CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It’s been posted here several times. Did you ever understand the info? No you haven’t. Mohrt tried to walk you through it, did you bother learning or did you go off onto other things that you “think” happens?

Why are you interested anyways? You’ve put very little effort into learning CTE but you haven’t got it and have admitted you really aren’t interested in learning it. Why not just go sit next to the fool on the hill and share your jelly beans with him.

I understand the problem now. You seem to think a set of instructions is proof.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Funny how the one thing you left out of your post is how CTE is any different from the jelly bean method. There is a connection between the table and Poolology. The geometry is there in black and white. I claim my jelly beans are the ingredient that puts the player on the shot line but I can't prove it yet. Stan claims Pro1 puts the player on the shot line but he can't prove it, either. Playing better after focused practice is not proof that this system or that system had much of anything to do with it.
Actually Stan CAN prove it through demonstration. He can give instruction in CTE-speak to a student and the student will use that information to get on the shot line. What you MEAN to say is that Stan has not, to date, provided you want any 2d diagram along with a formula that encompasses the steps in the CTE method whereby a user goes from visual analysis to the shooting position on the center ball shot line.

What you mean to say is that absent of that "evidence" being supplied then no amount of practical and measurable success by those who use the method is going to be sufficient to conclude that the method can or does work as claimed.

Just to be clear. If you and Stan each pick a beginner player and Stan teaches that player how to aim with CTE and you teach them the "jelly bean" method then Stan's student will outperform yours by a very large margin. Absurdity to make a point fails when taken to the table. That's the underlying point here. The table doesn't lie about it. Most people are self-aware enough to see the difference clearly when they apply different methods of aiming. If the results are not what they want or expect then they have the process to check and make sure they are following the directions correctly and if they have any issue with any part they have others to rely on for help. Once they have mastered each part they are then able to apply the method correctly.

So with that in mind there is no period of time which you would ever be able to teach your beginner students any form of your JellyBean method EVEN if it included ghost ball and have them beat Stan's beginner students in a shot making contest.

So, your claim that your jelly bean methods puts YOU on the shot line cannot be proven disproven. We can however test the efficacy and score the results and prove adequately that your method produces massively less accuracy than CTE over a broad range of shots including banks shots.

Furthermore, we could prove that Stan could transmit the correct information to quickly and accurately get on the shot line remotely just by viewing an overhead diagram of the shot. His students would get on the correct shot line more often and faster than your students would. In other words they would be more likely to make the shots they face, more likely to get shape after pocketing and thus more likely to run out when they have the opportunity. And that would be the comparison between your "unprovable" jelly bean method and the (to you) unprovable CTE method of aiming.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yet another word you don't understand.

pj
chgo
Context is important, CAN in terms of practicality. You won't do any sort of shot making making contest to compare the efficacy of your Fidget To Get it method. Practicality is a word you don't get.

Stan CAN prove that CTE works extremely well. Not only does he demonstrate excellent proficiency and accuracy, his dedicated students also demonstrate proficiency and accuracy in aiming. I am confident that a comparative test of methods as I described above would prove satisfactory to most viewers. In fact I plan to do exactly this in a series of videos. In one of them I plan to describe the fidget to get it method to the students and test them for their skill in applying to see how effective it is. I will apply all of the criteria that I have laid out here so many times and test all proposed methods and invite anyone who wants to help to do so.

So you will get credit for the method you use to aim. I will do my best to represent your position correctly. I predict that the Fidget to Get It method will not be among the favored methods but if the experiment shows otherwise everyone will know it.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually Stan CAN prove it through demonstration. He can give instruction in CTE-speak to a student and the student will use that information to get on the shot line.
You are saying that the proof that it works is that the student pockets balls. That is like observing that the sun crosses the sky and using that as proof that the sun orbits around the earth. It is an easy mistake to make.

What you MEAN to say is that Stan has not, to date, provided you want any 2d diagram along with a formula that encompasses the steps in the CTE method whereby a user goes from visual analysis to the shooting position on the center ball shot line.
No. What I mean to say is what I said. Stan makes claims he cannot back up. I'd accept any form of proof that show you can do the exact same thing for two different angled shots and make both.

What you mean to say is that absent of that "evidence" being supplied then no amount of practical and measurable success by those who use the method is going to be sufficient to conclude that the method can or does work as claimed.

Just to be clear. If you and Stan each pick a beginner player and Stan teaches that player how to aim with CTE and you teach them the "jelly bean" method then Stan's student will outperform yours by a very large margin.
And you know this how?

Absurdity to make a point fails when taken to the table. That's the underlying point here. The table doesn't lie about it. Most people are self-aware enough to see the difference clearly when they apply different methods of aiming. If the results are not what they want or expect then they have the process to check and make sure they are following the directions correctly and if they have any issue with any part they have others to rely on for help. Once they have mastered each part they are then able to apply the method correctly.
Here's another test. Stan has some set up shots used to teach the method, right? I don't have the book but I'm guessing he has 15 degree and 30 degree, etc shots that will go if you perform the CTE steps. If you take two students and have one of them learn CTE and tell the other one to focus on making the ball and forget any CTE stuff, you would have interesting results with enough students participating. Mind you this still does not prove how CTE works but it might show that there is something about how shots are approached using CTE that does improve shot making.

So with that in mind there is no period of time which you would ever be able to teach your beginner students any form of your JellyBean method EVEN if it included ghost ball and have them beat Stan's beginner students in a shot making contest.
Again, you are making an assumption.

So, your claim that your jelly bean methods puts YOU on the shot line cannot be proven disproven. We can however test the efficacy and score the results and prove adequately that your method produces massively less accuracy than CTE over a broad range of shots including banks shots.
Well, that's the question.
Furthermore, we could prove that Stan could transmit the correct information to quickly and accurately get on the shot line remotely just by viewing an overhead diagram of the shot. His students would get on the correct shot line more often and faster than your students would. In other words they would be more likely to make the shots they face, more likely to get shape after pocketing and thus more likely to run out when they have the opportunity. And that would be the comparison between your "unprovable" jelly bean method and the (to you) unprovable CTE method of aiming.
It strikes me that you want it both ways. You say it cannot be diagrammed (probably because what Stan claims is impossible) but when it comes to recognizing shots they can be diagrammed. So maybe it can be partially diagrammed. That's the problem. When a guy makes a wild ass claim that defies known science he leaves the door open to silly arguments.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
You are saying that the proof that it works is that the student pockets balls. That is like observing that the sun crosses the sky and using that as proof that the sun orbits around the earth. It is an easy mistake to make.
No, I am saying that Stan and others can demonstrate the usage and if the assumption is that they are telling the truth about about using the method then it proves FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES that the method is effective. A group of CTE players can communicate to each other the EXACT way to apply the method for any makeable shot. A group of Dan White jellybean method users will NOT have the same effectiveness in my opinion.

No. What I mean to say is what I said. Stan makes claims he cannot back up. I'd accept any form of proof that show you can do the exact same thing for two different angled shots and make both.

Then the answer is that the exact same "thing" is not being done for both shots OR there is a variable missing that is not being accounted for. OR the subconscious - using the EXACT SAME OBJECTIVE AND CONSCIOUS steps - is making some final "adjustment" that is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to the user but which results in getting on the correct shot line consistently for both shots. Could be. And IF SO then the method works exactly as stated BECAUSE the most important criteria is getting to the shot line dependably. So if the OBJECTIVE steps are 1-2-3 and go to shooting position and you get on the shot line then "it works" is perfectly correct. Now, how WELL does it work? That's the key metric we are looking for. If I go to buy a tool and it only "works" half the time then I can discard the use of that tool is not reliable.

You can certainly CLAIM to use any method you can dream up but if it can't be reliably taught to others and reliably used by them to fulfill the goal of getting to the shot line then the effectiveness will not be attractive to those wishing to find methods of aim that produce consistently correct results.

And you know this how?

I am speculating based on my knowledge of various aiming methods. IF everything is above board and we get beginners with no prior influence and we are reasonably sure they haven't learned any other methods of aim I am highly confident that your "jellybean" method fails and the CTE students will easily score higher.
Here's another test. Stan has some set up shots used to teach the method, right? I don't have the book but I'm guessing he has 15 degree and 30 degree, etc shots that will go if you perform the CTE steps. If you take two students and have one of them learn CTE and tell the other one to focus on making the ball and forget any CTE stuff, you would have interesting results with enough students participating. Mind you this still does not prove how CTE works but it might show that there is something about how shots are approached using CTE that does improve shot making.

Yeah that's a good idea. In fact I would love to take a lot of beginners and gather a ton of data on how they approach shots before they learn ANYTHING. Then teach them basic stroke structure and test again. Test with center ball first then teach them about sidespin but nothing about aiming or deflection and test again. Go through every possibility to isolate whatever can be learned.

Again, you are making an assumption.

Yes I am. Assumptions are the bedrock of science. Your assumption, based on your experience is that CTE cannot work as described. From an academic perspective that is a valid thing to assume. However you have not actually dissected the method or tested with all available means and so being a good scientist you should ALSO assume that perhaps you don't have all of the variables accounted for. I am positive that tests such as I have proposed would turn out closer to what I assume then closer to what you assume. Unless you want to participate in trying to test your mocking "jellybean method" against CTE in a controlled manner we simply can't really KNOW can we?

However I am pretty sure than no one reading this is confident enough that your group of beginners would outscore the CTE students to actually bet on the outcome. I am however willing to bet on the CTE students in such a contest.

Well, that's the question.

Yes it is. And so instead of worrying about whether there is a 2d diagram than you can be happy about the more important question is whether any given method is actually beneficial, as tested against some sort of benchmark performance, and whether it is practical.

It strikes me that you want it both ways. You say it cannot be diagrammed (probably because what Stan claims is impossible) but when it comes to recognizing shots they can be diagrammed. So maybe it can be partially diagrammed. That's the problem. When a guy makes a wild ass claim that defies known science he leaves the door open to silly arguments.
No, I said it HAS NOT been diagrammed to YOUR satisfaction. A ghost ball diagram is wrong UNLESS it INCLUDES some formula to determine the amount of conscious adjustment needed to make it work. Or with enough brute force one can force the mind to make those adjustments as a subconscious act and the mind will get to a point where it does pretty good with a range of shots, having trouble with some and no problem with others.

Yes, when people make claims that are not congruent with KNOWN science then arguments arise. However you are not a scientist studying the intersection between 2d plotting of ball positions in a constrained field and the 3d target acquisition methods used by the stereoscopic vision of a human. Therefore when you CLAIM that you can make all the shots using your jellybean method and you do make all the shots and attribute it to eating jellybeans then such a claim will cause argument. You can demonstrate great shotmaking and it could be enough to get people interested. And if those who try the method can't get better results than what they were doing they will ask for clarification or drop it.

IF however they were to get better results then it would be worth looking into to find out IF there is any discernible reason why jelly beans should help with shot making. If the results indicate no reason then it can be put down to unknown IF the results are consistent. For example placebos often work in pain reduction. It is unknown WHY they work. So all the researchers are left with is the FACT that they work to a certain degree when scientifically and chemically they should have zero effect. Scientists can speculate why with all sorts of guesses but without a SPECIFIC and clearly undeniable reason they can't really KNOW.

What they do know though is that if 100 patients are given placebos and asked about their pain levels then x-percentage of them are VERY LIKELY to report a reduction in pain levels. That is data on the EFFICACY. So when they have this and then they test drugs against the placebo benchmarks they can determine the efficacy of the drugs which they KNOW is causing a chemical reaction.

So observationally, if someone says I do xyz steps and get to the shot line BECAUSE of those steps then they are being truthful in their description. That person takes two different shots, applies the SAME steps and gets to the shot line. They are making a claim that they can back up demonstrably. Can this claim be reproduced by teaching others the same method? If yes then it has been proven for PRACTICAL purposes. The researcher has then verified that the method is TRANSFERABLE and for a certain percentage of users is of practical value. At that point one can feel confident that teaching the method IS beneficial to others WITHOUT needing to KNOW exactly how it works. The question of exactly HOW it works can be taken on by those interested in dissecting things. The question of DOES it work is the interesting one for those interested in finding good reliable methods to fulfil the task.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No. What I mean to say is what I said. Stan makes claims he cannot back up. I'd accept any form of proof that show you can do the exact same thing for two different angled shots and make both.
Stan can and has backed up all his claims. All the proof you need is in the FREE yes FREE Truth Series on youtube. If thats not enough all the proof is diagrammed, pictured and totally described in the book CENTER POCKET MUSIC. If that's not enough go to the testimonial thread to read about some success that poolplayers across the globe are having with CTE. And there's that little group on social media where a couple thousand poolplayers are having great success with CTE.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan can and has backed up all his claims. All the proof you need is in the FREE yes FREE Truth Series on youtube. If thats not enough all the proof is diagrammed, pictured and totally described in the book CENTER POCKET MUSIC. If that's not enough go to the testimonial thread to read about some success that poolplayers across the globe are having with CTE. And there's that little group on social media where a couple thousand poolplayers are having great success with CTE.
Cookie please stop misleading people who might not know better. If you don't understand why everything you just said is wrong after all this time then you are an idiot. I don't think you are an idiot so what does that leave? Tell JB it's all been proven because he agrees with me but has a roundabout way of saying it.

Please just stop.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Cookie please stop misleading people who might not know better. If you don't understand why everything you just said is wrong after all this time then you are an idiot. I don't think you are an idiot so what does that leave? Tell JB it's all been proven because he agrees with me but has a roundabout way of saying it.

Please just stop.
Why don’t you stop. You have nothing. You know nothing about CTE. I asked you direct questions before and you had no answers in your own words.

Why do you keep up this battle against CTE?
Why? Why? Why?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Why don’t you stop. You have nothing. You know nothing about CTE. I asked you direct questions before and you had no answers in your own words.

Why do you keep up this battle against CTE?
Why? Why? Why?
Well, for one, I find it both hard to believe and amusing at the same time that you believe that geometry is not real and you can achieve things that geometry says is impossible.
 
Top