best cte videos on youtube?

L

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You forced me into this, you brought it on yourself.

Hal did not make calls to anyone first.
He only talked to those who called him at his number left on RSB or a call back once the person already contacted him. He didn't search out numbers through 411 to make cold calls to strangers. He didn't know where everyone lived to make the calls. But here you are again still posting in a pool forum about Hal and CTE just like 20 years ago.
The stuff you posted (in blue) should bring back fond memories. It's certainly not your first derogatory post about CTE or Hal but it's right at the 20 year mark. Have a fun time reminiscing. Too bad you've wasted your life and haven't been able to let it go.
From: Patrick Johnson <Patrick_mem...@newsguy.com>
Date: 1999/06/29
Subject: Re: Houle - Very Loooong!
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message
"Swami PT Barnum Houle says:"
>Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7,
>4 x 8, 4 ½ x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is
>wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from
>the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45
>degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond
>on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you
>lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end
>rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3
>angles, they total 90 degrees, which is the same angle formed by the
>table corners.

This is the biggest crock of transcendental pool bull I've ever heard. Even
worse than I imagined. Is this really the line (including hook and sinker) you
Houle Pool suckers... er, students are buying? Does he do seances, too? Can he
channel Efren through me for the Chicago RSB Shootout?
You know, if you count up your fingers and toes and subtract the number of tries
it took to get it right, that leaves sixteen... exactly the number of balls in
pool! Weird, huh? You don't think that's an accident, do you?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
 
lfigueroa

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hal was quite familiar with the interweb (other than a proclivity to type in all caps) and was reaching out to a number of folks on RSB:

HalHoule
LOU, I WILL MAKE IT A POINT TO BE IN YOUR AREA IN MAY. GIVE ME AN ADDRESS OF A
POOL ROOM WHERE WE CAN MEET. WHEN I REACH YOUR AREA, I WILL SEND YOU AN EMAIL
TO LFIG...@ATT.NET
HAL

Lou Figueroa
there’s more
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Anybody who "chases" CTE threads for 20, or more, years in order to belittle its users is sick in the head, if you ask me.

There are three or so members on here who fit that category.

Everybody on every pool internet forum knows exactly who I'm talking about.

If they don't believe in CTE, or can't make it work, they should do whatever it is they think works best for them and quit coming into threads and starting shit.
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
In case anybody missed the interesting part of Low's post:

Hal Houle in his own words:

"Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 ½ x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees, which is the same angle formed by the table corners."
Click to expand...
This is Hal himself describing the "thinking" behind his famous "3-angle" system - the foundation that CTE is built on.

He must've left out the part about sacrificing a chicken...

lol

Even though Hal's thinking was hilarious, he was at least able and willing to describe it, unlike today's CTEdiots. I still think of him as a nice but deluded guy (who could play pool).

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson

Patrick Johnson

Fish of the Day
Silver Member
P.S. In case you think Hal's numerology nonsense actually means something, here's a few corrections to his "math":

"Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 ½ x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45 degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. (<- Nope, that's about 26.5 degrees) When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. (<- Nope, that's about 14 degrees) When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90 degrees (<- Nope, they total about 85.5 degrees), which is the same angle formed by the table corners."
Click to expand...

Yes, I still think he was a nice guy.

pj
chgo
 
Dan White

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
cookie man said:
Name calling = A sure sign that a liberal is losing the argument
Click to expand...

Ironically, I generally agree with you about liberals and politics, but this is a clear "kettle calling the pot black" situation. Is there anybody you haven't called stupid in this thead?
 
cookie man

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan White said:
Ironically, I generally agree with you about liberals and politics, but this is a clear "kettle calling the pot black" situation. Is there anybody you haven't called stupid in this thead?
Click to expand...

Only called you stupid actually. Are you trying to say you didn't deserve it.
 
Dan White

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
cookie man said:
Only called you stupid actually. Are you trying to say you didn't deserve it.
Click to expand...

You also implied that Brian was stupid without using the word. Of course then there are all of your posts which clearly show you to be a moron, but I would never actually call you a moron because that is an ad hominem attack and is against forum rules, kind of like how you call me stupid without repercussion so I guess we're even (even though your attack was unprovoked).
 
cookie man

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan White said:
You also implied that Brian was stupid without using the word. Of course then there are all of your posts which clearly show you to be a moron, but I would never actually call you a moron because that is an ad hominem attack and is against forum rules, kind of like how you call me stupid without repercussion so I guess we're even (even though your attack was unprovoked).
Click to expand...

I don't think i implied that about Brian at all. Of course misinterpreting is a skill you have though. Brian and I are ok.
You guys started with the name calling and such. I just gave it back which it seems you can't seem to handle someone firing back at you.
Go back and read your posts last Sunday i believe. Some pretty stupid ones in there along with some major misinterpreting and misrepresenting by you.
I would suggest you read them again, and then just go away.
Why are you so fascinated by CTE again that it consumes you.
JUST WAIT FOR THE BOOK.
 
Dan White

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
cookie man said:
JUST WAIT FOR THE BOOK.
Click to expand...

I told Stan 3 years ago that I'd wait for the book instead of having to listen to his non-answers over and over. I held to that for quite awhile. That was three years ago. Three...years... and then he comes out with a video stating that his book was not going to address the question that has caused all the arguing. So what dispute is the book going to solve when it isn't going to address the very question that is causing it?
 
cookie man

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan White said:
I told Stan 3 years ago that I'd wait for the book instead of having to listen to his non-answers over and over. I held to that for quite awhile. That was three years ago. Three...years... and then he comes out with a video stating that his book was not going to address the question that has caused all the arguing. So what dispute is the book going to solve when it isn't going to address the very question that is causing it?
Click to expand...

Again, you are misinterpreting what Stan said in the video. Everything you can imagine about the system will be thoroughly explained in the book. But, if you really think the book won't resolve anything in your mind, why not just let it go and get on with your life?
If the book takes another 3 years are you going to spend the next 3 years obsessing?

The "how" it works will be explained thoroughly.
The "why" it works we may never know. And most of us will never care.
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Dan White said:
So what dispute is the book going to solve when it isn't going to address the very question that is causing it?
Click to expand...

So, what is your incessant badgering on here going to do about anything?

Why don't you let it die?

Are you obsessed?

Do you need an intervention of some sort?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top