Important VISUALS info for CTE PRO ONE

[BC21]

As a newer member here on AZ, I quickly noticed the lack of civility in most posts that question tec (anagram used to avoid unwarranted animosity). In many posts here on AZ, challenging questions often lead to a better understanding of the subject matter. With tec, challenging questions lead to personal​ attacks directed at the questioners, which inevitably draws the attention of Mr Wilson and his banning pen.

Other subject matters that produce similar "debates" include religion and politics, and there is always middle ground. It takes an honest appraisal from both sides to reach it, but it is obtainable. It's that honest appraisal part, a willingness to acknowledge positive and negative aspects, that send most tec posts down the gutter and into the mud. Even when a new tec user admits to having difficulty understanding the system, difficulty in making it work as instructed, that user is told to drop it because he'll never get it. What he should be told is what Dan White recently posted, which basically says to keep trying what you're trying and eventually your brain will either figure it out or make it work. Of course, he's getting roasted for saying it, but that doesn't make his comments any less valid.

 

[Neil]

As a newer member here on AZ, I quickly noticed the lack of civility in most posts that question tec (anagram used to avoid unwarranted animosity). In many posts here on AZ, challenging questions often lead to a better understanding of the subject matter. With tec, challenging questions lead to personal​ attacks directed at the questioners, which inevitably draws the attention of Mr Wilson and his banning pen.

Other subject matters that produce similar "debates" include religion and politics, and there is always middle ground. It takes an honest appraisal from both sides to reach it, but it is obtainable. It's that honest appraisal part, a willingness to acknowledge positive and negative aspects, that send most tec posts down the gutter and into the mud. Even when a new tec user admits to having difficulty understanding the system, difficulty in making it work as instructed, that user is told to drop it because he'll never get it. What he should be told is what Dan White recently posted, which basically says to keep trying what you're trying and eventually your brain will either figure it out or make it work. Of course, he's getting roasted for saying it, but that doesn't make his comments any less valid.

Oh, you are so very wrong. First off, there were no "challenging questions". There was however, the same old B.S. questions that have been answered ad nauseum on here in detail many, many times before. Then, as usual, he states that no one ever answers. It's nothing more than a flat out lie. Guys like Dan are here for one reason only, and that is to cause animosity. He has stated many times that he has no intention of learning it or ever using it. Yet, here he is again "complaining" that no one will help him.

He also goes on a stupid rant about he is the type of guy that just has to know how it works before he can use it. B.S. on that too. He uses things everyday that he has no idea how they work with no problem. That kind of garbage is nothing more than a false flag to try and make himself look sincere when he is anything but that.

There is NO validity to his statements because there really is no truth in them. It's all nothing more than a smokescreen to try and belittle CTE and it's users once again. After he has promised numerous times to stop, and been threatened with a ban if he doesn't stop.

 

[8pack]

So someone, you, who has never properly learned CTE has it all figured out and is 100 percent right about it. And the rest of us, some using it for more than 10 years including pro players and amateur champions, got it all wrong and have no clue. Sounds about right.

I think he's saying you guys adjust for the pocket.
2 alignments can make any shot on the table. It would require more then just. A B an C.

Who cares though, your playing better.

 

[cookie man]

I think he's saying you guys adjust for the pocket.
2 alignments can make any shot on the table. It would require more then just. A B an C.

Who cares though, your playing better.

I like getting advice on what i'm doing from some guy who has never seen me shoot and can't properly figure out the system i'm using. Makes total sense.

 

[cookie man]

As a newer member here on AZ, I quickly noticed the lack of civility in most posts that question tec (anagram used to avoid unwarranted animosity). In many posts here on AZ, challenging questions often lead to a better understanding of the subject matter. With tec, challenging questions lead to personal​ attacks directed at the questioners, which inevitably draws the attention of Mr Wilson and his banning pen.

Other subject matters that produce similar "debates" include religion and politics, and there is always middle ground. It takes an honest appraisal from both sides to reach it, but it is obtainable. It's that honest appraisal part, a willingness to acknowledge positive and negative aspects, that send most tec posts down the gutter and into the mud. Even when a new tec user admits to having difficulty understanding the system, difficulty in making it work as instructed, that user is told to drop it because he'll never get it. What he should be told is what Dan White recently posted, which basically says to keep trying what you're trying and eventually your brain will either figure it out or make it work. Of course, he's getting roasted for saying it, but that doesn't make his comments any less valid.

I am still trying to figure out how Dan White gave your book such a glowing report after admittedly only reading the first chapter. Did he ever bother reading the rest of it?

PS not trying to knock your book whether it be version one or version two, just wondering that's all.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

As a newer member here on AZ,

And herein lies your problem for making this post to begin with. I've been a member for 11 years and others have had to put up with this crap starting on RSB 20 years ago! Does that register? 20 friggin' years of negativity, not understanding by those who are anti-CTE, name calling by them starting back then, and complete disruption of what WE have an interest in.

I quickly noticed the lack of civility in most posts that question tec (anagram used to avoid unwarranted animosity). In many posts here on AZ, challenging questions often lead to a better understanding of the subject matter. With tec, challenging questions lead to personal​ attacks directed at the questioners, which inevitably draws the attention of Mr Wilson and his banning pen.

You do realize this thread was started over 4 years ago by Stan Shuffet TO GIVE INFORMATION FIRST HAND TO THOSE INVOLVED WITH CTE, don't you?

And here we are with the SAME negative individuals from back then and well before coming into a POSITIVE THREAD and turning it into a NEGATIVE thread under the guise of "WE JUST WANT TO KNOW AND LEARN" How many times do you think we've heard THAT excuse?


What he should be told is what Dan White recently posted, which basically says to keep trying what you're trying and eventually your brain will either figure it out or make it work. Of course, he's getting roasted for saying it, but that doesn't make his comments any less valid.

Give me a break! Wake up Brian! Do you think you could put up with 20 years of constant ridicule and disruption regarding your system?

Stick to positives about poolology and don't try to play arbitrator at this late stage of the game about something you also know nothing about. You aren't qualified in either area of CTE as well as the 20 year harassment from the Dan White's and Lou's of the world.

 

[BC21]

I am still trying to figure out how Dan White gave your book such a glowing report after admittedly only reading the first chapter. Did he ever bother reading the rest of it?

PS not trying to knock your book whether it be version one or version two, just wondering that's all.

I guess he immediately recognized the simplicity of the book...no mysterious or ambiguous perceptions to figure out. To each their own I guess.

With aiming systems, you either get it or you don't. If you don't, you ask what you're doing wrong and hope not to be labeled an idiot for questioning something others have spent weeks, months, or evrn years figuring out themselves.

I gave CTE a shot long ago (DVD version #1, not #2), but only spent a couple of days with it. Maybe if I had been a weaker player I would've invested several weeks or months into it. Then again, several weeks or months of practice with any system, or with no system system at all, should provide solid improvement. That's more of a testament to the power of the brain than to the validity​ of any particular aiming system. As an independent thinker, that's​ the gist I took from Dan's post.

 

[Bobkitty]

Michael - if you view the two lines exactly the same for two different shots how do you end up getting different cut angles for that same visual? I'm just wondering how you explain it in your own words.

Dan, What was the conclusion of your Youtube analysis of Stan's stroke in these videos? https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I guess he immediately recognized the simplicity of the book...no mysterious or ambiguous perceptions to figure out. To each their own I guess.

With aiming systems, you either get it or you don't. If you don't, you ask what you're doing wrong and hope not to be labeled an idiot for questioning something others have spent weeks, months, or evrn years figuring out themselves.

I gave CTE a shot long ago (DVD version #1, not #2), but only spent a couple of days with it. Maybe if I had been a weaker player I would've invested several weeks or months into it. Then again, several weeks or months of practice with any system, or with no system system at all, should provide solid improvement. That's more of a testament to the power of the brain than to the validity​ of any particular aiming system. As an independent thinker, that's​ the gist I took from Dan's post.

Maybe the "gist" that you got from Dan's post was the "gist" you wanted to get out of it as a "feel good and proud" kind of thing.

On the other hand, I made a prediction in a post on 4-19 -17 in the "Objective vs. Subjective" aiming thread which was the following to Dan White:

I see where this is going now with you, Lou, and the gang members. It's a new ploy, a new tactic to pit poolology against CTE to keep the firestorm going in a new direction.

Wait until non-aimer Lou gets the system sent to him (probably free of charge), he'll give the most glowing review like it's the greatest discovery he's ever seen since he started playing pool just as you're now doing. And Lou has never given a thumbs up to any form of aiming method.

Anything to detract from CTE and make it, Stan, Hal and users look like fools just as he's been doing for 20 years starting at RSB.

And by damn, it was all TRUE. Nostradamus couldn't have done a better job.

 

[BC21]

Give me a break! Wake up Brian! Do you think you could put up with 20 years of constant ridicule and disruption regarding your system?

Stick to positives about poolology and don't try to play arbitrator at this late stage of the game about something you also know nothing about. You aren't qualified in either area of CTE as well as the 20 year harassment from the Dan White's and Lou's of the world.

You're right. I'm a stranger to the 20-yrs of harassment. But sometimes it takes a stranger to walk in and point out the obvious. This is an exclusive CTE-helping thread, and my comments (or any other comments from users that don't get it) are unwelcome distractions, as far as you and a few other others are concerned. But it has been several years, and many people are still trying to learn CTE. A few challenging questions batted back and forth may actually prove beneficial for the ones trying to figure it out, regardless of whether or not you think the questions are part of some master plan to undermine the system.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dan, What was the conclusion of your Youtube analysis of Stan's stroke in these videos? https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs

Who cares? Dan isn't a pro player, pro instructor, or certified instructor. He's nothing more than a poster on a pool forum with no credentials but a lot of opinions.

You say you were a golfer. It would be like some regular Joe Blow on a golf forum analyzing Jim Furyk's swing or Dustin Johnson and telling the world what changes should be made and what's wrong with it.

 

[Renegade_56]

You're right. I'm a stranger to the 20-yrs of harassment. But sometimes it takes a stranger to walk in and point out the obvious. This is an exclusive CTE-helping thread, and my comments (or any other comments from users that don't get it) are unwelcome distractions, as far as you and a few other others are concerned. But it has been several years, and many people are still trying to learn CTE. A few challenging questions batted back and forth may actually prove beneficial for the ones trying to figure it out, regardless of whether or not you think the questions are part of some master plan to undermine the system.

You make it sound like after 20 years no one can do it. Alot of people do it. I see new or relatively new users asking questions, most of which are trying to do it free with youtube videos. The only ones harping about it not working for 20 years are the Dan Whites who never intended to use it anyway. You say this in criticism, but the fact is you should be so lucky as to have new people trying to learn your system 20 years from now.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You're right. I'm a stranger to the 20-yrs of harassment. But sometimes it takes a stranger to walk in and point out the obvious.

Yep, that's what the forum needs. Somebody to come riding in on a big white Stallion with a wide brim cowboy hat, a gun on each hip and 20 years of wisdom jam packed into a few months of experience. In a previous life before being reincarnated into the present, you weren't a Pope, were you?

This is an exclusive CTE-helping thread, and my comments (or any other comments from users that don't get it) are unwelcome distractions, as far as you and a few other others are concerned. But it has been several years, and many people are still trying to learn CTE.

Who? If those who were really interested in learning it couldn't, they went their merry way and either went back to what they always used or tried something else. Maybe they also don't even play pool. The troublemakers aren't trying to learn ANYTHING. They love doing what they do best which is create mayhem and flame wars.

A few challenging questions batted back and forth may actually prove beneficial for the ones trying to figure it out, regardless of whether or not you think the questions are part of some master plan to undermine the system.

I know who the ones are that are totally interested vs. those who aren't. The ones who really do want to learn can go straight to Stan by PM, email, or live and they usually do. The ones who are anti are just that under the pretenses of wanting to learn when they in fact don't use and will never use any system to aim including CTE.

Cut the crap Brian because you're now becoming one of them. Stick to what you do and know best, poolology.

 

[BC21]

You make it sound like after 20 years no one can do it. Alot of people do it. I see new or relatively new users asking questions, most of which are trying to do it free with youtube videos. The only ones harping about it not working for 20 years are the Dan Whites who never intended to use it anyway. You say this in criticism, but the fact is you should be so lucky as to have new people trying to learn your system 20 years from now.

Oh I didn't mean to make it sound like that, as criticism. I meant CTE has been around for many years, yet still the confusing part (even for those with the DVD's) revolves around the final perception/start of the move that brings you to CCB on the proper aim line. I realize some people catch on quickly. Others have to work on it. And yes, I would consider myself fortunate if 20 years from now players are still learning from my book.

 

[stan shuffett]

Pros can't explain the intracies of aiming. Most will admit that.

It burns some up that somehow within the CTE domain aiming can now be explained.

When Hal graced his students with CTE they inexplicably pocketed balls without a conscious understanding of what exactly was transpiring. Hal knew but he held onto the knowlege concerning the inner workings.

I kept the ball rolling. Plenty are using CTE successfully these days but with a trust factor involved. Its always worked. Most all are accepting now that CTE does work but the interest has piqued enough that trust is not enough.....Gotta know more.

I kept pushing......I have figured out the intracies that have been relegated to the subconscious.

What was once deemed inexplicable is now explicable.

Stan Shuffett

 

[lfigueroa]

A total of 92 posts from Michael S, Sacman and Low500 with Mirza adding a whopping 375 posts for a total of 467 among 4 guys.

Of course there is nothing wrong with this, but please don't question the motivation of certain individuals over the years who have been trying to figure out CTE. Let me explain:

CTE, and in particular, CTE Pro1, claims that the player can align their vision to a set of exactly 2 lines that will put the cue ball in a specific place relative to the object ball -- "lock it in" as they often say. For instance, line up cb edge to A and at the same time find that spot where you can also see, or think you see, cb center to ob edge (call it CTE/A). For a manual pivot, set the cue down a half tip to the outside and pivot in to ccb and then shoot directly through that line (or pivot the other way, depending on how full or thin a shot you have). That is pretty much the complete instructions for using the system, leaving sweeps out for simplicity.

So what's the problem? What's the beef? Well the confusion is that when someone like myself, who has been around cues for a long time, tries the system as described, the cue ball locks in to the same point on the object ball no matter what for a given CTE/A cb-ob distance. If the balls are about 2 diamonds apart, and I do a pivot to the inside, the resulting alignment points the tip at about the 3/4 ball hit (half way between center and edge on ob). If I move the balls anywhere on the table at that same 2 diamond gap between them, the tip ALWAYS points at the same point and this will only yield one resulting shot angle. This same alignment will occur on a pool table, a kitchen table, or at the bottom of a swimming pool.

So people like me start doing some research and asking questions and trying things to make it work. What happens is that there is NO answer. Stan calls it a "mystery." I look at videos like Stevie Moore's. He says in his video how he is going to explain how to get two different shot angles from the same perception, or set of lines that lock the cue ball in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1mlnRiAXA8

Then the frustration sets in. The explanation is this: In the first shot the ball hits the rail 6 inches away. In the second shot the ball hits the rail (actually the side pocket) 12 inches away. The title of the video is "Parallel Shots Study." Well I was excited to see something with some meat on it. I was immediately disappointed to learn Stevie's insight presented in this CTE "study,":"Logic would say it would take me to this angle (6 inches away). That's not the nature of center to edge. It takes you to right angles so that's why it took me to 12 inches away. You'll be able to see this for yourself when you practice it.

So Stevie's explanation of how it works is that it just works and try it for yourself and you'll see. Well, some of us have tried it many times and "fixed" the cue ball to the exact same spot on the ob when using the exact same visual as Stevie does, so no we won't just "see this for ourselves." What I see is that it doesn't work for me, and many others. No amount of repetition, if I do the steps exactly as described, is going to change anything.

It is in my nature to want to understand why things happen. When I hear people say, "I don't care how, it just works" I am troubled by that thinking. First of all, if something has a component of "mystery" to it, and the process is not completely understood from start to finish, then we really don't know anything about it. It is equally possible that such a system works as a placebo, or that is accidentally fixes stroke flaws in some players, or some people see balls in a way where they really do look different depending on where the balls are resting on the table. We just don't know and the evidence over the last 20 years suggests we may never really know.

Indulge me with another topic for a moment. As a straight pool player, I enjoy working on stroke details to a level that 9 ball players would find monotonous and stupid. However, a very small stroke error can send the cue ball several inches or more away from its intended path after pocketing a ball. The kind of error I'm talking about is too small to see in real time. You need to record it and play back in slow motion. If find there is a tendency on a cut shot to point the cue tip toward the object ball no matter whether I am cutting the ball left or right. The tip always goes toward the object ball. I'm talking about maybe 1/2 tip diameter error at the end of the stroke, not during contact. This is enough to introduce noticeable error.

Why do I mention my stroke practice routine? Well, fixing the error is a bit of a trial and error process. Let me record three shots with my elbow frozen, three more with my forearm at a certain angle, and so on. In each case, I would swear on a stack of bibles that I had finally fixed the problem. Then I look at the video and to my amazement, the problem is still there. The only sure fire way for me to be perfectly straight all the time is to look only at the shaft. Not practical, but at least I've shown that I can do it. I'm sure others have similar experiences where they are 100% sure their cue is straight on line, only to have a friend tell them they are way out of alignment. I would like to suggest, as a possibility, and since we know there is a component of "mystery" in this process called CTE, that maybe something different is happening from what you think is happening. In my opinion, and in Stevie Moore's opinion "if you think logically," it is not possible for you to have different ball overlaps with the exact same perception. It does not matter if we are talking 2D or 3D. If CTE/A points your tip at 3/4 ball from two diamonds away, it will do so everywhere on the table and everywhere else in the universe at two diamonds away.

So if we are not thinking logically and trying to "figure it out" and just shoot, what happens? Well, in my belief, just "letting go" and not worrying about prior thoughts of how to shoot a ball might clear your mind so that your subconscious can pocket the ball through good old practice. If you practice anything with interest and concentration your subconscious will figure it out. How often do people come here and say how you have to work hard at CTE but after a few months (often longer) it "just clicks." The brain is good at that. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown every time, my brain keeps assuring me that I finally stroked the cue perfectly straight on my practice cut shots, only to pull the rug out from under me on the video replay. The point is, the mind and perception are far more mysterious than we give credit. I'll probably go to the table and fail at that shot for another couple of months, but then at some point "it'll just click" and it won't be an issue for me any more.

Coming back to you guys who "don't care," I'm fine with that. If you use CTE and it works for you but you don't know or care how it works, then please don't tell us that CTE works. All you know is that you are playing better now than before and that is what is important. If it works for you but not for me, it isn't just because I'm not doing it right. Maybe it only works for you and only for a specific reason. Until the black box "mystery" step in the CTE process is explained, we cannot confirm what is really going on. Well, sometimes we can, but that's a different discussion.

Final word from me, unless anyone wants further civil discussion, there is more to the back and forth about CTE than simply "haters wanting to hate" for no good reason. Hopefully I've provided some of you guys who have not put yourself into the fray personally with some perspective on the issue for a lot of us.

Pool is a funny game -- and you can convince yourself of some pretty strange ca-ca.

Champions have, with total conviction, espoused views on the game that have been proven to be false. Some have said they can make the balls do things they cannot; disclaimed the existence of provable effects such as throw and CIE; said certain techniques will affect the CB in ways that it demonstrably cannot; or just offered techniques for certain shots that, while intuitively sounding correct, are physically impossible.

And of then of course there are the semi-pros and amateurs with no shortage of theories offered with the greatest of sincerity but, alas, a paucity of science. I myself have come up with theories that have worked remarkably well on my home track. Not too surprisingly, when I have gotten them out into a "live fire" situation they have proved to be not as excellent as I first believed.

But nonetheless, there can always be a benefit to the player through the experimentation and learning process. And, there are often serendipitous effects that occur through a precise, repeatable approach to the game.

And that's all that's happening for the users of some systems.

So, if it helps, mazeltov. But all the hype in the world will not make it what it cannot be.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Pool is a funny game -- and you can convince yourself of some pretty strange ca-ca.

Champions have, with total conviction, espoused views on the game that have been proven to be false. Some have said they can make the balls do things they cannot; disclaimed the existence of provable effects such as throw and CIE; said certain techniques will affect the CB in ways that it demonstrably cannot; or just offered techniques for certain shots that, while intuitively sounding correct, are physically impossible.

And of then of course there are the semi-pros and amateurs with no shortage of theories offered with the greatest of sincerity but, alas, a paucity of science. I myself have come up with theories that have worked remarkably well on my home track. Not too surprisingly, when I have gotten them out into a "live fire" situation they have proved to be not as excellent as I first believed.

But nonetheless, there can always be a benefit to the player through the experimentation and learning process. And, there are often serendipitous effects that occur through a precise, repeatable approach to the game.

And that's all that's happening for the users of some systems.

So, if it helps, mazeltov. But all the hype in the world will not make it what it cannot be.

Lou Figueroa

So does this mean you're adopting a new personal philosophy of "Live and Let Live"
for the next 20 years as opposed to the last 20? (if you have 20 years left to live)

If so, it would be welcome and something I can't believe you didn't do a long time ago along with your faithful followers.

I mean if it cannot be as reported by users or as "hyped", it only makes more sense to say NOTHING to see us suffer, wallow in mediocrity, never have success and improve, so you could laugh gleefully and say, "I told them so."

I guess we'll know in the next few weeks based on your posts and the others who follow your lead.

Every time I make a ball from here on out I'll just think to myself, "mazeltov" and thank the Gods of pool for making me lucky enough to have something work that shouldn't and doesn't work.

I think they said for a long time that bumble bees weren't aerodynamically designed to fly and shouldn't be able to. Some things just go against science and old beliefs.

I look forward to the NEW YOU.

 

[Bobkitty]

deleted.....

 

[Dan White]

Quote:
Originally Posted by denwhit View Post
Dan, What was the conclusion of your Youtube analysis of Stan's stroke in these videos? https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs
Who cares? Dan isn't a pro player, pro instructor, or certified instructor. He's nothing more than a poster on a pool forum with no credentials but a lot of opinions.

You say you were a golfer. It would be like some regular Joe Blow on a golf forum analyzing Jim Furyk's swing or Dustin Johnson and telling the world what changes should be made and what's wrong with it.

*******************

Dennis - even though the subtitle of this forum says "argue to your hearts content," you can't really do that here. I think whatever comments I made on that video and the follow up one (and in back and forth on Youtube with JB) will have to stand for themselves.

And that guy Furyk needs to get rid of that loop at the top of his swing or he'll never amount to much...

 

[Bobkitty]

deleted......