HOW do we know that "folks *are* having success with it" ? An example is John Barton. Patrick Johnson has made the observation (which he admits isn't thorough) that John doesn't really seem to PLAY much better (in fact Patrick says "worse") since learning CTE--yet if you listen to JOHN he will tell you that CTE has made a WORLD of improvement in his game.
Could it be possible that John has mis-estimated the effect of CTE on his game? In medicine, for example, patient reports of their responses to treatment are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable as sources of information about objective responses to treatments.
It's definitely possible that I have not judged my personal improvement properly. Before learning Hal's system I wasn't keeping records of my stats and afterwards I didn't track them either.
But you are missing the fundamental point. The system's validity and practical usefulness and ability to provide measurable improvement for pool players has been corroborated by leading instructors.
You always SKIP the valid questions.
Once again why would ANY top instructor who does this for a living bank their career on teaching something that is "silly" and so dependent on so-called subconcious adjustment?
I mean they can IMPROVE anyone's game with tried and true techniques all day. Fixing people's stroke is probably the NUMBER ONE thing that helps any player immediately to be a better player.
These top instructors have plenty of business so they don't NEED to sell any snake oil to make a living. They aren't traveling the country in a gypsy wagon selling Dr. Feelgood.
The CTE-based aiming SYSTEMS that they are teaching are just a part of their curriculum AND they are taught because these top instructors see value and merit in them. And because the top instructors have figured out HOW to convey the systems to the students in ways that the transfer of knowledge takes hold.
If it were only me standing on the soapbox then yeah, I'd call me a crackpot too.
But it's not only me. I was not the first to benefit, however small, from Hal's systems and I won't be the last.
As for your comment about hobnobbing with Nobel Laureates and now slumming it with lowly pool instructors, well all I can say is that it's a damn shame you aren't putting that brain to better use. Why not simply let pool player delude themselves?
The upside is that players will spend more money on the game. They will spend more table time trying it out, more time playing, more on instruction, and hopefully more time passing it on. If it doesn't work for a certain percentage of players then SO WHAT? The world doesn't end.
There is no downside here.
A few million posts ago you said that you are afraid that reliance on CTE will lead to a player missing shots at critical times. Yet you don't allow for it when players say that the MAKE critical shots because of CTE.
So IF you're right and that CTE users are SUBCONSCIOUSLY adjusting then missing or making has NOTHING to do with CTE. So if that's the case and you wholeheartedly believe that WHY ARE YOU HERE?
I can't believe that a true Berkley trained molecular biologist who's logic has been "tested" by Nobel laureates doesn't have better things to do which better the world than to go on a crusade tilting at the CTE windmill.
We don't care where you come from, you're in Brooklyn now.
All we care about down here is putting the balls in the subway. Got any good advice on how to do that?
"Splitting hairs", thanks but we already tried that. We prefer a more poetic solution.
