Why CTE is so controversial

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
For those that don't know me, I've been using CTE since about 2010 when I first heard about it. Before the first DVD was out, I was having discussions with Dave and Stan over the phone immersing myself in several pivot aiming systems known at the time. I was intrigued, I wanted to know more. I had never seen such a thing in pool. And here we are today. You can find a lot of information I've shared about pool in general at https://www.billiardsthegame.com/, you can see I have an interest in the game and share what I find (or devise myself) that is useful to the world.

I think it can stated clearly that CTE is the most controversial topic in the aiming forums. Maybe the most controversial topic *ever* on AZB or pool in general. Now, if you are a person that has already made up your mind that CTE is for the birds, you have to ask yourself a simple question. Why would so many people who claim CTE does exactly what it advertises to be, yet have no incentive, no skin in the game, no reason to fight... why they would do so anyway?

Speaking for myself, if I thought CTE was bogus, I would have stepped away and never came back. And to be honest, I almost did just that early on. After I read everything I could find, it didn't make much sense. I would take the information to the table, try a few things for a few minutes, and give up. And then I got the first DVD from Stan. I thought for sure this would clear things up. I watched the whole thing. All I had was question marks. This was an instructional video on pool???

However, that said, I decided to just throw caution to the wind. I took the information from the DVD, shot for shot, and practiced it. Left shots. Right shots. 15 degree perceptions, 30 degree perceptions. Over and over and over. Probably 30-60 minutes a day for a couple weeks. Then something clicked. It's like my subconscious mind started taking over on my shots. It was talking to me inside: "wait a minute! I think I see what I'm looking for here! aha! yes that worked! and again! ok, we're getting somewhere!" And from there, it just got easier and easier.

So now, the nay sayers might be thinking: why would I have to go practice a couple weeks on the table to "get it"? I have the information here, why wouldn't it just work? Truth is, CTE is a completely different way of aiming a pool ball than we have ever been taught with traditional aiming. When the instructions say "align CTEL and the 15/30 aim line, then pivot to CCB", there is a whole lot more that isn't put directly into words. As in, which eye picks up which line, left? right? one? both? Do we stand behind CCB, or Aim Line, or not? Or what? That's just it. You basically have to figure this stuff out, and the ONLY way is through repetition. That's what makes the system HARD at very first, but quickly gets EASY as your mind/perception/eyes figure out what needs to happen. You are basically retraining your brain, which is simply not possible to accomplish instantly. You have to fight off a lot of habits too, basically throw out what you think you know about aiming and trust it. Some get it faster than others, some take more time. It reminds me of the youtube video where a guy made a bicycle that turned left when you turn right. No one could ride it more than two feet! But after some determination and practice he could ride it.

Now that said, the system has also grown quite a bit over the years. Stan has added a lot of great details, better ways to understand, and more clarity. You will definitely see this in the next, and likely final, installation of CTE. I'm pretty excited that it's close to becoming a reality! I'm sure Stan is too.

THIS is what makes CTE so controversial. Those that chose the (short) gauntlet of practice understand it. They know it works because they have figured out how to connect the physical and visual elements of CTE. This is why they stick around and argue with the pundits, because they know the truth. They know that "CTE does not work because science" is just another way to say "I don't get it, and I refuse to try." CTE won't die because it really does work if you give it an honest try. I have a feeling after the book and truth series comes out, the road to victory will be much shorter for everyone anyways. Kudos to Stan for sticking it out.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Monty,

It is real simple. Science will not lose. That said, if the Placebo Effect gets you or anyone else to play better, then that is good for you & them.

Best Wishes.

PS The reason that it is so controversial is because of the outlandish claims that were/are made about it.
 
Last edited:

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Monty,

It is real simple. Science will not lose. That said, if the Placebo Effect gets you or anyone else to play better, then that is good for you & them.

Best Wishes.

PS The reason that it is so controversial is because of the outlandish claims that were/are made about it.



Placebo effects don’t pocket balls. And it’s controversial because those that understand it are willing to stand behind it. For some reason a handful of AZBers are adamant to say otherwise without an ounce of useful evidence.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Placebo effects don’t pocket balls. And it’s controversial because those that understand it are willing to stand behind it. For some reason a handful of AZBers are adamant to say otherwise without an ounce of useful evidence.

Now you are saying that something is controversial because people are willing to stand behind something.

Interesting.

Companies stand behind their products ALL of the time & they are NOT controversial.

You gave a rather good example of at least what part of the problem is.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Placebo effects don’t pocket balls. And it’s controversial because those that understand it are willing to stand behind it. For some reason a handful of AZBers are adamant to say otherwise without an ounce of useful evidence.

Apparently, you do not know much about the Placebo EFFECT.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Placebo effects don’t pocket balls. And it’s controversial because those that understand it are willing to stand behind it. For some reason a handful of AZBers are adamant to say otherwise without an ounce of useful evidence.

Now you are saying that something is controversial because people are willing to stand behind something.

Interesting.

Companies stand behind their products ALL of the time & they are NOT controversial.

You gave a rather good example of at least what part of the problem is.

No he said its controversial CAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT BUT CONTINUE TO BASH IT ANYWAYS
 

BigBoof

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks mohrt. This post is very thoughtful. My own experience with CTE was similar to yours except I had your blog to help answer my questions.

I know I am not using pure Pro One but the ball goes in center pocket more often than before and that is all I care about.

Shots like this go in with confidence. Maybe that shot is easy with any method but it feels like magic to me.

I owe you many thanks.
 
Last edited:

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It never ends...it is endless

No he said its controversial BECAUSE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT BUT CONTINUE TO BASH IT ANYWAYS
Cookie...I just cannot see why these anti-CTE people don't just leave it alone and stop with the controversy.
I could not care one flip whether or not Brian Crist uses his Poolology, or Patrick Johnson uses his "Lizard Head" movement, or Lou Figueroa complains about everything in the pool rooms he attends. They can aim, shoot, make deals or bets anyway they please.
I am not interested in "saving them from themselves" like most of them seem to try and do to the CTE people.
Yet, it goes on and on and on and on, ad nauseam. All disguised under the charades of "inquiring minds want to know" or "visitors here need to know the truth".
I swear, my man, I just don't get it.
:shrug:
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Thanks mohrt. This post is very thoughtful. My own experience with CTE was similar to yours except I had your blog to help answer my questions.
I know I am not using pure Pro One but the ball goes in center pocket more often than before and that is all I care about.
Shots like this go in with confidence. Maybe that shot is easy with any method but it feels like magic to me.
I owe you many thanks.
a9c307d25107799defc184a096a74878.jpg
And that's all that matters (what I highlighted in blue)...that makes me very happy.
And if those who use Poolology or Lizard Head Aiming or 'whatever' are happy with the results they get, then that's okay with me.
I won't be spending years knocking their ideas though....
:thumbup:
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Thanks mohrt. This post is very thoughtful. My own experience with CTE was similar to yours except I had your blog to help answer my questions.

I know I am not using pure Pro One but the ball goes in center pocket more often than before and that is all I care about.

Shots like this go in with confidence. Maybe that shot is easy with any method but it feels like magic to me.

I owe you many thanks.
a9c307d25107799defc184a096a74878.jpg

Sir,

What you just said, that I have placed in Bold Blue above, has become an issue, but at least you seem to be aware.

Many say & 'think' that they are using "IT", but I & some others have found that those who are being successful are using some variation or modification & are NOT using "IT" per the prescription.

Hence there is a placebo effect that they ARE using "IT" & that "IT" is what is working... when it is not.

It is only some aspect or aspects that have assisted them into formulating "their own" method that "works for them".

Whatever works for any individual is ONLY what should matter to most. Yet... some... want to push a product for whatever THEIR Own reason is.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to help others. I think most of us, now days, want to do that.

That said, we should NOT be giving out false information. This site should be a place where people can come for Truthful Information & Monty's site & all others should also be.

I was in product sales for some time & advertising sales too. & what is known in those industries is that people are generally willing to praise a product but hesitant & unlikely to negatively criticize a product unless specifically asked their opinion about it. Hence, for almost any product, there is more free praise of it given than negative criticism.

With that shot there is more distance for collision induced throw to cause the ball to miss the pocket than if the OB was close to the pocket. Also, generally speaking most hit that shot 'less hard' which would put more CIT onto the OB.
NO 'system' "inherently" counters all of the variations regarding the relationship of CIT to speed along with the angle of the shot.

What does that is our own subconscious mind based on "experience" or a conscious effort based on the "scientific" knowledge.

What has also helped is what was in the past called 'tricks' as in here is the 'trick' to making that shot. etc.

Best Wishes.
 
Last edited:

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The future is bright...in spite of the doomsayers

Here’s the CTE controversy in a nutshell. Stan Shuffett declared many years ago that CTE resolves THE center cue ball for nearly all shots.
The so-called scientists say that the only center cue ball that can be resolved in pool is for a 100% dead-on zero angle shot to a perfectly marked center pocket. All other shots are essentially cuts that must have a degree of feel for arriving at center cue ball.
The phenomenon of CTE changes the existing aiming paradigm in that nearly all shots can have a defined, objective CCB just like a dead-on straight-in shot. If Stan is correct in his declaration, it changes the game of pool forever in a way that perception will rule over existing science. But today’s "Aiming Police" should have no fear because there will be a day in the future when science will unravel the perceptions of CTE with a huge stamp of approval.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
What I find controversial is the terminology, the standard talking points that Hal came up with and Stan simply held on to. I understand why though....If you don't truly understand something, you just stick to repeating how someone else described it.

I don't have a problem with its true lack of objectivity, or the exact workings of the results. I don't care about advertising gimmicks, false advertising, or whatever the "anti-cte" side calls it. It's the whole, "2 × 1 playing surface", and "connects to right angles", that makes me shake my head. The perceptions can be achieved anywhere you can set two balls up and look at them. Stan even says he doesn't have to see the rails/cushions or pockets in order to use the system, which means the balls are the only elements needed to achieve the "perceptions".

I can use it and pocket balls. Objectively, however, strictly in accordance with Stan's instructions, I can't make it work for all shots. Maybe it's because there are specific bridge distances that must be used here and there, or not exactly a half tip pivot here and there. I don't know. But I have always been curious, and curiosity leads to experiments, which leads to questions, which leads to getting caught up in 20yr aiming war that I really don't give a damn about.

Stan is a good guy, a good instructor. Some people use cte and probably play great, though it seems most of these players were already great before. But that doesn't mean it can't improve a non-great player's game. If it works for you then that's awesome. If it doesn't, and you've put in some table time trying to figure it out, move on, unless you wanna invest in a private lesson. It seems that those who've taken a personal lesson from Stan benefit much more than those of us who've spent hours and hours watching YouTube lessons. Like I've said before....maybe there's something that in the past could only be taught in person, and the truth series and upcoming book is designed to make it easier to learn than it has been.
 
Last edited:

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mohrt

The fact you (and most people) aren’t able to successfully employ the system at first speaks volumes about its lack of objectivity.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Monty & All,

Six or seven years ago when I first heard what Stan Shuffett's CTE was supposed to be... I was intrigued & a bit excited. Why not? Who would not want a way to aim pool shots that is totally objective in its nature?

I was new to AZB when I had heard that assertion(claim). So... I was a newbie & had NOT yet formed ANY determination regarding Mr. Shuffett's CTE. So... Mr. Shuffett offered to give me Free Lessons in CTE at his facility in Kentucky. I could not accept as I had not long before ruptured the L5 disc in my back & I was NOT doing any traveling.

So... I asked if I should buy the then current DVD or wait for the upcoming new DVD that was supposed to clear some things up, etc. I was advised to wait for the New DVD.

While waiting, I went onto YouTube to watch Mr. Shuffett's videos on CTE. I came across His Video on 'Perception' where he had 5 like shots with equal distances between the CBs & Obs lined up across the width of the table parallel to the side rails. He indicated that ALL 5 shot could be made using the same defined 15 visual & the same defined 1/2 tip offset thinning pivot.

My intelligence & science education immediately told me, "NO WAY!". I immediately knew right then & there that Mr. Shuffett's "whatever' was in no way what it was said to be... & that there would be nothing forthcoming to show it to be such.

However, Mr. Shuffett seems very sincere & speaks rather authoritatively. So... I went the table & set up the first 3 shots & shot them. That physical reality solidified what my intelligence & science education had previously told me. Different results can NOT be had by using the same process with the same defined parameters. The results were & are that the OB exists at the same angle & hence the different shots can NOT be made by the same process with the same defined parameters. There is no "phenomena" where the balls 'present' themselves differently depending on where they are on the table.

That & another like video has relatively recently been taken down. I do not know why.

So... that is my story.

I have decided that given the climate, I will send you my example in PM. I wish I could post it here for everyone, but that's nota good idea at this time.

Best Wishes.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Mohrt

The fact you (and most people) aren’t able to successfully employ the system at first speaks volumes about its lack of objectivity.

Sometimes what people think is "objective" is merely their own subjective bias making it feel like what they are doing is objective. Like juggling. I learned to juggle through practice until my brain was able to make it happen automatically. I feel like I don't estimate or use personal judgment/opinion when I do this, but that doesn't make it objective.
 

ENGLISH!

Banned
Silver Member
Cookie...I just cannot see why these anti-CTE people don't just leave it alone and stop with the controversy.
I could not care one flip whether or not Brian Crist uses his Poolology, or Patrick Johnson uses his "Lizard Head" movement, or Lou Figueroa complains about everything in the pool rooms he attends. They can aim, shoot, make deals or bets anyway they please.
I am not interested in "saving them from themselves" like most of them seem to try and do to the CTE people.
Yet, it goes on and on and on and on, ad nauseam. All disguised under the charades of "inquiring minds want to know" or "visitors here need to know the truth".
I swear, my man, I just don't get it.
:shrug:

I, & I think most if not all, do not care at all what you are anyone else uses. Have at it & be happy.

What is cared about is The Truth & what amounts to false 'advertising' by proclaiming something to be what it is not.

AZB & other sites should be places where individuals can come to get Truthful Information or at least information that is not known to be scientifically incorrect.

If ANYONE knows the Truthful Facts & wants to try ANYTHNG, then they have at least made a Truthfully Informed Decision to do so...

& have not been enticed to do so by inaccurate declarations.

Have at & be Happy.

A Simple Truthful Statement by Mr. Shuffett can make what you don't like go away. All that need be said is. CTE by Stan Shuffett does require subjective interpretations, analysis, & input just as all other methods do. He can then say that given all of the time & work that he has put in, that in his opinion, His CTE is one of, if not the, Best such Methods.

Who can disagree with that?
 
Top