Snake Oil?

An instructor has a responsibility to the student to begin by understanding the student's current abilities. From that, the instructor can help the student to improve.

Basically, the instructor's shortcuts (tricks) help the student bypass the bane of learning (habits). Each instructor has a library of tricks for all different situations. Each trick is adapted to the student's current abilities and will have an immediate positive improvement.

Just because the tricks of one (or several) instructors don't work for you, does not decrease the value to those whom these do help. If you have a particular situation that can't be addressed by books or videos, check with other instructors - one (or more) can recommend a solution (or several).

To sum up - if you don't like someone's learning tricks, just admit it doesn't work for you and move on. Don't pontificate.
 
PaulM said:
There are a lot of 'instructors' selling players on various ideas they claim are magic bullets. There are players that swear by them, and just as many that say they don't work. Perfect Aim, CTE, TOI, Hal Houle's systems come to mind. There are also techniques like slip stroke, back hand english, swooping that have proponents and naysayers. Even respected instructors here have opposing views on many things.

I haven't seen most of these things mentioned in the books I've read, nor have those who have taught me ever mentioned most of them. It seems that all the technical analysis of them proves limited if any usefulness of them. If there is a benefit to them, does it outweigh their problems to make them worthwhile? Are they really that much better than basic methods that have been taught for a hundred years?

Are those selling the ideas simply snake oil salesmen feeding on the never ending desire of players to learn that secret magic bullet that will make them a tough opponent? How does a player figure out what's good and what's bad without wasting a lot of money or a lot of time. and possibly hurting their game?
Click to expand...

Why is it that the ONLY one that call any of them "magic bullets" are the ones that haven't tried them, or only tried them in the advent of having them fail?
 
BilliardsAbout said:
Paul, you are lumping a number of ideas together. One that I find objectionable is "Even respected instructors here have opposing views on many things."
Click to expand...

Why do you find this objectionable? In recent thread, there are opposing views on swooping by respected instructors. I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but as a student trying to learn, it can be difficult to decide if spending the time and money to learn something, when 'authorities' disagree on it. One has to wonder why there isn't more agreement among the instructors.

If techniques work for some but not others, one has to ask why that is. There are exceptions to everything, but I would expect that a significant majority would benefit is there is something to it.

If I have to pay to learn the secret and it may or may not help me, why should I buy it. How does a player decide?

A lot of them appear to be available from a single source and there doesn't look like there is a refund option for a dissatisfied customer. I'd like to think if the product has real value, they seller would stand behind it. At least there are places that sell Stan Shuffett's DVDs that offer a refund.

I'm disappointed that this sport and community seems to accept so much information based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe JoeW can shed some light on why this is.
 
Quote from PaulM: "I'm disappointed that this sport and community seems to accept so much information based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe JoeW can shed some light on why this is."

3kushn says:
Anecdotal evidence is what we had in the days of no instructors. We were taught by the local hustlers if we were lucky. Most being two bit hustlers.
 
Last edited:
My best guess would be that when you are on the bleeding edge of any discipline from neuroscience to pool playing the fields are full of "secrets," harsh critics, and boundless egos. It is part of the competitive nature of humans.

I have been around some neuroscientists who were as nasty as three 15 year old girls trying to determine who is their best friend forever.

Two physicians are discussing the cure for the common cold and one says, "Tea and honey before bed that is the best solution." The other responds with, "Well, my mother says ..."
 
Last edited:
Why do you find this objectionable? In recent thread, there are opposing views on swooping by respected instructors. I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but as a student trying to learn, it can be difficult to decide if spending the time and money to learn something, when 'authorities' disagree on it. One has to wonder why there isn't more agreement among the instructors.
Click to expand...

When I meet with instructors in person, we tend to agree on almost everything 100%. Seriously. The perceived controversies have to do with certain aim systems, however and again, most teachers agree that more than one aim system is in their teaching bag. When I've showed other instructors my systems and vice versa and discussed them thoroughly, we agree both teachers have something of value to offer.

Swooping is also a source of almost universal agreement. But just because a stroke is valid doesn't mean 1) the average student can pull it off 2) it's worth wasting lesson time. If you pay me $1,000 to spend a weekend with you, you'd want my advice on stance, stroke and aim--and to be pocketing 25% more balls when we finish or even better--then to spend a weekend working on masse strokes--or swooping english.

The guarantee you mentioned is right on, too. Mine is 100% refund if you are unsatisfied. I'd rather teach for free than have you say I shortchanged you for time and money.
 
Cte pro one

I stand proudly behind my work. I have spent years, thousands of hours of hard work in the area of CTE. It was rough in the earlier years of finding the pieces of the puzzle that could be put in place to match the hype that surrounded center to edge aiming.

Hal warned me that people would come after me if I released a video on CTE. He was right. This snake oil talk is not new. I have been called a huckster, a snake oil salesman, a liar and the list goes on to include various references to religion.

In spite of the attacks, I have always moved forward. A few years ago, a well-respected individual sent me a PM and said I should not be teaching something that I can't properly explain. It was this single PM that me gave me an additional boost of energy to keep at it.

There are those that would like to see CTE disappear. There are those that hate the very idea of CTE possibly becoming a standard for our game....

Even after the release of DVD1, I never gave up, I never gave in and I never stopped trying to additionally make the necessary geometric ties. The geometric tie info was my prompt for DVD2.

CTE is very simple. It's visual and there are perceptions that can be described that have direct initial connections to the geometry of a table. As I said previously, I am proud of my research and of the 10,000 plus hours I have spent working on the subject.

In certain circles there is little to no appreciation for what I have advanced but that is fine because it was their negativity and mean-spiritedness that propelled me forward through those times when I might would have given up.

Many, many thanks to those that have supported me over the last 6-8 years and also plenty of thanks to those that wanted and still desire to see me and CTE PRO ONE fail.

One thing is for certain, I would not be anywhere on this topic had it of not been for the work of Hal Houle. Thank you, Mr. Houle!!

If I could change things over the past 10 years or so, there would be plenty that I'd do differently, but there is one thing I would do exactly the same way..... Engage in a study of CTE that was prompted by one of the greatest minds ever to study aiming , Hal Houle.


Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
JoeW said:
My best guess would be that when you are on the bleeding edge of any discipline from neuroscience to pool playing the fields are full of "secrets," harsh critics, and boundless egos. It is part of the competitive nature of humans.

I have been around some neuroscientists who were as nasty as three 15 year old girls trying to determine who is their best friend forever.

Two physicians are discussing the cure for the common cold and one says, "Tea and honey before bed that is the best solution." The other responds with, "Well, my mother says ..."
Click to expand...

Lol at the three girls joke. Could work equally well for the psychos in NPR...

Two physicians couldn't spot my chicken pox - after I told them I had chicken pox. 10 mins on google is clearly better than 10 years medical training.
 
PaulM said:
Why do you find this objectionable? In recent thread, there are opposing views on swooping by respected instructors. I don't expect everyone to agree on everything, but as a student trying to learn, it can be difficult to decide if spending the time and money to learn something, when 'authorities' disagree on it. One has to wonder why there isn't more agreement among the instructors.

If techniques work for some but not others, one has to ask why that is. There are exceptions to everything, but I would expect that a significant majority would benefit is there is something to it.

If I have to pay to learn the secret and it may or may not help me, why should I buy it. How does a player decide?

A lot of them appear to be available from a single source and there doesn't look like there is a refund option for a dissatisfied customer. I'd like to think if the product has real value, they seller would stand behind it. At least there are places that sell Stan Shuffett's DVDs that offer a refund.

I'm disappointed that this sport and community seems to accept so much information based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe JoeW can shed some light on why this is.
Click to expand...

3kushn said:
I'm disappointed that this sport and community seems to accept so much information based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe JoeW can shed some light on why this is.

Anecdotal evidence is what we had in the days of no instructors. We were taught by the local hustlers if we were lucky. Most being two bit hustlers.
Click to expand...

Well said gentlemen!

My answer to you both is that a lot of the methods being taught today are fairly complex. I am of the opinion that the best way to teach something is in it's simplest form. A simple system will be successful with a wider range of subjects.

However, in order to teach something in it's simplest form it must be FULLY understood. Since pool instruction is really still in it's infancy, a lot of instructors continue to discover better methods of pool instruction everyday! As more is learned by instructors then more will be taught and taught more efficiently and effectively!

Just my $.02

Ken
 
3kushn said:
I'm disappointed that this sport and community seems to accept so much information based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe JoeW can shed some light on why this is.

Anecdotal evidence is what we had in the days of no instructors. We were taught by the local hustlers if we were lucky. Most being two bit hustlers.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples?
 
Sorry Fran. I corrected my post. My ignorance with using iPad.
Please look again page 2.

Regards
 
Stan,

I in no way consider you a huckster. You definitely go the extra mile to help others learn your system and stand behind it. That's why I bought your DVD.

I found CTE surprising. It currently seems to work about fifty percent of the time for me, and has bailed me out of a few tough shots. I'm still working with it and hope it becomes a stronger tool for me.
 
FranCrimi said:
Maybe PaulM can give us some examples of what he feels are anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Sure.

FranCrimi said:
I believe there are things yet to be discovered; and ruling out something that works for many just because there isn't scientific proof yet that it exists --- Well, I think that might not be the answer.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in your posts concerning swooping/swiping do you provide any rational for how or why swooping works to increase spin. You say you use it often. Do you teach it? You only hint about contact time and acceleration, and go on to say there isn't enough scientific data on it yet. In other threads, you've said things like 'You have to explore it for yourself'. 'You have to spend time with it'. 'Try it and you'll see'. This is typical of your posts. Why is that?

Bob Jewett, on the other hand, provided a very rational explanation of why players believe it works and why it's a poor technique.

FranCrimi said:
A player will be able to tell in a fairly short time if someone is selling them snake oil. It doesn't take too long to weed out the con artists. Go with your gut.
Click to expand...

On swooping, it's easy to see the snake oil and weed out the con.
 
PaulM said:
Stan,

I in no way consider you a huckster. You definitely go the extra mile to help others learn your system and stand behind it. That's why I bought your DVD.

I found CTE surprising. It currently seems to work about fifty percent of the time for me, and has bailed me out of a few tough shots. I'm still working with it and hope it becomes a stronger tool for me.
Click to expand...

PaulM,

Thanks for your response. I sure did not mean to imply that you called me a huckster. That was directed at me from elsewhere.

I appreciate your work with CTE PRO ONE!

Stan Shuffett
 
PaulM said:
Sure.



Nowhere in your posts concerning swooping/swiping do you provide any rational for how or why swooping works to increase spin. You say you use it often. Do you teach it? You only hint about contact time and acceleration, and go on to say there isn't enough scientific data on it yet. In other threads, you've said things like 'You have to explore it for yourself'. 'You have to spend time with it'. 'Try it and you'll see'. This is typical of your posts. Why is that?

Bob Jewett, on the other hand, provided a very rational explanation of why players believe it works and why it's a poor technique.



On swooping, it's easy to see the snake oil and weed out the con.
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks for the answer. I see where you're coming from now.

No, I don't teach swooping but I do teach the hop, skip,and-a-jump stroke. It was taught to me many years ago by an old hustler.
 
Last edited:
PaulM said:
Nowhere in your posts concerning swooping/swiping do you provide any rational for how or why swooping works to increase spin. You say you use it often. Do you teach it? You only hint about contact time and acceleration, and go on to say there isn't enough scientific data on it yet. In other threads, you've said things like 'You have to explore it for yourself'. 'You have to spend time with it'. 'Try it and you'll see'. This is typical of your posts. Why is that?

Bob Jewett, on the other hand, provided a very rational explanation of why players believe it works and why it's a poor technique.



On swooping, it's easy to see the snake oil and weed out the con.
Click to expand...

Shit, now that's a ballsy accusation to make. The term "snake oil" carries an almost universal implication that someone is actually selling something (a product, a service, a "system", or whatever) based on falsified claims. Nowhere in that thread did Fran try to sell swooping lessons, a swooping system, a swooping DVD, etc. If fact, I have never once seen Fran Crimi on here offering anything for sale. Contrast that with many other instructors who seem to answer the tough questions with, "Let's book a lesson when I'm in your area." They can deny it all day long, but the "silent majority" within the membership here sees right through their agenda as can be shown to me by the numerous PMs I've received in the last 1 1/2 years I've been an active member here.

On the other thread I gave real-life evidence of increased spin using the swoop technique, along with a plausible explanation as to why it could work. It was ignored (although I'm sure there was lot's of snickering from those "in the know"). Next thing I'll be demanded to demonstrate it on a You Tube video or face accusations of falsifying evidence. Well, f*ck that. I'm a careful observer of physical phenomena, and when I say the ball went from point A on the table to point B on the rail and ended up hitting point C and I show the chalk mark on the CB as evidence of the location of the hit, well that's what happened, believe it or not.

FWIW I've met Fran and had a lesson with her, and I plan to continue with her in the future. Why? Because she is the only instructor on this forum that I haven't seen constantly pushing herself (i.e. selling "snake oil") for financial gain. At no time did she try to push anything on me during my lesson. I told her exactly what I expected, she said she could do that, and she succeeded admirably IMO

Did she make me a B player overnight? Of course not. She can't actually play the game for me, or put in the table time. Plus, I'm 61 years old and have been playing this game at a mediocre level since I was in my teens. I don't expect any miracles to occur any time soon. Now, you don't have to agree with her opinions here, but one thing's for sure, there ain't no con artist in her. She strikes me as a warm, sincere, patient, observant, and honest individual, and I truly resent your comments to the contrary.


Now, about that 50% success rate using CTE........ lol
 
Careful when you say "she's the only one" in this forum. I've never pushed myself in this forum, not interested in the financial gain of teaching pool, and as everyone know I have recommended to others instructors in my area more qualified than me. Generalizations are dangerous
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top