Honest question for manual pivot CTE users

[nobcitypool]

we just got 1 turd with your post.

lmao!!!!!!!!!

 

[BC21]

I'd like to wish it's sincere but I know it isn't because you'll be one of the same bunch doing everything in your power to rip it apart and tear it down.

Please tell me, "No I won't" so I can also etch it in stone to hold you to your word.

I'm thinking you won't post those words at all which is also telling.

No I won't. Etch it in stone. I haven't been trying, nor do I need, to tear it down. If players find it useful and workable then the book will sell on it's own merit. If it's only going to be available on Stan's website then it'll be immune to any criticism from those who purchase it and find it too difficult to understand or too time-consuming to work out. I don't have that immunity. My book is out there in the wide open where it can be judged, praised, and scrutinized by anyone that buys it. And that's how it should be -- full disclosure with honest reviews.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

No I won't. Etch it in stone. I haven't been trying, nor do I need, to tear it down.

It's ETCHED! If you haven't been trying, it must be called something else I'm unfamiliar with because it sure seems like it to me.

If players find it useful and workable then the book will sell on it's own merit. If it's only going to be available on Stan's website then it'll be immune to any criticism from those who purchase it and find it too difficult to understand or too time-consuming to work out.

That has nothing to do with it. His DVDs were sold only on his website and it didn't stop the bashers here on AZ from criticizing it whether they purchased it or not. They used second hand information from another basher or the free youtube videos along with the DVDs.

I don't have that immunity. My book is out there in the wide open where it can be judged, praised, and scrutinized by anyone that buys it. And that's how it should be -- full disclosure with honest reviews.

Anybody and everybody who produces something has the right to market it any way they desire. They may just want to have full control of sales and not share profits with others or make sure no other problems crop up with missing books or money.

For $10 bucks a pop on Poolology I probably would have done what you did because it's not enough of a money maker and profit for my time to handle it personally. I'd LOSE money by being involved that's eating up my time.

And in the end it's none of your damn business how someone opts to sell their product, what they charge, or any other factor. Keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong.

 

[nobcitypool]

Stan will be producing a high quality book similar to what Mark Wilson put out. As far as I know, there will not be an ebook version. Comparing Poolology to either would be similar to comparing at Timex to Rolex. That's not intended as a slam to the Poolology publication. They are simply two different beasts.

 

[BC21]

Anybody and everybody who produces something has the right to market it any way they desire. They may just want to have full control of sales and not share profits with others or make sure no other problems crop up with missing books or money.

For $10 bucks a pop on Poolology I probably would have done what you did because it's not enough of a money maker and profit for my time to handle it personally. I'd LOSE money by being involved that's eating up my time.

And in the end it's none of your damn business how someone opts to sell their product, what they charge, or any other factor. Keep your nose out of where it doesn't belong.

You are so touchy. Why? Why do you always seem to be stirring up controversy and trying to push people's buttons? Lol.

I've never made it my business about Stan going with a publisher that's costing him $40K out of his own pocket.
He made it public business when he posted it here on AZ. When I saw that price tag I PM'd him with some good advice about publishing and how the book business operates. He said he was happy with his publisher and would continue as he sees fit. And that's his business.

My book is priced to sell at $20 to $25 in print and around $10 for e-book format. That's a fair price for books of the same genre and size. I have full controlling rights, which includes distribution and pricing. I could easily have produced a nice hardcover and added another 100 pages of material and diagrams, but then it would be more expensive for those that want it and for me personally. And I wanted it to be different than the typical pool books I've purchased over the years. Though some were great, many others were drastically overpriced and contained the same stuff every other overpriced pool book contained. So I kept mine short and focused, to the point, rather than fluffing it up for no other reason than to make it look bigger and more expensive than it needed to be.

As far as profit and control of products in the publishing business.....buying a bunch of your own books and then having to resell them is immediate profit for a publisher that thinks he may not make much selling your book. The writer, however, is immediately in the hole and must now sell a certain amount of books before any profit begins coming in. For writers with a lot of time on their hands, maybe retired and with no immediate need for profits, it might be an ok route to follow if that's what you enjoy doing.

 

[BC21]

Stan will be producing a high quality book similar to what Mark Wilson put out. As far as I know, there will not be an ebook version. Comparing Poolology to either would be similar to comparing at Timex to Rolex. That's not intended as a slam to the Poolology publication. They are simply two different beasts.

Never judge a book by it's cover. There are two types of quality when it comes to books -- construction (how it's made, quality of binding, materials, etc..) and actual literary content. Some of the highest quality-made books with $50 to $80 price tags on them can be picked up at bargain outlets for $1.99 because the quality of their content didn't correlate with the original asking price. Who decides if a book's not worth its price? Consumers in an open market.

Bigger, or more elaborate, is not an indication of higher quality content. For example, the best one-pocket book available today is Tom Wirth's, A Game of Controlled Aggression. It's around $50, and it's a soft cover with a spiral binding. It's full color, which is nice. Compare this to Eddie Robbin's Shots Moves and Strategies, which is a big hardcover with leather binding and embossed gold lettering. Not sure what it costs when he first started selling it, but finding a copy now for less than a few hundred bucks is rare. It's a better made book, quality wise, but Tom Wirth's is better written, better illustrated, and just better for anyone wanting to learn how to really play the game. Also for about $15 there's that great little softcover by Hack Koehler, Up-Scale One Pocket. It's nothing fancy, simple black and white interior instead of color, but I'd put it right after Tom Wirth's book when it comes to quality and usefulness of content.

I haven't purchased Mark Wilson's book, published in 2014, but it has 9 great reviews on Amazon. It's $80 and looks like it might be worth it, not because of how it's made, but because of it's content. Maybe Stan's CTE book will also be available on Amazon. That would be cool.

 

[BC21]

You need to refrain from the lying and misrepresentation. When Stan speaks of tweaking, it is on shots that require English. If you wish to state that crap, then reference one place where he states you need a subjective tweak to take a shot to an over cut to center pocket.

You must struggle to keep a straight face when you post your veiled insults and lies about Stan and what he's done with CTE after you supposedly suckered over 1000 people into buying your book. So this is your aiming system but in a tournament, you only used it on a couple of shots. Perhaps you should have titled the book "Poolology, My Occasional Aiming System". Your system is 10x more complex than Stan's CTE and still subjective.

You say you're done trying to understand or analyze CTE? Let's mark down that statement and see how long it is before you use more poorly disguised questions to attempt to slam Stan and CTE. I agree with Spidey, I wouldn't trust you one iota.

Sorry, but no lies coming from me. I don't appreciate being called a liar, especially when I provide links where anyone can see exactly what I am saying is true. He mentions absolutely nothing about applying english when he is talking about tweaking. And here you are calling me a liar.....?

Please listen for at least 30 seconds. There is no backpedaling here. He says what he says, and the meaning and context is quite clear.

TWEAKING

Also, it's not an insult to Stan, or a lie, to say exactly what he says in his videos. Watch them yourself.

And I have suckered no one into buying my book. I created a good fractional system, wrote a book and published it. Came here to AZ thinking this was an aiming forum and a few people might be interested in it. Unfortunately, what I found was a mess of disgruntled CTE players harping on a 20 year feud. And they automatically assumed I was out to ruin CTE because that's the war they've been keeping up. Nevertheless, a few people here have bought my book and I appreciate that very much. But of all the books that have sold, print and e-book versions, I doubt more than 5% came from AZ members. I advertise in BD and in local book stores and online networks. I don't sell my books, with the exception of a few on eBay to get the name out there. I automatically receive a payment every month for the previous months sales. The book sells iitself, as Stan's will if people find it useful and workable. Well, he will physically be selling his, but if it's good it'll sell just fine. I do think he has a colorful way with words, so it'll probably be a good read.

 

[nobcitypool]

Never judge a book by it's cover. There are two types of quality when it comes to books -- construction (how it's made, quality of binding, materials, etc..) and actual literary content. Some of the highest quality-made books with $50 to $80 price tags on them can be picked up at bargain outlets for $1.99 because the quality of their content didn't correlate with the original asking price. Who decides if a book's not worth its price? Consumers in an open market.

Bigger, or more elaborate, is not an indication of higher quality content. For example, the best one-pocket book available today is Tom Wirth's, A Game of Controlled Aggression. It's around $50, and it's a soft cover with a spiral binding. It's full color, which is nice. Compare this to Eddie Robbin's Shots Moves and Strategies, which is a big hardcover with leather binding and embossed gold lettering. Not sure what it costs when he first started selling it, but finding a copy now for less than a few hundred bucks is rare. It's a better made book, quality wise, but Tom Wirth's is better written, better illustrated, and just better for anyone wanting to learn how to really play the game. Also for about $15 there's that great little softcover by Hack Koehler, Up-Scale One Pocket. It's nothing fancy, simple black and white interior instead of color, but I'd put it right after Tom Wirth's book when it comes to quality and usefulness of content.

I haven't purchased Mark Wilson's book, published in 2014, but it has 9 great reviews on Amazon. It's $80 and looks like it might be worth it, not because of how it's made, but because of it's content. Maybe Stan's CTE book will also be available on Amazon. That would be cool.

Showing more respect than you have for Stan, I'll refrain from commenting on my opinion of the content of Poolology.

 

[nobcitypool]

Sorry, but no lies coming from me. I don't appreciate being called a liar, especially when I provide links where anyone can see exactly what I am saying is true. He mentions absolutely nothing about applying english when he is talking about tweaking. And here you are calling me a liar.....?

Please listen for at least 30 seconds. There is no backpedaling here. He says what he says, and the meaning and context is quite clear.

TWEAKING

Also, it's not an insult to Stan, or a lie, to say exactly what he says in his videos. Watch them yourself.

And I have suckered no one into buying my book. I created a good fractional system, wrote a book and published it. Came here to AZ thinking this was an aiming forum and a few people might be interested in it. Unfortunately, what I found was a mess of disgruntled CTE players harping on a 20 year feud. And they automatically assumed I was out to ruin CTE because that's the war they've been keeping up. Nevertheless, a few people here have bought my book and I appreciate that very much. But of all the books that have sold, print and e-book versions, I doubt more than 5% came from AZ members. I advertise in BD and in local book stores and online networks. I don't sell my books, with the exception of a few on eBay to get the name out there. I automatically receive a payment every month for the previous months sales. The book sells iitself, as Stan's will if people find it useful and workable. Well, he will physically be selling his, but if it's good it'll sell just fine. I do think he has a colorful way with words, so it'll probably be a good read.

His reference to tweaking there is tweaking your alignment to match your visual perception, not tweaking subjectively to better make the shot. Until you get quite good with CTE, and even after, you can get slightly misaligned going from standing to shooting position. It may be necessary to tweak a bit to get the alignment back perfect. If you understood CTE, you'd know that. As has often been the case, due to your lack of understanding, you took his words or of context.

 

[BC21]

Showing more respect than you have for Stan, I'll refrain from commenting on my opinion of the content of Poolology.

I have always had respect for Stan. I just don't agree with everything he says. Concerning your opinion of my book, I'm not petty and I don't expect people to tiptoe around their opinions or comments. I accept all feedback. That's why i give people the option to comment on my YouTube videos. I welcome open, civil and honest discussion. I didn't write the book with an unrealistic expectation that every pool player would think it was wonderful, especially those who are already dedicated to an aiming method. But for those that aren't, or for those who are just trying to improve their game by acquiring as much knowledge as they can, well....I believe they do find something in Poolology that helps them.

 

[8pack]

We just got 1 turd with your post.

You an some of your buddies play the role of being perfect dumb a $$es. Can you actually play you smart turd. I know cte ..I'm a big deal...lol

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Came here to AZ thinking this was an aiming forum and a few people might be interested in it.

And you had every right to do it. It's only logical and good business to go directly to where pool players congregate which is an aiming section of a pool forum. Going to a candy forum. a religion forum, or fashion forum probably wouldn't have resulted in any sales. Now if you can some how or another veer off with the techniques to make it apply to more accurate aiming for guns, then you can get many more potential sales in various gun forums. And there are MUCHO!

Unfortunately, what I found was a mess of disgruntled CTE players harping on a 20 year feud.

Man, if this doesn't clearly show where you're coming from and how skewed your perspective is I don't know what does. It's also why you are definitely aligned with the other side of the characterization behind all of it which is the ATTACKERS, NAYSAYERS, and PSYCHO HATERS who have been bashing CTE. the creators of it, and the players for 20 years. Why didn't you mention them?

CTE players aren't disgruntled. We're a very happy group of pool players who have found a method of playing that has elevated our games. But we are p*ssed off as well as sick and tired of the same individuals and their new recruits which you are now a part of to continue the daily assault one way or another. And they've attacked it from every possible angle imaginable over the 20 years. You have no idea.

And they automatically assumed I was out to ruin CTE because that's the war they've been keeping up.

Nobody assumed anything about you. You were just a new voice with your own fractional aiming system which is a good thing, not bad.

But in due time you veered off and made your intentions very clear as far as who you were aligning yourself with and what you posted when it came to CTE and what the 20 year detractors were posting.

Like I said yesterday, I don't trust you as far as I could punt you, Brian. You are an excellent writer who knows how to double talk, sugar coat your words and intentions, and try making yourself look innocent and unbiased.

Here's how you can do it. CONFINE YOURSELF TO POOLOLOGY! Stay out of any and all CTE analysis and posts.

Do you really want to help pool players? Surely there are those who have struggled with Poolology and either don't understand certain things or abandoned it.

What I find strange is nobody has questions about it and there has to be certain shot layouts that require tweaking based for distance, English, speed, table zones, etc.

Where are the workshops? I'll tell you where, it doesn't exist. You live for CTE and now how Stan markets his book.

I lumped you in with Lou Figueroa, Dan White, and denwhit, as being the four musketeer antagonists of the aiming forum when it comes to CTE and hit the nail on the head.

Prove me wrong by not posting about CTE! You can't and won't do it. That's why the 20 year war continues. 2018 is right around the corner so it will soon be the 21 year war. You could play a part in ending it but I don't see it happening.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You an some of your buddies play the role of being perfect dumb a $$es. Can you actually play you smart turd. I know cte ..I'm a big deal...lol

You got your wish Anthony. Thanks to you we just received the 2nd turd for Christmas. (you really need to stop drinking so much this far out. Save it for Christmas eve)

 

[BC21]

Nobody assumed anything about you. You were just a new voice with your own fractional aiming system which is a good thing, not bad.

But in due time you veered off and made your intentions very clear as far as who you were aligning yourself with and what you posted when it came to CTE and what the 20 year detractors were posting.

Like I said yesterday, I don't trust you as far as I could punt you, Brian. You are an excellent writer who knows how to double talk, sugar coat your words and intentions, and try making yourself look innocent and unbiased.

Here's how you can do it. CONFINE YOURSELF TO POOLOLOGY! Stay out of any and all CTE analysis and posts.

Do you really want to help pool players? Surely there are those who have struggled with Poolology and either don't understand certain things or abandoned it.

What I find strange is nobody has questions about it and there has to be certain shot layouts that require tweaking based for distance, English, speed, table zones, etc.

Where are the workshops? I'll tell you where, it doesn't exist. You live for CTE and now how Stan markets his book.

I lumped you in with Lou Figueroa, Dan White, and denwhit, as being the four musketeer antagonists of the aiming forum when it comes to CTE and hit the nail on the head.

Prove me wrong by not posting about CTE! You can't and won't do it. That's why the 20 year war continues. 2018 is right around the corner so it will soon be the 21 year war. You could play a part in ending it but I don't see it happening.

I unknowingly stepped on a yellow jacket nest when I made my first public comments here about CTE months ago. I was not aware of any 20-yr war against Stan or Hal. I expected blunt and honest opinions concerning my system, my book, and incorrectly assumed this forum provided a platform for open conversation on comparing and discussing aiming systems -- all aiming systems.

I can't help that I found CTE to not work as objectively as Stan claims it works. You and others kept saying it takes table time to get it working, but the same thing is true with ghostball, contact points, and the traditional 5-line or quarters fractional method. In fact, the connection between the 5-lines and CTE reveals much more about the system than saying things like, "CTE connects to the right angles of a regulation pool table".

There are no far-fetched claims with Poolology. I don't claim that every pro player is unknowingly using some sort of fractional aiming method, though many probably first started out using quarters. No workshops are needed because Poolology is really a simple method, easy to understand. But it's for "nosers", for players that want to stand behind the CB looking at look where it needs to go before getting down on the shot. It involves a player developing a feel and memory bank of shots so the system can evolve into a natural subconscious thing, just seeing the shots and shooting them in.

All questions are welcome, but I guess there just aren't that many unknown variables at play, due to its objective nature, so there aren't many questions one can ask that the book doesn't already explain. If I ask you to point to a tree in the distance and then walk straight to it, that's the aiming concept here. The distant object is the target, not your finger tip. Using your eyes, your legs, and your pointing finger as one mechanical unit of moving parts, you are able to focus on that tree and walk straight to it. Similarly, the CB is one moving part of the mechanical unit that moves toward the OB. The other parts are the eyes moving back forth between the balls, the cue stick moving along the aim line, and the stroke arm guiding the stick along that line. The fact that the CB breaks free of the unit as it moves on down the line is irrelevant. As long as the entire unit was moving along that line, the CB will reach the target as desired.

 

[Neil]

Sorry, but no lies coming from me. I don't appreciate being called a liar, especially when I provide links where anyone can see exactly what I am saying is true. He mentions absolutely nothing about applying english when he is talking about tweaking. And here you are calling me a liar.....?

Please listen for at least 30 seconds. There is no backpedaling here. He says what he says, and the meaning and context is quite clear.

TWEAKING

Also, it's not an insult to Stan, or a lie, to say exactly what he says in his videos. Watch them yourself.

And I have suckered no one into buying my book. I created a good fractional system, wrote a book and published it. Came here to AZ thinking this was an aiming forum and a few people might be interested in it. Unfortunately, what I found was a mess of disgruntled CTE players harping on a 20 year feud. And they automatically assumed I was out to ruin CTE because that's the war they've been keeping up. Nevertheless, a few people here have bought my book and I appreciate that very much. But of all the books that have sold, print and e-book versions, I doubt more than 5% came from AZ members. I advertise in BD and in local book stores and online networks. I don't sell my books, with the exception of a few on eBay to get the name out there. I automatically receive a payment every month for the previous months sales. The book sells iitself, as Stan's will if people find it useful and workable. Well, he will physically be selling his, but if it's good it'll sell just fine. I do think he has a colorful way with words, so it'll probably be a good read.

Why would you again post about tweaking when it has already been thoroughly explained to you where you are mistaken about it, and clarified for you?

You say out one side of your mouth that you aren't out to discredit CTE at all. Then out of the other side of your mouth you say things to discredit it and Stan even after you have been corrected on the same statements already. And now, you are even questioning the value of a book that isn't even published yet.

You now have made your real intentions on here as plain as day, for all to see. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to help you understand. I see that was a wasted effort on my part.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I unknowingly stepped on a yellow jacket nest when I made my first public comments here about CTE months ago. I was not aware of any 20-yr war against Stan or Hal. I expected blunt and honest opinions concerning my system, my book, and incorrectly assumed this forum provided a platform for open conversation on comparing and discussing aiming systems -- all aiming systems.

Now you know about the war going on for 20 years. And when it comes to comparing aiming systems or the NEGATIVES, read the "sticky" at the top of the aiming forum. It's called the RULES.

I can't help that I found CTE to not work as objectively as Stan claims it works. You and others kept saying it takes table time to get it working, but the same thing is true with ghostball, contact points, and the traditional 5-line or quarters fractional method. In fact, the connection between the 5-lines and CTE reveals much more about the system than saying things like, "CTE connects to the right angles of a regulation pool table".

OK, you have an opinion. How many times do you have to say it?
We try to keep telling you that your results and opinions are off base because you're misinterpreting certain things and not getting the proper visuals. It doesn't sink in and we keep going around and around like a merry-go-round with no brakes.

No problem. You aren't getting it and we're done beating our heads against a wall trying to get through to you. IT'S OVER!! WAIT FOR THE BOOK!

There are no far-fetched claims with Poolology. I don't claim that every pro player is unknowingly using some sort of fractional aiming method, though many probably first started out using quarters.

Good for you. You're such a good little boy who was taught well by your parents.

No workshops are needed because Poolology is really a simple method, easy to understand.

Since I don't have a copy or have never seen it, I'm not qualified to make accurate statements. But I'd be willing to bet there are a number of players who were overwhelmed at the math, angles, and confusion with that part of it. As far as memorization goes for the exactness, I'm sure NOBODY has done it.

But it's for "nosers", for players that want to stand behind the CB looking at look where it needs to go before getting down on the shot. It involves a player developing a feel and memory bank of shots so the system can evolve into a natural subconscious thing, just seeing the shots and shooting them in.

Unfortunately, those Poolology "nosers" can't seem to keep their proboscises out of other peoples' business and other aiming systems.

All questions are welcome, but I guess there just aren't that many unknown variables at play, due to its objective nature, so there aren't many questions one can ask that the book doesn't already explain.

So Poolology is objective but CTE is not. OK. I don't have your system but I'll bet I can find all kinds of holes in it and could ask innumerable questions. But who cares. I'll never use it just like you won't use CTE. So I'll STFU and not get involved. You won't and can't control yourself like the other musketeers.

 

[Low500]

-------------------

 

[BC21]

So Poolology is objective but CTE is not. OK. I don't have your system but I'll bet I can find all kinds of holes in it and could ask innumerable questions. But who cares. I'll never use it just like you won't use CTE. So I'll STFU and not get involved. You won't and can't control yourself like the other musketeers.

I didn't say CTE was not objective. It's objective to a degree, the degree at which a known perception is obtained and a consistent pivot is used. But the choosing of which perception, and the choosing of which pivot involve subjective choices, like using the 5-line system and having to estimate (based on experience) which line looks closest and whether or not the shot looks thinner or thicker than that line.

If a player guesses at the fractional aim points in Poolology, rather than use the numbers to fine tune the aim, that would be subjective also. And naturally any cut shot thinner than about a quarter ball hit would be subjective because there's no good reference to accurately determine the aim line. Those shots require a lot of practice to develop consistency.

 

[BC21]

Re: Post #52 concerning "I'm finished with analyzing CTE".
The over/under on this one has been pulled off the board.
The wire service burned out as the action didn't hold up for one day.:wink:
The oddsmakers tapped out...headlines on ABC news report: "NATIONAL WAGERING SERVICE LOSES FORTUNE WHILE PREDICTING OVER/UNDER ON CTE ANALYZING......168 BETTORS/POOL PLAYERS NOW HOMELESS AT CHRISTMAS SEASON."THE VIEW" HOST ,JOY BEHAR, STATES IT'S "ALL STAN SHUFFETT's FAULT".

:thumbup::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:

No analyzing. It's called conversation. As I've said, I'm finished with questions and analyzing the workings of CTE. Mystery solved. Bet is still on. Lol. :thumbup:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I didn't say CTE was not objective. It's objective to a degree, the degree at which a known perception is obtained and a consistent pivot is used. But the choosing of which perception, and the choosing of which pivot involve subjective choices, like using the 5-line system and having to estimate (based on experience) which line looks closest and whether or not the shot looks thinner or thicker than that line.

Here we go again. The same thing over and over like a broken record. Mr. EXPERT on everything who knows all.

. And naturally any cut shot thinner than about a quarter ball hit would be subjective because there's no good reference to accurately determine the aim line. Those shots require a lot of practice to develop consistency.

So in other words it's an incomplete system.

Lets face it, I will say CTE is not for everyone. But there are complete systems available with no gaps. A similar one to your fraction system is Joe Tucker's Contact Point Aiming System. NO GAPS from straight in to a 90 degree cut. NONE. If someone can train their eyes and brain for fractions it's pretty much the same with contact points on the OB.
He also has a complete grid with illustrations regarding CB to OB anywhere on the table for choosing the correct contact points. Also numbered training balls.
So one more time - NO GAPS FOR ANY SHOT ON THE TABLE - NO ANGLES - NO MATH.

Brian, I think I and all of us have said more than enough about CTE to you, Lou, and Dan White.

I also think you have said more than your share about CTE. Fact is, you've said more about it than you have about the nuances of Poolology. The real kicker is you DO NOT EVEN USE IT YOURSELF except here and there occasionally.

I don't want to talk about it any more with you or the other two. I'd appreciate it if you never respond to one of my posts or try sucking me into anything CTE related mainly because you're limited in what you really know about it and it does absolutely no good for us to explain more since you have your own mind made up.

Stick to a Rubik's Cube and your own system or just plan on posting and talking to yourself on here.