me confused with someone else. I have never said this.

 

[Dan White]

Yep, because it should be obvious to you that any player who is halfway pool literate will learn to adjust off the baseline aim as needed if needed. Stan knows that contact induced throw exists. He also knows, like most of us, that whatever teeny tiny adjustments for speed that might be needed are really easy to figure out. And most of them time the pocket has well enough margin of error that the cte given shot line gets the ball into the pocket without needing to adjust for speed. This is part of the pool sense that stan talks about.

If Stan were still posting here this is about the point he would bitch slap you, figuratively of course. CTE does not require ANY adjustment to compensate for speed, period. That's coming from Stan, not me. Here he says he shoots soft and hard and does not have to make any adjustments:

NOTE: These videos are not uploading into AZ correctly. Go to youtube and start the video at 3:16 minutes in:

Stan saw my video and a week later came up with the following one with 2.5 inch pockets. In this excerpt he says how he uses CTE with various speeds and pockets the ball with almost no wiggle room. His point is that CTE works without needing to make adjustments. That is different from your misdirecting post about cheating pockets which is something entirely different.

NOTE: Start this video at 12:09 minutes in:

I have to say I find this video and the complaining about nitpicking to be very disingenuous. It can't be that Stan does not understand the point of my video showing the clear, consistent, and substantial amount of throw. I have to conclude that the purpose of this second video is to muddy the waters and throw out the straw man argument that I am saying that a shot has to be exactly perfect in order to be a valid shot. That's rubbish and I think he knows that. The alternative explanation is equally unflattering.

 

[straightline]

Of course it is pool. That's the WHOLE FREAKING POINT. Just because a person chooses to use one method or another or combination of methods to aim doesn't mean they are not going to be able to play pool and achieve successful outcomes.

NO. CTE is not THE blackhole of pool. It is an addendum to pool. You at least, assert that CTE is the reason for Styer's remarkable ability. I imagine if a promo tour happens, that will be the implication as well.

 

[JB Cases]

They've brought up Hunter Lombardo and Tyler Styer as proponents. Plans got bushwacked. Granted these guys can play but in watching them, aside from some of the detectable sweeps, what I see is regular pool AND they still get outta line and miss - just like real pool. Srsly though, I must be a glutton for controversy. My take on pool is the physics and mechanics have all been identified and along comes CTE that says forget "line of centers". All you need is three angles and detail on how to adjust. Nevermind that this alone doesn't make sense but the sellers here have sidestepped all queries as to how this is supposed to work. So, once again, how is CTE a direct replacement for pool physics?

No one claimed that cte replaces physics.

What does line of centers mean again?

We don't use that terminology in America when learning to play. I have seen it used by snooker coaches.

Does it mean line from center pocket through the object ball and line of cueball through the center of the ghost ball?

How does one find the ghost ball line consistently?

 

[JB Cases]

NO. CTE is not THE blackhole of pool. It is an addendum to pool. You at least, assert that CTE is the reason for Styer's remarkable ability. I imagine if a promo tour happens, that will be the implication as well.

No, stop saying what you want to hear rather than what I said. Tyler has been clear about what methods and which people have been responsible for providing the foundation for his skill. That's all I and others have said.