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

[Dan White]

Correct, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So on the TOPIC of Center to Edge aiming when it is adopted by instructors and professional players who verify that the instructions produce consistently accurate shot lines because they can use precise instructions based on objective references that's not enough for you to at least say that there is something to it. Sometimes anecdotal evidence is all that you have but it can be enough to start an exploration. Scientists chasing the why of observed phenomena have often been confronted with a situation where they know something is there and happening as reported but they have not been able to figure out WHY it happens yet.

I was interested in it enough to have a conversation with Hal. Extraordinary evidence is not simply that some pro players are using or teaching/endorsing it. Is Stan exempt from needing evidence to justify the extraordinary claims he makes? If not, then you need to do better than listing some world class players who started learning CTE and said they like it.

Neither you nor Pat will even admit that there is a spectrum between fully subjective and fully objective. You want to lecture me on faith while telling me that I can't experience anything existentially and you can't even concede that one method CAN BE much more objective than another. So forgive me if I tell you that I don't give two shits for your opinion. Or don't forgive me, I don't care. When you deliberately choose to nitpick and denigrate and say that someone who says CTE is objective is committing FRAUD upon the pool world then your opinion becomes worthless to me.

Science is all about nitpicking. Often that is the way science is debunked. Sometimes there is one little niggling data point that doesn't fit in. That's the kind of thing that leads to an "inconvenient truth." The most objective aiming system I know of is Poolology. The ball positions are mathematically linked to the rail diamonds. There are some estimations in the method to make it useable (most notably, the ball positions sit on arcs to make the math work but Brian made them straight lines). That's the problem I have with CTE. There is nothing making that link to the pocket. You can't just say the Hal schpiel about 30 and 60 add up to 90 and 2x1 and so on.

I played nice with you, with Pat, with Lou, with Joey Bautista, with JC and several others here. The pattern of my conversations is clear. I start with the idea that you want to figure shit out along with me. When I see that you're really only interested in the knock then I lose any interest in having civil dialog with you. Civility is then forced by the rules of the forum and not through any sense of decorum. You're a defamatory bunch.

Nice try. I simply ask you to comment in some detail about the Stan throw issue and you throw a 10,000 word fit instead of taking up the topic and discussing it. When I did the video showing Stan steering shots early on you were the first to commend my effort and say more of this is needed. IIRC, you then proceeded to say he wasn't steering or something like that. Stan, on the other hand, said he did it on purpose. I think that's as far as it got.

The fact, and it is a fact, that you have said that Stan is fraudulent and that asking for $100 for a book where CTE is called an objective aiming system is defrauding the consumer, shows me that you are not interested in exploration of the how and why CTE works but only in the destruction of CTE as a viable system.

Your are mistaken. I've never flat out accused Stan of being a fraud. On the contrary, I think he believes what he is saying. I've also said if he could prove his claims then I'd buy all the books I could afford and become his biggest supporter. But, to be clear, making bold claims that you can't prove (other than "see, it works!") is no bueno.

Not once have you or any others been able to point to any of the instructions and clearly show where the user is guessing. Not you, not Pat, not Jewett, not Aliciatore, none of you. That you don't think that I have pondered that question and taken it to the table and to the diagramming software is another indication of how little actual regard you have for the thoughts I present here. Which makes sense since your premise is that I am a self-deluded brainwashed cult member who can't see past the zealotry and accept your "superior logic".

I've pointed at numerous things that don't fit the company line on CTE but they are met with comments like, "I don't know, it's just not something I have had to worry about. It's a non issue." and the like.

The proof is on the table. When it comes to pity I do genuinely feel sorry for you that you have not learned CTE enough to experience the moment when it clicks. Center Pocket Music is a real thing that feels amazing when you hear it. I sincerely hope you get to hear it more often regardless of how you aim. I hope that you actually ENJOY pool because honestly it feels like you don't.

That's nice but the proof is NOT on the table. That's the problem -- you think it is. You seem to think because you play better that confirms the bizarre claim that the shape of the table makes the balls go in with CTE.

 

[Dan White]

CTE gives you the aim line. It is up to you to use that information to put the ball in the hole. All nuances of stroke, CIT, cloth, rails, mechanics... all come into play. CTE is not a magic bullet shot maker, although with the aim line given is sure makes them a lot easier.

Hi Monty. You don't think it is odd that you give CTE credit for finding the shot line for you yet you have no idea how this is accomplished? Serious question.

 

[JB Cases]

Then someone lied on his video about cte trumping CIT?

Is it? Or is more that CTE gives such an accurate aiming line that CIT becomes mostly a non-issue? One begins to wonder how anyone in 1942 ever managed to make a ball without a deep understanding of physics and the knowledge that under certain conditions the object ball will be sent off of the pocketing line by x-degrees per foot of travel.

Funny that Cut Induced Throw isn't something that most pros mention in their ghost ball instruction. My friend Eva Laurance didn't mention it when instructing on how to use ghost ball....maybe she knows something that you don't?

Niels didn't mention it either. Are they misleading their viewers?

So what's happening here? Is the subconscious making a last moment adjustment (you know that all-powerful always correcting/compensating to the perfect shot line invisible computing force in your head) to account for CIT when the pros do it? Or are the deliberately calculating it with some formula and just withholding that information? Or do they just do it and expect that anyone listening to them will just figure it out on their own.

OR - is it not as big a deal as made out to be by some folks - specifically YOU and Dan right now?

By your "logic" it should be nearly impossible to make any table length cut shots because of the CIT factor. To figure the amount of offset adjustment from the shot line, shot after shot, seems like it would wear out the shooter. I am going to guess that this is one area where most people's experience comes into play and they get attuned to the conditions fairly quickly. All that said, I find that having the information on CIT is extremely helpful for making deliberate aiming/adjustment choices when the shooter wants to have a deliberate path taken by the object ball that deviates from the centerball shot line.

When Stan says that CTE delivers a shot line that is in the slight overcut position and that the shooter using CTE does not need to make any additional adjustments he is telling the truth from his perspective. Stan is an accredited instructor who is well versed on all of the physics reactions of collisions between balls along with the variables in conditions. So it is my opinion that he does not make such a statement lightly nor dishonestly. If he didn't say it then would it make a difference?

I am fairly confident that it would not make a difference in your attempts to knock him and CTE aiming.

CTE users get on the shot line with no consideration of contact induced throw when they have good conditions, clean balls, clean cloth, moderate to dry conditions...... speaking only for myself if I am in a place with dirty balls and dirty slow cloth then I will sometimes adjust my aiming, speed and/or spin application to counteract it. Just as I do when I know a table has a roll. I will shoot at higher speed to counteract the roll or sometimes deliberately adjust from the "perfect condition" shot line that CTE gives.

All this is called "pool sense" by Stan and it is probably the perfect term to describe the intangible variables that a player gains through experience. Just because a player gets to a shot line that is geometrically perfect using CTE doesn't mean that the player doesn't need to deliberately use their pool sense to adjust off of that line in some way if needed. It's not like Stan is telling players that they can abandon all the variables that can affect the outcome.

Here is a group with over 500 people discussing CTE with zero animosity and enjoying their improvement. I would invite you but you are not interested in people who love to play pool and are loving the extra skill they are developing through the use of CTE. So stay here in this tiny corner where you are a super nobody whose knocks are only good to keep threads going and generate more interest in Center to Edge aiming.

Have a nice day.

 

[Dan White]

I freely admit that I am not a mathematician or a geometer. Nor am I trained scientist of any kind. But I am a creator and in my field an engineer and designer. I create cases out of parts that are weak on their own but when combined in the right way become strong enough to more than adequately protect thousands of dollars of equipment against a lot of things that would negatively affect that equipment. In other words Dan, I am not some dumb ass who can't understand what happens on a pool table. And since I own five pool tables and a full library of instructional books and DVDs along with having access to a vast compendium of pool content I am fully capable of taking any concept I come across to the table and making my own observations and comparing notes with others who have also done the same exploration. So, save your pity and your mocking for someone whom you can drive away. With me you will get someone who will take any effing test you dream up and IF your test shows that I am wrong in anything I have said then I will absolutely say that. I have done EVERY test that I have seen that has been proposed and come away with an even stronger trust in CTE aiming.

So maybe yours will be designed in a way that proves your point when taken sincerely and in good faith. If so then so be it. But, given what you have produced thus far, including the silly blocked pockets video you did, I don't have much hope that you are thinking of anything but that which support your foregone conclusions in your mind. As I have told you many times, EVEN IF there is some subjectivity in the method or application of the method the NET RESULT is that the user is using it deliberately and objectively to reach a consistently true shot line. In my mind IF you are able to find subjectivity then it can only serve to make CTE stronger than it already is.

Bring it.

OK, I like this post. Let me say if I haven't already that building the business you have is impressive and not many people have the right combination of talents to pull it off. Hat's off to you and I wish you continues success.

The fact that you are an accomplished guy makes your defense of all things CTE to the death even more curious. It is almost like you have a blind spot when it comes down to the crux of how CTE lines the shot up for you. You made that very long youtube video addressed to me in which you used that tiny table. You finally got to the point of showing WHY and HOW one CTE perception/visual can make two slightly different shots. You said the same thing you always say. Your explanation is simply that "it works." Surely you can see this is not an answer and does nothing to further the understanding?

I don't have an experiment in mind that will prove my point. It is difficult because while you are shooting nobody else can say what you are seeing. I'm sure something could be devised but you'd have to be a willing participant. Short of that, many of us have only been able to comment on snippets of information like youtube videos here and there. I find Stan mislabeling half ball hits and swooping to make the ball go in anyway, I find stroke curiosities, I find throw where there isn't supposed to be any and all these little things add up to a bigger picture but none in itself pretends to shake the foundation of CTE if you want to put it that way.

The other tactic for evaluation is simply using logic or thought experiments. Lots of CTE critics have done this for years and the only real reply is "you don't know how to use CTE so shut up" or variations thereof.

Here's an experiment you can do with your 5 tables:
Put the ob center table and the cb on the foot spot. Use a 30 degree perception to cut the ob into the upper right pocket. Now set the same shot up again but don't shoot it. Instead, remove the long rail on the left side of the table and push one of your tables over to match up with the slate (need to remove the rail on that table, too). Now you have a table that is not 2x1 but is 1x1 in dimension. Go back over to the cb and use the 30 degree perception to pocket the ball. Does this perception still work? Can you pocket the ball? If so, why and if not, why?

It would be great to see you use CTE on a large 1x1 table but assuming that will never happen, at least the thought experiment should spark some ideas. Oh, here's another one. Using your large 1x1 table set up a straight in shot. Use a 15 degree perception to pocket the ball. Are you still able to do it? Why or why not?

You are one of the few people who could actually do this experiment. Who knows, maybe CTE will no longer work and we might be able to understand why.

 

[lfigueroa]

Is it? Or is more that CTE gives such an accurate aiming line that CIT becomes mostly a non-issue? One begins to wonder how anyone in 1942 ever managed to make a ball without a deep understanding of physics and the knowledge that under certain conditions the object ball will be sent off of the pocketing line by x-degrees per foot of travel.

Funny that Cut Induced Throw isn't something that most pros mention in their ghost ball instruction. My friend Eva Laurance didn't mention it when instructing on how to use ghost ball....maybe she knows something that you don't?

Niels didn't mention it either. Are they misleading their viewers?

So what's happening here? Is the subconscious making a last moment adjustment (you know that all-powerful always correcting/compensating to the perfect shot line invisible computing force in your head) to account for CIT when the pros do it? Or are the deliberately calculating it with some formula and just withholding that information? Or do they just do it and expect that anyone listening to them will just figure it out on their own.

OR - is it not as big a deal as made out to be by some folks - specifically YOU and Dan right now?

By your "logic" it should be nearly impossible to make any table length cut shots because of the CIT factor. To figure the amount of offset adjustment from the shot line, shot after shot, seems like it would wear out the shooter. I am going to guess that this is one area where most people's experience comes into play and they get attuned to the conditions fairly quickly. All that said, I find that having the information on CIT is extremely helpful for making deliberate aiming/adjustment choices when the shooter wants to have a deliberate path taken by the object ball that deviates from the centerball shot line.

When Stan says that CTE delivers a shot line that is in the slight overcut position and that the shooter using CTE does not need to make any additional adjustments he is telling the truth from his perspective. Stan is an accredited instructor who is well versed on all of the physics reactions of collisions between balls along with the variables in conditions. So it is my opinion that he does not make such a statement lightly nor dishonestly. If he didn't say it then would it make a difference?

I am fairly confident that it would not make a difference in your attempts to knock him and CTE aiming.

CTE users get on the shot line with no consideration of contact induced throw when they have good conditions, clean balls, clean cloth, moderate to dry conditions...... speaking only for myself if I am in a place with dirty balls and dirty slow cloth then I will sometimes adjust my aiming, speed and/or spin application to counteract it. Just as I do when I know a table has a roll. I will shoot at higher speed to counteract the roll or sometimes deliberately adjust from the "perfect condition" shot line that CTE gives.

All this is called "pool sense" by Stan and it is probably the perfect term to describe the intangible variables that a player gains through experience. Just because a player gets to a shot line that is geometrically perfect using CTE doesn't mean that the player doesn't need to deliberately use their pool sense to adjust off of that line in some way if needed. It's not like Stan is telling players that they can abandon all the variables that can affect the outcome.

Here is a group with over 500 people discussing CTE with zero animosity and enjoying their improvement. I would invite you but you are not interested in people who love to play pool and are loving the extra skill they are developing through the use of CTE. So stay here in this tiny corner where you are a super nobody whose knocks are only good to keep threads going and generate more interest in Center to Edge aiming.

View attachment 591860

Have a nice day.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

I was interested in it enough to have a conversation with Hal. Extraordinary evidence is not simply that some pro players are using or teaching/endorsing it. Is Stan exempt from needing evidence to justify the extraordinary claims he makes? If not, then you need to do better than listing some world class players who started learning CTE and said they like it.

There is the element of practicality. What extraordinary claims has Stan made? That CTE results in an overcut position that compensates for CIT? Since you don't accept that CTE works at all to get to a shot line there is nothing Stan could do to prove to you that CTE does what he claims. So we are left with you simply implying that Stan is a liar and is simply making it up to sell instructional material.

You're right that nitpicking is part of science. You, however, are not doing science. If you were then you would learn CTE and demonstrate that you can use it correctly. Then you would debunk any claims you think are not accurate in a manner that is according to the scientific-method. Stan's material is not submitted to the science journals for review. It is submitted to the pool world for their consumption.

So when we are speaking of practicality the overriding point is that can the method improve a person's ability to get their cue on the correct shot line and subsequently result in improved pocketing? For that the review process is quite simple, learn it, use it, report the experience and results. If a claim such as resolves to a slight overcut position are then false then the result SHOULD be that users are finding that out and reporting on it.

After all this time though we are not seeing those reports. Now granted, people are alive who believe the earth is flat, a few of them well educated. But, there are many very good player/instructors who now use and teach CTE. These players are a cut above people like you and me. They TRULY study all the methods and techniques. They track progress. They are accountable to their students. They are not interested in doing anything that harms their student's progress. So in the absence of rigorous experiments that break down the whole process undeniably we are left with peer-review in the form of what do people who should know how to to results-based evaluation on a pool table say? A large number of them say that CTE works as advertised. Might they also be wrong about CTE leading to a slightly overcut position? Sure, but does it actually matter? Assuming that a person is willing to take the time the learn CTE then it's then safe to assume that the grey matter can make whatever slight adjustment might be needed with no conscious intervention. So the PRACTICAL effect is that the EXPERIENCE is that CTE produces a line with a slight overcut that accounts for CIT. Maybe the fact that the eyes and body are now TRULY on the accurate shot line the jump from perfect ghost ball center aim to overcut position is a nothing trick for the mind and so fast that all the conscious user sees is that they end up on the slight overcut position. And IF that is the case then the statement, "CTE leads to a slight overcut position to counteract CIT" would be TRUE in the context that it was stated.

Science is all about nitpicking. Often that is the way science is debunked. Sometimes there is one little niggling data point that doesn't fit in. That's the kind of thing that leads to an "inconvenient truth." The most objective aiming system I know of is Poolology. The ball positions are mathematically linked to the rail diamonds. There are some estimations in the method to make it useable (most notably, the ball positions sit on arcs to make the math work but Brian made them straight lines). That's the problem I have with CTE. There is nothing making that link to the pocket. You can't just say the Hal schpiel about 30 and 60 add up to 90 and 2x1 and so on.

Of course there is a link. Direction and Intention. I get your point about the 15/30/45/90 thing.... but what you don't get is that is actually unimportant. It's immaterial to the usage of the system. Like it's possible that there is "something" there but it doesn't matter in the least.

Nice try. I simply ask you to comment in some detail about the Stan throw issue and you throw a 10,000 word fit instead of taking up the topic and discussing it. When I did the video showing Stan steering shots early on you were the first to commend my effort and say more of this is needed. IIRC, you then proceeded to say he wasn't steering or something like that. Stan, on the other hand, said he did it on purpose. I think that's as far as it got.

I already told you what I think of the throw video you made.

Your are mistaken. I've never flat out accused Stan of being a fraud. On the contrary, I think he believes what he is saying. I've also said if he could prove his claims then I'd buy all the books I could afford and become his biggest supporter. But, to be clear, making bold claims that you can't prove (other than "see, it works!") is no bueno.

Pretty sure you have been clearly insinuating that Stan is acting fraudulently. You even went out your way to cast shade on his banking videos by implying that his banking prowess is ONLY because of his banking experience and that he is acting fraudulently for not disclosing that he was a Kentucky Bank Pool champion. When I pointed out that he should be in the best position to know whether the application of CTE aiming improved his banking or not I can't seem to remember your answer.

I've pointed at numerous things that don't fit the company line on CTE but they are met with comments like, "I don't know, it's just not something I have had to worry about. It's a non issue." and the like.

Pretty sure I have given you more detailed answers than that. For reference, see above.

That's nice but the proof is NOT on the table. That's the problem -- you think it is. You seem to think because you play better that confirms the bizarre claim that the shape of the table makes the balls go in with CTE.

See. A few posts ago you complain with an accusation that I was putting words in your mouth and here you are making a connection that does not exist. Further confirmation that you are not sincere. You don't think CTE works in the first place so why then would you care whether or not it is claimed to only work on a 1x2 field? I said that I play better because I use CTE. That does not mean I agree with everything ever said about CTE. But even if I did agree with statements you find absurd the main point is that those statements are not material to my success with the CTE aiming method.

The test for this is super simple. Would the finding that a declarative statement made about the CTE statement change my experience with it if such statement were found to not be accurate or true?

The answer is NO. Think about that for a moment. Nothing Hal or Stan or Dave or anyone has to say about CTE would change my experience of making more balls from more places more often? So when you want to say what I actually think it is this.....I personally think that CTE Aiming works as confirmed to my satisfaction by testing it on the pool table. The increase in pocketing from a wider range of positions plus the confidence gained by knowing that I am on the right shot line has been a tremendous boost to my enjoyment of this sport.

You can quote me on that whenever you think you need to announce how I feel about CTE.

 

[cookie man]

Here's what I think happens. Can't be sure, but seems most likely to me:

This pretty much sums up why DAN WHITE has zero credibility in his posts about CTE. It's ridiculous that this charade of his against CTE is allowed to continue.

 

[JB Cases]

OK, I like this post. Let me say if I haven't already that building the business you have is impressive and not many people have the right combination of talents to pull it off. Hat's off to you and I wish you continues success.

The fact that you are an accomplished guy makes your defense of all things CTE to the death even more curious. It is almost like you have a blind spot when it comes down to the crux of how CTE lines the shot up for you. You made that very long youtube video addressed to me in which you used that tiny table. You finally got to the point of showing WHY and HOW one CTE perception/visual can make two slightly different shots. You said the same thing you always say. Your explanation is simply that "it works." Surely you can see this is not an answer and does nothing to further the understanding?

I don't have an experiment in mind that will prove my point. It is difficult because while you are shooting nobody else can say what you are seeing. I'm sure something could be devised but you'd have to be a willing participant. Short of that, many of us have only been able to comment on snippets of information like youtube videos here and there. I find Stan mislabeling half ball hits and swooping to make the ball go in anyway, I find stroke curiosities, I find throw where there isn't supposed to be any and all these little things add up to a bigger picture but none in itself pretends to shake the foundation of CTE if you want to put it that way.

The other tactic for evaluation is simply using logic or thought experiments. Lots of CTE critics have done this for years and the only real reply is "you don't know how to use CTE so shut up" or variations thereof.

Here's an experiment you can do with your 5 tables:
Put the ob center table and the cb on the foot spot. Use a 30 degree perception to cut the ob into the upper right pocket. Now set the same shot up again but don't shoot it. Instead, remove the long rail on the left side of the table and push one of your tables over to match up with the slate (need to remove the rail on that table, too). Now you have a table that is not 2x1 but is 1x1 in dimension. Go back over to the cb and use the 30 degree perception to pocket the ball. Does this perception still work? Can you pocket the ball? If so, why and if not, why?

It would be great to see you use CTE on a large 1x1 table but assuming that will never happen, at least the thought experiment should spark some ideas. Oh, here's another one. Using your large 1x1 table set up a straight in shot. Use a 15 degree perception to pocket the ball. Are you still able to do it? Why or why not?

You are one of the few people who could actually do this experiment. Who knows, maybe CTE will no longer work and we might be able to understand why.

The shot would be a different shot and thus a different CTE perception most likely, I happen to disagree with Stan on this. BUT, If CTE didn't work for that shot then it wouldn't make the claim that it only works on a 2x1 field invalid. The playing field you describe is 2x2 and the shot is from the far end of the rectangle on the y axis to the far end of the other rectangle on the x axis.

Stan has probably made over a hundred videos. It is inevitable that you can "find" things in that body of work to criticize. The question I have is why? Not because you think CTE is great in my opinion. You do this because you desperately want to discredit Stan and the CTE method.

Regarding the thought experiments you mention, of course they are valuable tools in evaluating concepts. However we are fortunate enough to be able take things to the pool table which is why CTE users have taken on every diagrammed challenge proposed on here. We have told you and showed you why moving a shot pair to a parallel position is a different shot and creates a different perception and a comes with a different vector in relation to the pocket positions. Your assumption is that this this should not produce a different shot line to the object ball and thus could not result in the ball being pocketed without some kind of adjustment. And yet, when the system is objectively applied, the fact is that the shooter does get on the shot line. So, either ALL of the users doing physical actions and seeing real world results are wrong or your thought experiment premise is wrong. Or there is something that everyone is missing. Wouldn't be the first time that someone came up with something that works incredibly well bit for which they are not clear on the mechanism. But you don't KNOW that. And yet, despite not knowing, you persist in insisting you are right in the attempt to discredit.

My point of contention with you is simple, I think that the value that the system brings to the player is more important than knowing the exact mechanics of the system. Another way to put this is that the value of the ghost ball aiming method to the player is far more than knowing the mathematical formula that governs ghost ball.

I can do a thought experiment as well. As humans are not well suited to making precise measurements by eye one can predict that giving one of them a task to repeatedly imagine a fully formed sphere with a 2.25" diameter or 57.2mm if one uses the metric system is going to be very inconsistent. I am sure that you can design any number of actual experiments to test this hypothesis or you could just accept it as a given.

Let's do an IF THEN dialog to see if we can come to a mutual understanding;

If a person is using a method of aim for which they have tried all published techniques to use successfully and they have developed a form that is impeccable and their vision is 20/20 with no issues and they unsatisfactorily inconsistent with their aim then the next step is to look for another aiming method.

If they adopt another aiming method and they see clear improvement then that other method is by default of more value to that player.

If, when using the second method the player is able to use it successfully for every shot that is either to a pocket or a bank then the player has a well working tool at their disposal.

Can you refute any of these three statements?

Ok let's move on.

If a teacher of an established working method states an incorrect fact about how or why the method works does that invalidate the usefulness of the method? Should the player who adopted a working method abandon it because they were told an inaccurate fact about the mechanics of the method?

You have to leave room for honest mistakes and or honest misconceptions or you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At this point you are surely thinking go on and say that you are right. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that right or wrong what you have chosen to be nitpicky about has no bearing on the outcome which is that a CTE user gains more accuracy in aiming through a process that is objective for the user for every possible practical use that the system would be used for. For me personally I want the ability to get on the right shot line far more often and I don't really care how I get there. That's the real value here. What you are trying to do is diminish and dissuade.

 

[JB Cases]

View attachment 591866

Lou Figueroa

And yet you happily are a part of the knocker crew. There will never be 500 people gathering daily to discuss anything you create.

 

[lfigueroa]

And yet you happily are a part of the knocker crew. There will never be 500 people gathering daily to discuss anything you create.

meh -- nowadays you can get way more than 500 people to talk about cat videos.

Didn't Jim Jones get over 900 people to drink the kool-aid?

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

meh -- nowadays you can get way more than 500 people to talk about cat videos.

Didn't Jim Jones get over 900 people to drink the kool-aid?

Lou Figueroa

And that's what makes it so sad that you can't create anything of value or substance that anyone wants to talk about. It's always riding other people's creations with you.

 

[lfigueroa]

And that's what makes it so sad that you can't create anything of value or substance that anyone wants to talk about. It's always riding other people's creations with you.

There’s no sadness here.

Creating something others want to talk about has not been one of my goals in life. Being an honorable pool player who does not cheat has been a goal and no one has ever accused me of being otherwise.

How about you?

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

There’s no sadness here.

Creating something others want to talk about has not been one of my goals in life. Being an honorable pool player who does not cheat has been a goal and no one has ever accused me of being otherwise.

How about you?

Lou Figueroa

Being accused by a liar isn't a valid accusation. There are many in the pool world who don't find you to be honorable. Part of the extra benefit of our match was in the lead up I received a good number of "lou" stories that were very unflattering to you and didn't exactly paint you as an honorable person. I didn't solicit those stories and it does seem that you have made quite a few people mad at your "antics" in pool rooms around the country.

You have no honor in my opinion, as a pool player or otherwise. And yes, I agree that creating anything worthwhile doesn't appear to be a goal of yours. To that end you have thus far succeeded. When you're gone your name will be quickly forgotten by the few who might have cared to read your sorry contributions to the forums over the years.

 

[lfigueroa]

Being accused by a liar isn't a valid accusation. There are many in the pool world who don't find you to be honorable. Part of the extra benefit of our match was in the lead up I received a good number of "lou" stories that were very unflattering to you and didn't exactly paint you as an honorable person. I didn't solicit those stories and it does seem that you have made quite a few people mad at your "antics" in pool rooms around the country.

You have no honor in my opinion, as a pool player or otherwise. And yes, I agree that creating anything worthwhile doesn't appear to be a goal of yours. To that end you have thus far succeeded. When you're gone your name will be quickly forgotten by the few who might have cared to read your sorry contributions to the forums over the years.

Wasn't just me ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[JC]

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.

So he simply adjusts the aim line slightly or adds some spin to cheat the pocket away from center.

Got it!

 

[Dan White]

The shot would be a different shot and thus a different CTE perception most likely, I happen to disagree with Stan on this. BUT, If CTE didn't work for that shot then it wouldn't make the claim that it only works on a 2x1 field invalid. The playing field you describe is 2x2 and the shot is from the far end of the rectangle on the y axis to the far end of the other rectangle on the x axis.

Let's be sure we're on the same page. You pocket the balls with a 30 degree perception and then set the balls back up in the exact same spot but now you've enlarged the left side of the table. You are saying this is no longer a 30 degree perception? Instead of enlarging to a 1x1 dimension, you could also wrap a 2x4 in cloth and set it on the table lengthwise to cut off the left 1 foot of cloth. So now you have a 2.6x1 table. It doesn't matter what you want to change the dimensions to for this example. Why do you say it is a different shot? The balls are in the same place, the pocket is in the same place, only the left side of the table has changed.

Stan has probably made over a hundred videos. It is inevitable that you can "find" things in that body of work to criticize. The question I have is why? Not because you think CTE is great in my opinion. You do this because you desperately want to discredit Stan and the CTE method.

One of my other interests having a background in chemical engineering is global warming. I've been following it since 1998 and it is a real cesspool of bad science. There is a "researcher" who published a controversial global warming paper and she refused to make her data and methods available to "skeptics." She said, "Why should I provide the data when all they're going to do is try and find something wrong with it?" Well, if you don't know already, that's kind of the point. Peer review is not done only by those friendly to the author.

Put it this way: John Barton has just been selected to be the first person sent to Mars. Which team does JB prefer to be a part of:
1. Team A is composed of one guy who did all the math and designed everything and says you're good to go. No need to check his work because he's an expert.
2 Team B is composed of the same guy who is now required to submit his work to specialists who will check his math and make recommendations as needed.

I think you want to be on Team B. If Stan's blanket statements cannot withstand a few guys on the internet asking probing questions then I don't know what to tell you. My motivation has nothing to do with what you say, but whatever it is is irrelevant. That's the nice thing about science. It doesn't matter where an idea comes from. It either stands up to scrutiny or it does not.

Regarding the thought experiments you mention, of course they are valuable tools in evaluating concepts. However we are fortunate enough to be able take things to the pool table which is why CTE users have taken on every diagrammed challenge proposed on here. We have told you and showed you why moving a shot pair to a parallel position is a different shot and creates a different perception and a comes with a different vector in relation to the pocket positions.

You have NOT shown that in any way. You simply say "it happens here." Surely you realize this.

Your assumption is that this this should not produce a different shot line to the object ball and thus could not result in the ball being pocketed without some kind of adjustment.

No, it is your assumption that it does produce a different shot line. My contribution is to say, "Prove it, please."

And yet, when the system is objectively applied, the fact is that the shooter does get on the shot line.

No, it is your assumption that the system is objectively applied. You have yet to prove that.

So, either ALL of the users doing physical actions and seeing real world results are wrong or your thought experiment premise is wrong. Or there is something that everyone is missing. Wouldn't be the first time that someone came up with something that works incredibly well bit for which they are not clear on the mechanism. But you don't KNOW that. And yet, despite not knowing, you persist in insisting you are right in the attempt to discredit.

EXACTLY. I don't know what is going on but neither do you and neither does Stan. That's what discussions like this, if kept on topic, might clarify.

My point of contention with you is simple, I think that the value that the system brings to the player is more important than knowing the exact mechanics of the system. Another way to put this is that the value of the ghost ball aiming method to the player is far more than knowing the mathematical formula that governs ghost ball.

See comments below.

I can do a thought experiment as well. As humans are not well suited to making precise measurements by eye one can predict that giving one of them a task to repeatedly imagine a fully formed sphere with a 2.25" diameter or 57.2mm if one uses the metric system is going to be very inconsistent. I am sure that you can design any number of actual experiments to test this hypothesis or you could just accept it as a given.

It isn't necessary to be able to do that in order to use ghost ball, if that is what you are getting at. All you need is a view of the cue shaft, the cb, ob and the pocket. The brain will tell you when the shot is on based on past success.

Let's do an IF THEN dialog to see if we can come to a mutual understanding;

If a person is using a method of aim for which they have tried all published techniques to use successfully and they have developed a form that is impeccable and their vision is 20/20 with no issues and they unsatisfactorily inconsistent with their aim then the next step is to look for another aiming method.

If they adopt another aiming method and they see clear improvement then that other method is by default of more value to that player.

If, when using the second method the player is able to use it successfully for every shot that is either to a pocket or a bank then the player has a well working tool at their disposal.

Can you refute any of these three statements?

It is a hypothetical and I see nothing to disagree with here, other than this being highly unlikely. If a guy has perfect mechanics but can't pocket balls for some reason and then tries something like CTE and pockets more balls then good for him.

Ok let's move on.

If a teacher of an established working method states an incorrect fact about how or why the method works does that invalidate the usefulness of the method? Should the player who adopted a working method abandon it because they were told an inaccurate fact about the mechanics of the method?

It could invalidate the method. For instance, I cannot make CTE work for every shot like you do. I believe that is because I am following the instructions to a tee and do not allow my subconscious to make adjustments. You make it sound like everybody who learns CTE ends up playing better. We may never know the reality of how many people learned through DVD's and youtube and never made it work.

You have to leave room for honest mistakes and or honest misconceptions or you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. At this point you are surely thinking go on and say that you are right. I am not saying that at all. I am saying that right or wrong what you have chosen to be nitpicky about has no bearing on the outcome which is that a CTE user gains more accuracy in aiming through a process that is objective for the user for every possible practical use that the system would be used for. For me personally I want the ability to get on the right shot line far more often and I don't really care how I get there. That's the real value here. What you are trying to do is diminish and dissuade.

You are using what I will call the Popeye Defense. Mother tells her kid to eat the spinach because it will make him big and strong like Popeye. The mother doesn't mind lying to her kid because spinach is good for him and she wants him to eat it. The means justifies the ends.

Here's a hypothetical for you:

I recently designed a new cue case called DW Cases. It's a good, solid case but the main benefit is that the precise shape of the internal components has an interesting effect on the pool cue. The shape actually bends earth's magnetic field in a way that causes the cue to be straight and that magnetic flux carries over to the player's arm when he holds the cue. We call it "Case Closed on Your Crooked Stroke - DW Cues." Marketing is so successful that JB Cases saw a 10% drop in sales the first Q and a 15% drop in the second Q. Now, should anybody care about the claims that DW Cues is making? After all, it really is a good case and 500 people swear that their stroke has gotten better since they started using the case. It isn't really even just a case anymore, it's a playing system and who really cares if there are some honest mistakes in their advertising? Cues are being protected and people are playing better. What's all the fuss about?

It is immaterial whether a "mistake" in advertising is honest or not. Those claims have consequences, as JB Cases found out in this hypothetical.

You seem to be trying to say that the claims that CTE makes don't matter if some people can play better with it. I thought this discussion was about getting to the bottom of the CTE claims, one of which deals with the shape of the table.

 

[straightline]

WTF is WRONG with you? Contact geometry isn't even a term that is used or useful for pool playing. You keep pushing this nonsense as if you are actually saying something that is useful or practical.

The context is pool. You expound on perceptions yet cannot perceive beyond Convoluted Targeting Estimates.

Contact geometry gives you THE shoot line of THE shot aimed.
C.ounter T.hunk E.stimates give you AN aim line without specifying a shot.

Now for the second thing you wrote in your pathetic continuing attempts to mock that which you don't know or understand,

Like I just said you (JB) cannot perceive beyond Convoluted Targeting Estimates.

C.ounter T.hunk E.stimates give you AN aim line without specifying a shot.

This is fact. Edge line, Center line, doesn't even include the pocket line.

Contact geometry - here's the big clue for the retarded: Contact geometry is the geometry of ball contact. Let's call this CG henceforth...
CG starts with the intended results and establishes the contact geometry of the shot alignment. This doesn't get any real-er

er...

 

[straightline]

@ JB,

AND, you seem to be using pool facts as Lego to address the ambiguity in the Cram To Educate hypothesis. Net effect: blocky walls with cool kiddie colors.

Can you tell me why CTE is superior to aiming a shot and shooting it?

 

[JB Cases]

The context is pool. You expound on perceptions yet cannot perceive beyond Convoluted Targeting Estimates.

Do not pretend to deceive for what I perceive you cannot conceive. Weave your web for those you wish to impede, of your service I have no need.

Like I just said you (JB) cannot perceive beyond Convoluted Targeting Estimates.


This is fact. Edge line, Center line, doesn't even include the pocket line.

Does it not? And why might that be? How then does the player see? What things when they see are related to those things unseen. As if by magic the shot line appears now what was that line that Arthur held so dear? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic I hear.

Contact geometry - here's the big clue for the retarded: Contact geometry is the geometry of ball contact. Let's call this CG henceforth...
CG starts with the intended results and establishes the contact geometry of the shot alignment. This doesn't get any real-er

er...

Ah, a new phrase you seek to coin. A dvd to earn some coin? Or perhaps your effort to remain altruist. Your only aim to promote the purist and save the seeker from something newer something sleeker something better best better than the best. Is that you? Are you so true? Or, when then is the book due?

 

[JB Cases]

@ JB,

AND, you seem to be using pool facts as Lego to address the ambiguity in the Cram To Educate hypothesis. Net effect: blocky walls with cool kiddie colors.

What hypothesis is that? What pool facts are those? Can't Tolerate Evolution?

Can you tell me why CTE is superior to aiming a shot and shooting it?

Certainly, CTE is ACCURATELY aiming before shooting it. And being accurately aimed also leads to more pocketing and more pocketing leads to more winning. More winning leads to more attractiveness and that leads to better connections and that leads to increased wealth and status which then leads to immense power.

Or you can stay stuck trying to imagine invisible balls.