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

[JB Cases]

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.

I am saying it might not be a 30 degree perception. You are focused on degrees obtained by a line through the object ball and the pocket and a line though the ghost ball center. If you have a 30 degree cut and you move the balls to some other position on the table where the cut is 30 degrees then the cut remains 30 degrees. What then is the overriding variable? The human being who is looking at the shot and who doesn't have a protractor and a yardstick and a ghost ball template to place on the table before he shoot. That player is evaluating the shot and deciding between at most two aiming visual perceptions. So that player instead of worrying about whether or not the cut angle is 30 degrees or 33.2 degrees, instead of of trying to imagine a fully formed sphere with enough clarity to also see the spot on the table where that sphere sits, instead cycles through several perceptual prescriptions to determine which one is the correct one for the shot. Very often the same perception will work despite the balls having been moved to a different location. The player is ALSO in a different location at that point around a stationary unmalleable playing field.

In your hypothethical enlarging the table by another table width where one has a 30 degree shot WOULD NOT result in the object ball tracking to the far left pocket, the shot line would absolutely be different. You can draw this out in a few seconds. Now IF that shot were on the exact same line such as a 30 degree shot to the side then yes the SAME visuals would likely be used for that shot as well. But maybe not. Those eyes and brains are funny things when taking in all of that objective information.

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.

Oh I am sure. And I am I supposed to just believe your amusing anecdote about a climate scientist with something to hide??? Gosh, peer review is not done (only) by those friendly to the author????? Well I am shocked, absolutely shocked, gosh I never knew how the peer review process works. Thank you so so much for clearing that up. I bet you're on the denial side of that issue as well aren't you?

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.

Of course Team B. Which is why I don't rely on chemical engineers to teach me how to play pool. I rely on people who show me that they play better than I do which indicates that they know more than me or know how to do what we both know better than me. Like Bruce Lee I try to absorb all styles and keep what works. Obviously success in pool is not dependent on CTE. Neither is CTE a hindrance to excellent pool.

Continued.....

 

[JB Cases]

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.

And for the scrutiny to have any weight it needs to be about something material to the working of the that being criticized. A person determined to find something "wrong" will do so for there is no toothy prohibition that prevents a nitpicker from picking nits. Your type of skeptic could be aptly titled the radical skepticism. If one data point is presumed to be wrong then the whole dataset is corrupted and throw it all out.

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

Are you saying that it didn't happen there?

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

Are we still talking about your hypothetical for which you could have had that answer in less than a minute with a simple pencil and a piece of paper if you needed some tools to assist you.

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

How would you suggest that it can be proven to your satisfaction?

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.

You don't know if Stan doesn't know. But we know that you don't know.

See comments below.


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.

So you're an expert on the brain now? Was neuroscience your hobby in college? And what then does the magic brain do when you face a shot for which you have had no past successes?

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.

And WHY would that be good for him and would it be fair to presume that CTE is the catalyst that caused the improvement?

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.

Then you are applying it incorrectly. See how that works? You're right, you likely will also never know how many people have learned and will learn CTE correctly and derive great benefit from that. Just as you will never know the amount of people struggling with ghost ball because people like you told them that the brain will take care of it.

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.

Doesn't it. What if the mother was thinking of body builders and comparing them popeye in her mind and using the popeye cartoon to relate her desire for her children to grow up big and strong? Unless you could predict the future for those children you wouldn't have any clue as to what their physical conditions would be as adults. It's not like Mom was telling them that french fries and big macs would make them big and strong like Popeye.

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.

Yes, if a competitor were affecting my business negatively using lies that I could demonstrably prove then I would do that. If the cases were good and protective then I wouldn't discredit that part of their advertising. I would simply ask that potential customers don't factor those lies into their decision. It would be just as deceitful if I were to imply that the competing case were bad if it were not.

Is CTE hurting you in some way?

 

[JB Cases]

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

Got it!

Yeah, that would be the thing to do if that is what the shot calls for. Having that perfect baseline center ball shot line to use is huge for the player who understands when, how and why to adjust. Not saying that Stan adjusts when he says he does not. Just saying that he certainly knows how to as one would expect from a player of his caliber.

 

[JC]

Yeah, that would be the thing to do if that is what the shot calls for. Having that perfect baseline center ball shot line to use is huge for the player who understands when, how and why to adjust. Not saying that Stan adjusts when he says he does not. Just saying that he certainly knows how to as one would expect from a player of his caliber.

I'm surprised at how accurate Stan is with such an abbreviated follow through on so many of his shots. It's not that easy to shoot the cue ball into pockets of that size from a distance.

 

[cookie man]

L

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.

I think there is a major difference between "submit your work to specialists" and a "few guys on the internet asking probing questions"

Questions, by the way, not from anyone with actual experience on the subject because you all admit you don't know how to use the system. But questions from keyboard opinions by people too lazy to put in any actual table time with the system.

And i would add that Stan has submitted his work to some specialists in the field of playing pool, and the work has passed the tests.

 

[Dan White]

I am saying it might not be a 30 degree perception. You are focused on degrees obtained by a line through the object ball and the pocket and a line though the ghost ball center. If you have a 30 degree cut and you move the balls to some other position on the table where the cut is 30 degrees then the cut remains 30 degrees. What then is the overriding variable? The human being who is looking at the shot and who doesn't have a protractor and a yardstick and a ghost ball template to place on the table before he shoot. That player is evaluating the shot and deciding between at most two aiming visual perceptions. So that player instead of worrying about whether or not the cut angle is 30 degrees or 33.2 degrees, instead of of trying to imagine a fully formed sphere with enough clarity to also see the spot on the table where that sphere sits, instead cycles through several perceptual prescriptions to determine which one is the correct one for the shot. Very often the same perception will work despite the balls having been moved to a different location. The player is ALSO in a different location at that point around a stationary unmalleable playing field.

In your hypothethical enlarging the table by another table width where one has a 30 degree shot WOULD NOT result in the object ball tracking to the far left pocket, the shot line would absolutely be different. You can draw this out in a few seconds. Now IF that shot were on the exact same line such as a 30 degree shot to the side then yes the SAME visuals would likely be used for that shot as well. But maybe not. Those eyes and brains are funny things when taking in all of that objective information.

I never once used the words "30 degree angle." I thought you guys referred to CTE shots as 15 degree perceptions or 30 degree perceptions and so on. The hypothetical shot is one mohrt set up in another thread. It happens to be a half ball hit but that is irrelevant for this discussion.

I don't understand why you are talking about shooting into the left pocket or the side pocket. It is a simple thing. ob is center table, cb is on the foot spot. Shoot using CTE into the upper RIGHT corner pocket. I believe this is what mohrt called the 30 degree perception. Set the balls back in the same place and now either extend the left side of the table into a 1x1 dimension, or even reduce the left side so you have a 2.5:1 or whatever dimension. You are STILL going to shoot the SAME SHOT with the balls in the exact same position into the RIGHT corner pocket just like before. Does the shot still work with that same 30 degree perception?

Oh I am sure. And I am I supposed to just believe your amusing anecdote about a climate scientist with something to hide??? Gosh, peer review is not done (only) by those friendly to the author????? Well I am shocked, absolutely shocked, gosh I never knew how the peer review process works. Thank you so so much for clearing that up. I bet you're on the denial side of that issue as well aren't you?

Do you think I just made that up?

 

[Straightpool_99]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the lines on the table in the truth series video one, especially why the 30 degree line does not connect to the pocket opening (as the other lines do), and rather connects to the (imaginary) diamond of the center pocket?

 

[Dan White]

And for the scrutiny to have any weight it needs to be about something material to the working of the that being criticized. A person determined to find something "wrong" will do so for there is no toothy prohibition that prevents a nitpicker from picking nits. Your type of skeptic could be aptly titled the radical skepticism. If one data point is presumed to be wrong then the whole dataset is corrupted and throw it all out.

You're the one who said you have no background in science yet you are lecturing me about nitpicking and datasets. OK. You make it sound like I am taking some obscure aspect of CTE and blowing it out of proportion. I am interested in the 2:1 claim which is the number one thing, maybe the only thing, that is supposed to make CTE work.


Snipped mostly attack the messenger comments.

Doesn't it.

Rather scary if you believe that "the ends justifies the means" is a good policy.

Yes, if a competitor were affecting my business negatively using lies that I could demonstrably prove then I would do that. If the cases were good and protective then I wouldn't discredit that part of their advertising. I would simply ask that potential customers don't factor those lies into their decision. It would be just as deceitful if I were to imply that the competing case were bad if it were not.

Is CTE hurting you in some way?

Stan is also skirting truth in advertising laws, although I'm sure he believes what he is saying even though he can't prove it, and SAID he can't prove it. I am not in the business of selling aiming systems for profit but others are. This is not a court of law it is a discussion forum so I do not need to have legal standing. Let me be clear. My interest is not in harming Stan. It is more about questioning whether it works as advertised or if it really works through shot recognition achieved over time at the table.

 

[Dan White]

I think there is a major difference between "submit your work to specialists" and a "few guys on the internet asking probing questions"

Questions, by the way, not from anyone with actual experience on the subject because you all admit you don't know how to use the system. But questions from keyboard opinions by people too lazy to put in any actual table time with the system.

And i would add that Stan has submitted his work to some specialists in the field of playing pool, and the work has passed the tests.

Oh, OK, I guess you know better.

 

[BC21]

.....

It is a simple thing. ob is center table, cb is on the foot spot. Shoot using CTE into the upper RIGHT corner pocket. I believe this is what mohrt called the 30 degree perception. Set the balls back in the same place and now either extend the left side of the table into a 1x1 dimension, or even reduce the left side so you have a 2.5:1 or whatever dimension. You are STILL going to shoot the SAME SHOT with the balls in the exact same position into the RIGHT corner pocket just like before. Does the shot still work with that same 30 degree perception?

It would be a better example to extend the head end of the table. Let's say you're shooting the shot you describe above into the right corner pocket on the foot end of the table. Would the same shot hit the pocket if you extended the head end of the table a foot longer? I don't see why not. It also seems you could erase half the table, play on a 1:1 square, and the shots would still work for CTE players, except long rail banks or multiple rail banks that require a long rail. Is this what you're saying?

 

[Dan White]

It would be a better example to extend the head end of the table. Let's say you're shooting the shot you describe above into the right corner pocket on the foot end of the table. Would the same shot hit the pocket if you extended the head end of the table a foot longer? I don't see why not. It also seems you could erase half the table, play on a 1:1 square, and the shots would still work for CTE players, except long rail banks or multiple rail banks that require a long rail. Is this what you're saying?

Yes. I thought this might be a topic on its own so I invite anyone interested to take the conversation out of this thread and take it here:

CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

According to both the inventor of CTE (Hal Houle) and Stan himself, Stan Shuffet’s CTE Pro One only works because the table has 2x1 dimensions. If the dimensions are other than 2x1, logically, then CTE will no longer work. If there were 10 Commandments of CTE this would be the first one. Stan...

forums.azbilliards.com

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Yes. I thought this might be a topic on its own so I invite anyone interested to take the conversation out of this thread and take it here:

CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

According to both the inventor of CTE (Hal Houle) and Stan himself, Stan Shuffet’s CTE Pro One only works because the table has 2x1 dimensions. If the dimensions are other than 2x1, logically, then CTE will no longer work. If there were 10 Commandments of CTE this would be the first one. Stan...

forums.azbilliards.com

This "connection to 2:1 table geometry" is such blatant nonsense that anybody who needs to "explore" it is incapable of understanding it.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

It would be a better example to extend the head end of the table. Let's say you're shooting the shot you describe above into the right corner pocket on the foot end of the table. Would the same shot hit the pocket if you extended the head end of the table a foot longer? I don't see why not. It also seems you could erase half the table, play on a 1:1 square, and the shots would still work for CTE players, except long rail banks or multiple rail banks that require a long rail. Is this what you're saying?

When you find this table, let's meet up and play some to try it out lol.

 

[JB Cases]

You're the one who said you have no background in science yet you are lecturing me about nitpicking and datasets. OK. You make it sound like I am taking some obscure aspect of CTE and blowing it out of proportion. I am interested in the 2:1 claim which is the number one thing, maybe the only thing, that is supposed to make CTE work.


Snipped mostly attack the messenger comments.




Rather scary if you believe that "the ends justifies the means" is a good policy.


Stan is also skirting truth in advertising laws, although I'm sure he believes what he is saying even though he can't prove it, and SAID he can't prove it. I am not in the business of selling aiming systems for profit but others are. This is not a court of law it is a discussion forum so I do not need to have legal standing. Let me be clear. My interest is not in harming Stan. It is more about questioning whether it works as advertised or if it really works through shot recognition achieved over time at the table.

LOL, and yet you have proffered ZERO suggestions on how to figure that out. You go with thought experiments and conclude that it cannot.

Neither is Stan in the business of selling aiming systems for profit. All that one needs is online for free.

In some cases the ends justifies the means. In other cases there are honest mistakes and honest convictions that don't invalidate the whole. Shall we argue philosophy now?

 

[Dan White]

LOL, and yet you have proffered ZERO suggestions on how to figure that out. You go with thought experiments and conclude that it cannot.

Neither is Stan in the business of selling aiming systems for profit. All that one needs is online for free.

In some cases the ends justifies the means. In other cases there are honest mistakes and honest convictions that don't invalidate the whole. Shall we argue philosophy now?

I opened a new thread on 2x1 to see what is really understood by it. If someone can make sense of it then I am happy to listen. So far there is a lot of guessing but I haven't seen your contribution yet.

DVD1, DVD2 and a $100 book were not done for profit? If he isn't registered as a charity then he is for profit. It isn't philosophy, it's truth in advertising but let's not spend time on that aspect of it. I'm more interested in the 2x1 claim.

 

[JB Cases]

I opened a new thread on 2x1 to see what is really understood by it. If someone can make sense of it then I am happy to listen. So far there is a lot of guessing but I haven't seen your contribution yet.

DVD1, DVD2 and a $100 book were not done for profit? If he isn't registered as a charity then he is for profit. It isn't philosophy, it's truth in advertising but let's not spend time on that aspect of it. I'm more interested in the 2x1 claim.

You really don't understand the time and expense put in contrasted with the revenue generated.

I would never put in the time and energy to create a book of the size and scope that Stan has created, along with a 27+ supporting video series and managing a Facebook group where all questions are answered in substantive and positive discourse for $100 per book.

Whatever profit, if any, is realized from this is modest at best. This is far more a labor of love and obsession more than a profit-making endeavor.

 

[Dan White]

You really don't understand the time and expense put in contrasted with the revenue generated.

I would never put in the time and energy to create a book of the size and scope that Stan has created, along with a 27+ supporting video series and managing a Facebook group where all questions are answered in substantive and positive discourse for $100 per book.

Whatever profit, if any, is realized from this is modest at best. This is far more a labor of love and obsession more than a profit-making endeavor.

Well my DW Cases that straighten out the shot line using magnetic flux is also a labor of love done in the evenings and weekends. Does that make truth in advertising any less necessary?

For the record, I am not questioning Stan's motives. I've always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that he sells a product for profit, be it a labor of love or not.

 

[JB Cases]

Well my DW Cases that straighten out the shot line using magnetic flux is also a labor of love done in the evenings and weekends. Does that make truth in advertising any less necessary?

For the record, I am not questioning Stan's motives. I've always tried to give him the benefit of the doubt. The fact remains that he sells a product for profit, be it a labor of love or not.

You don't know that there is any profit. In fact you don't know anything about it other than some dvds and a book exist.

As I told you already if I had proof that you were competing with my product using false claims then I would expose those false claims.

You are completely free to criticize anything. You are completely free to make any claim about anything being offered for free or for sale. Nothing you say is true or false simply by virtue of you saying it.

I am in advertising. Truth in advertising is important. So is context. So is practicality. I am going to bet extremely high that no one who really uses CTE cares if CTE works "only" on a 2x1 playing field. I am equally sure that no one who uses CTE effectively started learning it because they the think CTE straightens their stroke. Nor do they care if it produces a shot line with a slight overcut.

Why not you may ask, aren't these things important? Yes of course. Pool is played on a 2x1 playing field so whatever method of aiming the shooter is using it ought to work on the playing field to be effective. A straight stroke is important so if anything that the shooter uses helps them to develop or maintain a straight stroke then great. The goal is to pocket balls so whether or not the system produces a slight overcut is not material if it leads to pocketed balls. That's the practicality.

Is it worth it. Is is worth accepting that maybe there are some errors in understanding how it works for the practical benefit of getting to the shot line accurately? Is it worth it to have a method that works awesomely on a 2x1 playing surface even if it means that I possibly wouldn't be able to use it if I compete on a pool table that is not a 2:1 ratio? Is it worth it if my stroke isn't 100% "straightened" but I am pocketing balls with measurably higher success? What if I already have a straight stroke and my stroke doesn't need to be straightened? Should I try CTE anyway?

Seems to me that you are missing the balance part of this. Sometimes to bring something great into the world one needs to focus less on the how and more on the do. Discovering that something works without understanding the underlying how and using that working method to make more shots, win more games, and have more fun while playing is a good thing. Teaching it to others an even better thing.

Criticizing it, searching for the underlying mechanics, also a good thing. Forces inspection and introspection. Finding parts that perhaps don't make sense on the surface is normal and should be balanced against the practical benefit. For me the practical benefit far outweighs your speculations. Speculations which are unproven.

So, from here you can continue to crusade on the topics which are important to you. There comes a point when you might understand that your efforts are outweighed by the practically of using a method that works exceptionally well. Which brings us to trust.

Can I TRUST the Center to Edge method?

Yes. Because through testing it has proven capable of everything I want from it.

And that ultimately is the bottom line. I learn it, I master it, I trust it, I use it confidently in competition with consistent results.

 

[Dan White]

You don't know that there is any profit. In fact you don't know anything about it other than some dvds and a book exist.

I never said or intimated that he made a profit, though I bet he did. I said he engages in a "FOR profit" company as compared to a NON profit one. Truth in advertising applies particularly to FOR profit enterprises.

As I told you already if I had proof that you were competing with my product using false claims then I would expose those false claims.

Part of exposing those claims might be to illustrate the absurdity through logic and basic physics.

You are completely free to criticize anything. You are completely free to make any claim about anything being offered for free or for sale. Nothing you say is true or false simply by virtue of you saying it.

I am in advertising. Truth in advertising is important. So is context. So is practicality. I am going to bet extremely high that no one who really uses CTE cares if CTE works "only" on a 2x1 playing field. I am equally sure that no one who uses CTE effectively started learning it because they the think CTE straightens their stroke. Nor do they care if it produces a shot line with a slight overcut.

Why not you may ask, aren't these things important? Yes of course. Pool is played on a 2x1 playing field so whatever method of aiming the shooter is using it ought to work on the playing field to be effective. A straight stroke is important so if anything that the shooter uses helps them to develop or maintain a straight stroke then great. The goal is to pocket balls so whether or not the system produces a slight overcut is not material if it leads to pocketed balls. That's the practicality.

Is it worth it. Is is worth accepting that maybe there are some errors in understanding how it works for the practical benefit of getting to the shot line accurately? Is it worth it to have a method that works awesomely on a 2x1 playing surface even if it means that I possibly wouldn't be able to use it if I compete on a pool table that is not a 2:1 ratio? Is it worth it if my stroke isn't 100% "straightened" but I am pocketing balls with measurably higher success? What if I already have a straight stroke and my stroke doesn't need to be straightened? Should I try CTE anyway?

Seems to me that you are missing the balance part of this. Sometimes to bring something great into the world one needs to focus less on the how and more on the do. Discovering that something works without understanding the underlying how and using that working method to make more shots, win more games, and have more fun while playing is a good thing. Teaching it to others an even better thing.

Criticizing it, searching for the underlying mechanics, also a good thing. Forces inspection and introspection. Finding parts that perhaps don't make sense on the surface is normal and should be balanced against the practical benefit. For me the practical benefit far outweighs your speculations. Speculations which are unproven.

Just because you deem something unproven does not make it so. Searching for underlying mechanics is a good thing but when I do it it is called speculation. Let's take this very thread as an example. I pose the question as to whether a 2x1 table is really necessary to make CTE work. So far two strong CTE supporters say it probably isn't required. Stan uses the "on a 2x1 surface" in nearly every other breath on youtube. Don't you find that curious? Stan doesn't know why people pocket balls with CTE but he uses slogans like "on a 2x1 surface" to lend credibility that there is actually a sound rationale as to why the method works, and there just isn't.

"Balls don't throw with CTE." Well, yes they do and Stan's own speed youtube proves it. It's another soundbite that falls by the wayside, another soundbite that adds to that credibility. When you look at four or five of these kinds of statements and see that they really aren't exactly true and there really isn't anything other than speculation behind them, it makes you start to wonder whether CTE is doing anything at all. Well, to be specific, Stan says CTE is a mystery that wasn't supposed to be and he makes unsubstantiated claims to bolster support for that mystery (the thing about being 100% objective). When you strip all those claims away you are left with the fact that people are pocketing balls with CTE. Why? Simplest explanation is that the brain is making it work through rote practice like most any other system, and that's what should be verified and included in the CTE sales material, not that CTE is different in that it finds the aim line for you. This is no more true than my claim that my new case will straighten out your stroke. Or, if you want to take a more neutral look at it, nobody should be making claims they cannot prove to be true.

So, from here you can continue to crusade on the topics which are important to you. There comes a point when you might understand that your efforts are outweighed by the practically of using a method that works exceptionally well. Which brings us to trust.

Can I TRUST the Center to Edge method?

Yes. Because through testing it has proven capable of everything I want from it.

And that ultimately is the bottom line. I learn it, I master it, I trust it, I use it confidently in competition with consistent results.

You make it sound like everybody who tries CTE plays better. I'd bet almost anything that far more people tried CTE and discarded it than those who benefited from it. I know of numerous people who tried it and discarded it. It simply didn't work for them.

When are we going to see a live stream of you draining all those banks?

 

[cookie man]

You make it sound like everybody who tries CTE plays better. I'd bet almost anything that far more people tried CTE and discarded it than those who benefited from it. I know of numerous people who tried it and discarded it. It simply didn't work for them.

I claim bullshit. This is the first time you've ever made this statement. In fact, you never even talk about leaving your house and going out anywhere with other people and playing. The blatant lies are adding up.