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

[JB Cases]

That would be incorrect. Here's a very respectful video I made 5 years ago that you commented on liberally. The point of the video, in a nutshell, is that hiding the pockets does not prove that CTE is doing some amazing thing that cannot be done any other way.

You don't even listen to yourself do you? First, you were NOT respectful, you were dismissive. No one said CTE is magic other than YOU and your fellow critics.

Secondly you said if you have been playing long enough you just know where the balls need to go. This is incorrect in the way that you meant it but correct in the sense that the pockets are fixed positions. You assume that there is a "long enough" that would reach the proficiency level to pocket balls blindly and I guess that you think you have reached that level because you pocketed two shots.

However, and thirdly, you don't see the significance of what you said when you said in reference to the second shot that you had spent 10-15 minutes figuring them out and that because the object ball is on a hole reinforcer that you determined that the aim point is "just off to the side of the one ball and if the left edge of my shaft is pointing to the edge of the one ball that's about the right spot". You literally discovered AND USED objective reference points based on ONE cueball-object ball set up to get lined up properly for that shot. Of course no one knows, other than 10-15 minutes you said you spent learning the two shots, how many times it took you to make both shots on video while delivering your spiel. But what we do know is that you identified and used objective aiming to make the second shot.

Now you want to tell me that this is the equivalent demonstration to Stan's proof of concept demonstrations? Come on Dan, you can't seriously believe this. I will give you 2:1 on the money if you want to go to Stan's house and do curtain shots against him. In the meantime when you duplicate these videos WITHOUT using objective aiming I will concede that you proved your point. Until now you've only been disingenuous about it. Your "respectful" video was a thinly disguised way of slandering Stan by implying that he did something that anyone can easily do with not much effort.

for this one I am confident in saying that you have NO CHANCE.

 

[JB Cases]

Is it "shoe fit" ?

Nope.

 

[JB Cases]

You are writing checks that Stan's ass account may be shy to cash.

That would be up to Stan. I am indicating my confidence in his mastery of this aiming method and the fundamentals to perform under pressure. Do you want to bet something?

 

[JB Cases]

Give me credit from the two DVDs I bought toward it and I'll pick up a copy. I would love to understand it but don't want to be fooled a third time.

I will. Send me the DVDs and I will buy them from you for the price you paid.

 

[JB Cases]

Joey, with all due respect, and I mean that, you are mischaracterizing the argument. I'll give you an example since you bring up banking. Let's say you never heard of Stan and had no idea of his reputation, good or bad. You watch the video and think, "wow this must be a great aiming method if I can make all those banks"! Well, there is a thing called conflict of interest or full disclosure. You look into the player's background and find out that he did nothing but play bank pool from the age of 8 to 16, played banks at a professional level and considers it his best game, and all of this decades before he even heard of CTE. Isn't that something pretty important to disclose?

So what's the solution? You find a student that hasn't learned CTE yet and video him attempting a few dozen bank shots. Then you teach him CTE and then show another video of him now making all those bank shots. Wouldn't that be more convincing? Stan's bank videos are meaningless. A bank video from an inexperience student would be convincing. I say inexperienced because according to CTE you only have to learn how to align to the cue ball so banking should be almost the same as making a straight shot.

IF the intention was to deceive then the person making the video wouldn't have disclosed his experience banking at all. Joey is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong here.

Stan has NEVER said that banking successfully is achievable by the use of CTE without relevant experience (pool sense Stan calls it) in knowing when to hit the shot firm and when to add spin/speed to avoid a kiss. He has said the EXACT opposite in fact and stressed the importance of a solid bridge and straight and smooth stroke. He has clearly stated that knowledge of ball reactions off the rail are needed and that CTE gives a shot line but the player must know the other factors and when to apply what. The only mischaracterizing happening here is you attempting yet again to imply that Stan is selling snake-oil. After all that was the purpose of your "Well, there is a thing called conflict of interest or full disclosure" comment wasn't it?

It's simply amazing to me that your go to for what you don't understand is that the presenter must be a quack. Especially since it's clear that you can play a little. That you have the gall to say that Stan's video is meaningless because he is an experienced banker is like saying a driving demonstration by Michael Shumacher is meaningless because he is a world champion driver. A video is not at all meaningless if it imparts information that can be helpful to others. Since CTE works as advertised any video which encourages or inspires interested students of the game to learn it is by default meaningful.

I mean if you didn't know Stan or CTE or these threads and you saw a guy bank fifteen balls without missing you would likely be quite impressed. If the same guy then banked ten in a row without even seeing half of the table you should be more impressed. If that same guy then says I do this because I use an aiming system then you OUGHT to want to find out more about it.

Here is the flip side of your "full disclosure" attempted slur....what if the demonstrator said I started banking balls at 8 and by fifteen I was one of the best around, I think it's my best game.............but with this aiming system I am banking more than I ever have and with more accuracy and confidence. I bet you can find fault with that statement as well.

FInally, YES it would be great to have before/after video of someone doing a comprehensive performance test before and after mastering CTE. Would that then convince you of merit? I think not. But such a video would be in addition to Stan's demonstrations and would not in any way supercede those demonstrations as proof of concept. In both cases there are variables that a committed skeptic would build conspiracies around. You don't believe the dozens of posters who have reported proficiency gains after learning CTE so why would we think that you would be satisfied with a video? I know you will never but please consider stopping this silly passive-aggressive nonsense. I personally feel that you are fairly intelligent and well-spoken but that you have chosen to label CTE users as religious zealots and your tone makes it abundantly clear that you don't think CTE is worthwhile to pursue at all.

I do still think that you could benefit from spending time with Stan. I believe you are capable of changing your mind. I have spent time with better players than me who didn't "get" CTE and who had pooh-poohed it. Once they did "see it" though it was amazing to watch their eyes light up. A recent comment made to me by a player 90 Fargo points above me was, "this is the first time that I really KNOW that the shot is aimed right". Really take a moment to absorb what that means. I am a 610, Dennis Orcullo is an 810. A 710 is a VERY GOOD player. When a player of that caliber says that this is the first time that KNOW FOR SURE that they are the are on the right line that is a significant thing to say because to express it is to say he always felt doubt DESPITE performing at a high level. And if a player at that speed has doubt throughout the shots he takes then what must those below his level be feeling? And when a player of that speed is inspired to EXPRESS the confidence felt that should be a clear indicator that there is something worthwhile to the method.

Or......you could say it's all a Jedi mind trick.

 

[straightline]

Lol, you are clearly uninformed. The proof is on the table. If you think that Stan's demonstrated shotmaking is all just "high percentage shot at "cinch" speed" then go ahead and demonstrate equal proficiency. Go for it. Set up your curtain and show us.

I must be uninformed as to what I am uninformed of. I see the same old shoot straight poser routines everybody does. If you require visual rebuttal then clearly you lack the pool knowledge and logic to correctly relay whatever it is CTE might be.

 

[JB Cases]

I must be uninformed as to what I am uninformed of. I see the same old shoot straight poser routines everybody does. If you require visual rebuttal then clearly you lack the pool knowledge and logic to correctly relay whatever it is CTE might be.

Just do it. I can't, yet. To me your argument is akin to watching Usain Bolt crushing the 100 meter and when he explains the technique he used you dismiss it with, "he ran faster than everyone else". The proof is on the table.

 

[Dan White]

You don't even listen to yourself do you? First, you were NOT respectful, you were dismissive. No one said CTE is magic other than YOU and your fellow critics.

Secondly you said if you have been playing long enough you just know where the balls need to go. This is incorrect in the way that you meant it but correct in the sense that the pockets are fixed positions. You assume that there is a "long enough" that would reach the proficiency level to pocket balls blindly and I guess that you think you have reached that level because you pocketed two shots.

I know this is correct because I have played long enough to demonstrate it. When I am warmed up and playing well I don't miss really at all, much less due to aiming wrong.

However, and thirdly, you don't see the significance of what you said when you said in reference to the second shot that you had spent 10-15 minutes figuring them out and that because the object ball is on a hole reinforcer that you determined that the aim point is "just off to the side of the one ball and if the left edge of my shaft is pointing to the edge of the one ball that's about the right spot". You literally discovered AND USED objective reference points based on ONE cueball-object ball set up to get lined up properly for that shot. Of course no one knows, other than 10-15 minutes you said you spent learning the two shots, how many times it took you to make both shots on video while delivering your spiel. But what we do know is that you identified and used objective aiming to make the second shot.

Of course there are "objective reference points" like a half ball hit. It's just that they cannot all be as such. The only shot I had to hit a few times to dial in was the third shot. The other two were ducks and I made the video in one take. Not bad for a guy who had NEVER hit a blind shot ever before.

Now you want to tell me that this is the equivalent demonstration to Stan's proof of concept demonstrations? Come on Dan, you can't seriously believe this. I will give you 2:1 on the money if you want to go to Stan's house and do curtain shots against him. In the meantime when you duplicate these videos WITHOUT using objective aiming I will concede that you proved your point. Until now you've only been disingenuous about it. Your "respectful" video was a thinly disguised way of slandering Stan by implying that he did something that anyone can easily do with not much effort.

You are putting words in my mouth. The concept of my video was simple. Let me spell it out again: To newby players, be aware that the ability to pocket balls blind is not some magic trick that can only be accomplished with CTE and it is not proof that all shots are objective.

 

[Dan White]

IF the intention was to deceive then the person making the video wouldn't have disclosed his experience banking at all. Joey is 100% correct and you are 100% wrong here.

Stan has NEVER said that banking successfully is achievable by the use of CTE without relevant experience (pool sense Stan calls it) in knowing when to hit the shot firm and when to add spin/speed to avoid a kiss. He has said the EXACT opposite in fact and stressed the importance of a solid bridge and straight and smooth stroke. He has clearly stated that knowledge of ball reactions off the rail are needed and that CTE gives a shot line but the player must know the other factors and when to apply what. The only mischaracterizing happening here is you attempting yet again to imply that Stan is selling snake-oil. After all that was the purpose of your "Well, there is a thing called conflict of interest or full disclosure" comment wasn't it?

You can't have it both ways. You can't say on one hand that every perception sends the ob to a different pocket and then on the other hand say you can't make bank shots with CTE without knowledge of speed and spin. What does "CTE gives a shot line" mean? Either it sends the ball to the pocket or it doesn't.

It's simply amazing to me that your go to for what you don't understand is that the presenter must be a quack. Especially since it's clear that you can play a little. That you have the gall to say that Stan's video is meaningless because he is an experienced banker is like saying a driving demonstration by Michael Shumacher is meaningless because he is a world champion driver. A video is not at all meaningless if it imparts information that can be helpful to others. Since CTE works as advertised any video which encourages or inspires interested students of the game to learn it is by default meaningful.

I mean if you didn't know Stan or CTE or these threads and you saw a guy bank fifteen balls without missing you would likely be quite impressed. If the same guy then banked ten in a row without even seeing half of the table you should be more impressed. If that same guy then says I do this because I use an aiming system then you OUGHT to want to find out more about it.

You don't seem to follow what I am saying. You go a bridge too far.

Here is the flip side of your "full disclosure" attempted slur....what if the demonstrator said I started banking balls at 8 and by fifteen I was one of the best around, I think it's my best game.............but with this aiming system I am banking more than I ever have and with more accuracy and confidence. I bet you can find fault with that statement as well.

I think that statement is what I have been asking for in the video. It is called full disclosure so that the viewer can make a more informed conclusion about what they are seeing. Stan is basically presenting scientific evidence. This kind of disclosure is a bare minimum requirement for that sort of thing.

FInally, YES it would be great to have before/after video of someone doing a comprehensive performance test before and after mastering CTE. Would that then convince you of merit? I think not. But such a video would be in addition to Stan's demonstrations and would not in any way supercede those demonstrations as proof of concept. In both cases there are variables that a committed skeptic would build conspiracies around. You don't believe the dozens of posters who have reported proficiency gains after learning CTE so why would we think that you would be satisfied with a video? I know you will never but please consider stopping this silly passive-aggressive nonsense. I personally feel that you are fairly intelligent and well-spoken but that you have chosen to label CTE users as religious zealots and your tone makes it abundantly clear that you don't think CTE is worthwhile to pursue at all.

Forgive me, but the fact that you don't seem to be able to demonstrate the banks with CTE after decades of promoting it speaks volumes. In fact, nobody but world class banker Stan has demonstrated it. If banking with CTE requires such a level of adjustment in speed and/or spin that only a world class banker can do it then what good is it for banking?

I do still think that you could benefit from spending time with Stan. I believe you are capable of changing your mind. I have spent time with better players than me who didn't "get" CTE and who had pooh-poohed it. Once they did "see it" though it was amazing to watch their eyes light up. A recent comment made to me by a player 90 Fargo points above me was, "this is the first time that I really KNOW that the shot is aimed right". Really take a moment to absorb what that means. I am a 610, Dennis Orcullo is an 810. A 710 is a VERY GOOD player. When a player of that caliber says that this is the first time that KNOW FOR SURE that they are the are on the right line that is a significant thing to say because to express it is to say he always felt doubt DESPITE performing at a high level. And if a player at that speed has doubt throughout the shots he takes then what must those below his level be feeling? And when a player of that speed is inspired to EXPRESS the confidence felt that should be a clear indicator that there is something worthwhile to the method.

Or......you could say it's all a Jedi mind trick.

I appreciate your comment. We can agree on one thing. There is "knowing" a shot because you've done it many times and you put trust in your brain to execute it properly, and then there is knowing a shot because you have a reference system to fall back on. There are many of these for position play moreso than for aiming. So I can be in a certain position and know where the cue ball will end up because you've practiced that shot in drills and you recognize it. Ultimately we play in the former mode, allowing the game to flow and trusting that you know what you are doing, at least for most of the shots.

CTE is deceptive at first. It can work for many shots depending on the set up and distance, but ultimately it is the player who does what is necessary to pocket balls, IMO.

 

[Dan White]

Just do it. I can't, yet. To me your argument is akin to watching Usain Bolt crushing the 100 meter and when he explains the technique he used you dismiss it with, "he ran faster than everyone else". The proof is on the table.

It's more like Bolt doing a youtube video saying how fast his new shoes are and implying that with a little practice running and getting into good shape that these fast shoes will allow you to set a new speed record. He doesn't tell you that he set the record with a different set of shoes and that nobody else wearing these shoes is capable of it, either. Maybe it is the guy running and not the shoes?

 

[bbb]

some things never change

 

[lfigueroa]

Lol, you are clearly uninformed. The proof is on the table. If you think that Stan's demonstrated shotmaking is all just "high percentage shot at "cinch" speed" then go ahead and demonstrate equal proficiency. Go for it. Set up your curtain and show us.

I will be happy to go to Stan's with you and bring 10k to bet. Stan can throw out balls randomly and bank them in easily assuming that the shot is possible. You don't get what you are seeing and likely never will. I have seen it in person while challenging him for hours. I tried to trip him up and find holes in the method. I used every criticism that the critics have tossed out there in the past 10 years, the same ones they used 24 years ago. I have offered to pay for the flights and expenses of the critics to go spend time with Stan. Not a single one of them on here has taken that opportunity. Now I wouldn't pay a quarter to help any one of these vile worthless excuses for humans.

I don't mind probing questions. I mind malicious destructive activity and especially when it's done with pleasure and glee. I have always felt that when someone says something is good they ought to be able to back it up and for me Stan and Hal and many other instructors teaching objective aiming system have been able to back up what they say.

Not a single person who claims that they aim by feel/intuition/instinct has ever duplicated the demonstrations Stan has put out there. Not Lou, Not JoeyinCali, not Duckie (ESPECIALLY NOT DUCKIE), not Pat Johnson, not Dan White, none of them. Not a single one to my knowledge has demonstrated that they can achieve the same results WITHOUT the use of an objective aiming method. Not Dr. Dave, not Bob Jewett, none of them. And for the record I am deeply grateful to the body of work put out by Jewett and Dr. Dave. I think Dr. Dave has contributed a ton of great material to the pool world. But not even he has duplicated Stan's demonstrations which would be a logical thing for a critic to do in my opinion. James Randi spent his life debunking so-called mystics and snake-oil pushers. He offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who could prove the existence of psychic ability and to date no one has been able to win that money. Along the way though he has actively criticized and debunked those who claim psychic ability by revealing the methods behind the tricks they use. Randi was an accomplished magician with a deep understanding of the mechanics involved. So to me when these CTE critics want to attempt to debunk CTE then they should prove that they understand the mechanics OR that they at the very least could say that they can achieve the same consistent results by whatever conventional aiming methods they claim to use. Ought to be easy for them right?

No matter though. Every single post you and them make in these threads only serves as a reason to continue the thread and subsequently piques interest for the readers and creates new students of the Center to Edge method of aiming. You can argue academically all day but for the students of the CTE method the proof is on the table not on the chalkboard.

You know, it's great that Stan can do it but what about guys like you?

You're the target audience for his material.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Yep consumed the group, thanks for the zillion ad impressions. Best ten k I ever spent on marketing.

You ever see an ad during the Super Bowl and say, "Wow! That was a great commercial."

But when someone asks you what company the commercial was for you go, "I dunno... but it was a great ad!"

Lou Figueroa

 

[JC]

I will. Send me the DVDs and I will buy them from you for the price you paid.

I only currently have one of them, I resold the other one here cheap years ago. So from a financial standpoint they weren't a 100% loss but they were a complete waste of my time.

I tried giving DVD2 to one of my pool sparring partners and he got a restraining order.

On an unrelated subject can you build me this camo pattern case in a 4x8?

 

[justadub]

No one is really using CTE, whatever they claim or think.

BTW, I think its great how all of a sudden all the "Children of the Night" have come out to play again. Stan must have done one hell of a Bella Lugosi impression, lol.

Lou Figueroa

I will admit that I came into this thread to see who all was here and barking...not disappointed...

 

[lfigueroa]

I will admit that I came into this thread to see who all was here and barking...not disappointed...

it’s like being in a George Romero movie.

Lou Figueroa

 

[gazman100]

I will admit that I came into this thread to see who all was here and barking...not disappointed...

Justadab :
I dig your thumbnail.

 

[bbb]

is it possible
lou/dan/joey/patrick hope i am not missing anyone
could start a thread
here is why cte is bs
and stay out of the threads by the cte people
it would give you ample space to post your views
the cte guys could or could not respond
and whoever is interested in cte
can have a thread NOT DERAILED by you guys on both sides that have argued for over 20 years now
PLEASE
PRETTY PLEASE

just askin nicely

 

[straightline]

some things never change

Consistency is everything. Starting a separate thread would be conspiring to bash. And of course the prooners would have to snark. Most of them are on "there's no such thing as bad publicity" anyway. There's enough infomercial wafting off these threads. The critics just supply resistance to any budding consumer fraud.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I only currently have one of them, I resold the other one here cheap years ago. So from a financial standpoint they weren't a 100% loss but they were a complete waste of my time.

I tried giving DVD2 to one of my pool sparring partners and he got a restraining order.

On an unrelated subject can you build me this camo pattern case in a 4x8?

What's so complicated ? ABC is left to right , no matter where you cut the ball.
2 DVD's later, another 440 page is needed to explain it ?
The Houligans insisted it was a simple system. Heck, you could get it over the phone .