CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

Status
Not open for further replies.
GetMeThere said:
We've been though this a million times (I know, you were too busy being insulting to actually follow the discussion).

HUH?

Yes, it's a kind of "coincidence." The apparent "use" of CTE is coincident with pocketing a ball by the normal, ordinary method of "feel."
Click to expand...

Your use of caps,quotes,comas is killing me!

Cte is not the ordinary method of pocketing balls <<<< this is why you can not understand or except it!

I run 7 balls in a row in the pockets i want to sink the ball in and your reasoning is "its a kind of coincidence" seriously GMT you need to stop this nonsense now and wait for stans dvd to come out and buy it. If your to cheap to buy then please leave this topic alone because you make no sense at all!
 
GetMeThere said:
Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.
Click to expand...


I feel your frustration....However........I have found a few positive aspects of CTE...I actually learned this many many moons ago....long before CTE was the rage....and IMO is mathematically supported.

I use a pivot method for super thin cuts...A couple problems with super thin cuts that make them difficult is that you are aligned at what I call "off the ball" meaning if you point your cue through center CB to the point of center GB...it will not be a point on the OB.

The other problem is that your alignment needs to be very precise for this shot...A hair to thick or too thin and the OB either goes nowhere (and possibly missed completely) or you hit it too thick and it is driven into a rail.

The method I use to align this shot is to align my cue through 1/4 CB to edge of OB...I then pivot to center which subtracts 1/4 CB and since I subtracted that amount of thickness...the CB and OB meet at an edge to edge contact.

I am sure that this alignment does not create a zero sum...if it did the OB would not go anywhere...however the (actual) contact of the initial alignment of 1/4 CB to edge OB has just enough "extra thickness" that when I subtract the 1/4 it creates as thin of a cut as you will ever use.

The benefit of this method is that it gives me specific land marks to initially align....instead of "guessing" where that aim line "off the ball" is.

I am sure that some math major will say that my logic and/or math is flawed...(It probably is) but I think because it is so close and so "repeatable" that it ends up working for me.....but as I have said before....all these alignment methods are only tools to get the right "feel" for the shot before pulling the trigger.

The is a main reason I have interest in at least learning the CTE method....I don't have a problem at all with my methods for any "on the ball" shots because I have hard reference points that I trust to align....so I doubt I would ever use CTE for those "on the ball" alignment shots....

However...I want to see if there are other "off the ball" shots like the one above that I can incorporate it....

............Specifically....I use the 3-line method of alignment....there is a 1/4 CB to Edge of OB alignment that I sometimes have problems "aligning" too...In that alingment the cue starts and is always through center CB but you are aligning the 1/4 CB to the edge OB....I usually use "just outside" the side of my shaft to reference 1/4 CB.....but I have goofy vision that changes from day to day...I think the "off center" alignment of the CB messes with my eyes on some days...IF I can find something in the CTE method that helps gives me hard reference points that make it easier and more consistent on a day to day basis that I can align to..I will give it a shot....some nights I am on....other nights...this angle is a run stopper for me

DISCLAIMER: The method above is not official CTE methods or PRO-1 or Same Aim .......This is only a method that Hal taught me over the phone when he called me one morning to ask me how I was doing with the 3-(a)line(meant) method he had already told me about ...at the time he referred to it as the above method as shish-ke-bob.......in other words....DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME...The method above was performed by a professional stunt shooter and is unsafe to attempt.

For information on CTE methods or Pro-1 or Same Aim or 90/90...please refer to Randy, Scott, Stan or Ron...:)
 
JB Cases said:
Not quite.

It's

1. Sight Center of Cue Ball to Edge of OB
2. Place cue tip in line with edge of ball.
3. Pivot to Center Cue Ball

now you are aimed along the line which sends the cueball to the object ball so that the object ball will go towards the pocket.

For details find a qualified instructor who will show you the proper way to do these steps. Once learned this systems covers all shots which go directly to a pocket.

And once learned this system also provides an excellent building block to be able to judge how to send balls to any other part of the table.

My own personal testimonial is that I have devised a way to build on CTE to allow me to use it to send the object ball to any other part of the table at will.
Click to expand...


JB...with all due respect...I understand #1 and #3 clearly.....I can't seem to make out what #2 means???

In line of edge of "which ball"??...From where to where? :confused::confused::)
 
GetMeThere said:
No one has every described a non-ordinary method of pocketing balls. You (and other CTE believers) are indulging in magical thinking.
Click to expand...

lol you like steer away from direct question and pick and choose and go off topic :)


I learned a method of pocketing balls using only the cue ball and object ball. Why do you have a hard time understanding this? i dont get your thinking?
 
GetMeThere said:
No one has every described a non-ordinary method of pocketing balls. You (and other CTE believers) are indulging in magical thinking.
Click to expand...

Does that mean we are also indulging in magical ball pocketing?

If, using CTE, shots are being made, it's either an effective system, or magic, right?

I had serious doubts, but when I had it explained, and tried it, it worked.

So, to be perfectly honest, I don't care wether you agree or not. As long as the balls keep dropping, I'm quite happy.


JB.....we need to talk. Same Aim eliminates that last minute pivot.

Steve
 
JB Cases said:
It's

1. Sight Center of Cue Ball to Edge of OB
2. Place cue tip in line with edge of ball.
3. Pivot to Center Cue Ball

now you are aimed along the line which sends the cueball to the object ball so that the object ball will go towards the pocket.

For details find a qualified instructor who will show you the proper way to do these steps.
Click to expand...

thx

I have a couple of questions directed at those qualified instructors.

1. Sight Center of Cue Ball to Edge of OB
I suppose "sight" means to look - with my eyes - through the center of the cueball to the edge of the object ball (right edge for cut to left and vice versa)?

2. Place cue tip in line with edge of ball.
What does this mean exactly? Assuming I'm looking down the line described in step 1, there is only one edge on the left and one on the right of the cueball (one for thin cuts, the other thick cuts). One point does not make a line. Do I have to place the cue parallel to the CTE line or at an angle?

3. Pivot to Center Cue Ball
Should I keep my bridge hand still? Where is the pivot point? What does it depend on?

4. Is JB's description accurate?

5. I can set up any number of shots with the same CTE line but with different potting angles. If I do all 3 steps on every one of these shots without any variation, I should hit every objectball at the same spot, for example at a 20° angle, meaning I would miss most of the shots. The needed variation to make every shot should be in the pivot, correct?
 
pooltchr said:
Does that mean we are also indulging in magical ball pocketing?
Click to expand...

No.

pooltchr said:
If, using CTE, shots are being made, it's either an effective system, or magic, right?
Click to expand...

No.

pooltchr said:
I had serious doubts, but when I had it explained, and tried it, it worked.

So, to be perfectly honest, I don't care wether you agree or not. As long as the balls keep dropping, I'm quite happy.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a common point in CTE discussions. They always return to it. The problem with it is that the things that happen on a pool table are quite SIMPLE, easy to understand and, in fact, well understood.

When there's a point of "well, I don't know what happened, but IT WORKED!" the describer IS, of course, CONFUSED. That's tacitly admitted. But, as I said, pool is simple enough that there doesn't NEED to be confusion.

So...if your description of a "system" includes a "point of confusion," then...well, what's really the case is that people are CONFUSED, and are then apt to imagine that ONE thing may be happening when in fact really ANOTHER thing is.

In any case, since you admit you don't KNOW, you're in no position whatever to make claims about what in fact is happening.

I've been accused of "talking about CTE without learning it," but CTE users "talk about CTE" without KNOWING WHAT IT IS. You, right here, right now, have agreed to that.

And again I'll remind that pool is actually SIMPLE, and doesn't have much need for MYSTERY. It's easy to see, then, that people who CLAIM a mystery are probably in fact merely ignorant.

And it's ignorance that CTE DEPENDS UPON for its existence and following.
 
GetMeThere said:
Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.
Click to expand...

Somehow I knew president wouldn't be good enough for you. You have to be emperor. This really sums up your attitude.
 
I don't understand why anyone is complaining about CTE/Pro 1.
For many of us at the Armature level if you don't have a straight, repeatable stroke how can you confirm or deny the validity of any one aiming system? The short answer is you can't......... As for me I am a "high B+" or "low A" player and currently I use feel, backed by Ghost Ball & BHE to play pool. This would suggest that the level at which I play pool has not over the years reached a "Solid A+" because of several factors, general lack of knowledge in some areas of the game, plus not showing I have the ability to produce a strong, straight, repeatable stroke on a consistent basis over time.
I guess what I am trying to get at is even if I took lessons on CTE/Pro1 with Stan it may improve my game it may not but either way even after taking lesions I would not be a good authority on whether or not CTE/Pro1 is a viable aiming system.
NOW
On the other hand Stevie Moore and Landon Shuffett do have straight and repeatable strokes and they both claim to use CTE/Pro1 as their aiming system of choice. So unless someone here is willing to step up and call Stevie or Landon liars, I submit the there is massive evidence that in fact CTE/Pro1 works at a very high level of play.
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
I know you've been reading the CTE threads, so I don't get this. Sean has made some great posts. I mean a couple of them give all of your posts in all of the CTE threads put together The Break & The Rainbow when it comes to thoughtful posts.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Always had you figured for a bad handicapper.
 
There has been epic fail on getmethere posts on this page tonite! I think he should leave this cte stuff alone because its way over his head and he is debating it like a child would.

It cant be an aiming system because your not aiming with the pocket in your eye sight.

Its not real because you can not explain why it goes in even though you can show it,teach it,learn it.
 
lfigueroa said:
No, there's no conspiracy (I'm not paranoid like you, John). It's just that if you want and especially pay for a magic talisman some people are going to delude themselves into believe they've gotten something magical -- you're going to stick with until, damnit, you make the thing work. And just ignore that man behind the curtain and all the little things you're fudging to make it work.

The number of people someone "reaches" is about as weak an argument as you can come up with. Turn on your TV John (you do get something other than state-sponsored TV in China, don't you?) and watch the *millions* being "reached" and who actually go and pick up their phones and buy and pay for all kinds of junk. Kevin Trudeau "reaches" more people and has become a millionaire by "reaching" a lot of feeble-minded people.

I can't believe that needs to be explained to you.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

The difference between the "reach" of a Kevin Trudeau and the reach of a bunch of accredited instructors is that the people whom the instructors tech can REACH back and strangle them if what they received is a bunch of nonsense.

That's what you don't get.

One more time, this is a SMALL society, we all know each other here. Screw one of us and everyone finds out about it. If Scott Lee is running around the country teaching nonsense and leaving people in his wake that aren't happy with what they got for what they paid then we'd hear about it.

If Randy G. was teaching nonsense then we'd hear about it.

If Stan Shuffet was teaching nonsense then we would know about it.

Instead the OVERWHELMING majority of people who take lessons from these guys and speak about the CTE-like system they learned have nothing but high praise for the content and the results.

For you to dismiss these people as all self-deluded and weak-minded is itself a weak argument.

Is Fred Agnir weak minded?

Is Randy Goetlicher weak minded? Is he a scam artist?

This is a concrete method that is being taught. The effectiveness is easily measurable.

I make a lot of claims with my cases. What I tell people is that I have no problem making those claims because I can back them up in person. When I sell someone a case I can look them in the eye the following year at a show and know that they are happy with their purchase and that the case did exactly what I said it would do for them.

You are stretching this out to the edge of the galaxy trying to discredit not only the system but also the people who who teach it. 9 years ago we didn't have accredited teachers out there willing to put their reputations on the line by saying that they teach Hal's systems.

Now we do and this bugs the living crap out of you. So you are now comparing them to Kevin Trudeau in an attempt to discredit them.

Well guess what? It won't work.

Because the reach is personal, 1 to 1. The student goes to the teacher or the teacher comes to the student, they know each other. This is what you can't stop with your insinuations. That you even try is low and reprehensible. But that's the path you have decided you want to be on.
 
GetMeThere said:
Everyone complains about me. They find it easy and enjoyable. They NEVER offer arguments in support of the theory or principles behind CTE.

Why?

If I could figure THAT out, I should be made EMPEROR!

If CTE is so great, why is it (apparently, by the absence) so difficult to give reasons to support it?

One obvious conclusion is that you try to be NEGATIVE toward me, because you find it IMPOSSIBLE to be POSITIVE about CTE.
Click to expand...

Why don't you shed your little mask of anonymity?
Name a few tourneys you've won.

No claims to fame?

We've had this discussion about the attacks before.
Last chance.
 
pooltchr said:
Does that mean we are also indulging in magical ball pocketing?

If, using CTE, shots are being made, it's either an effective system, or magic, right?

I had serious doubts, but when I had it explained, and tried it, it worked.

So, to be perfectly honest, I don't care wether you agree or not. As long as the balls keep dropping, I'm quite happy.


JB.....we need to talk. Same Aim eliminates that last minute pivot.

Steve
Click to expand...

Yes, I am certain that people like Dave S., Randy G. Stan S. and others have taken it to another level.

I actually don't put my cue down and pivot to center - I do it "in the air" as Dave and others have spoken about.

But I am highly interested in learning Same Aim and Pro 1 so that I can see where the best minds in pool have taken Hal's systems to.

I was giving the ultra stripped down basic version.

Or the equivalent of saying,

1. Imagine a ball sitting behind another ball in line with the pocket.
2. Shoot the cueball squarely into that imaginary ball.

That's GB at it's most basic.

As we all know it takes more than that and usually a bunch of devices to actually USE the GB method.

And by the same token it usually takes some help to learn the CTE method.

And your offer to help me with Same Aim is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the information is out there and that anyone who is NICE can get it.

However let's try another tactic and see what kind of results that brings.

I DEMAND that you tell me what you know on the OPEN FORUM or I will declare that Same Aim is bunk and that you are a fraud.

Got that? Cave in to my demand NOW!
 
BRKNRUN said:
JB...with all due respect...I understand #1 and #3 clearly.....I can't seem to make out what #2 means???

In line of edge of "which ball"??...From where to where? :confused::confused::)
Click to expand...

Ken,

As I said these are the very basic instructions.

Think about them though for a second and think about the possibilities. If you spent about ten minutes at the table you could rule out most of the possibilities for what step 2 means.

Then you focus on the only ones left which have any chance at all of being right and narrow it down from there.

Or...... cozy up to someone on this board who is an expert in this and talk to them - in private. They will get you pointed in the right direction.

Maybe. I say maybe because I know that a lot of them were formerly very helpful and cheerful about sharing and now some of them are hurt and jaded about trying to help people through this medium. They prefer to show people in person as that seems to be a way to communicate the information easier than through the written word.

I have a video that I might publish later that may help you. I have to get it down from 1.5gb to something I can upload. In that video I show my personal method for using CTE to shoot balls to locations other than pockets.

But please don't ask me specific questions about the system on here because I will not answer them with specific answers. The reasons for this are because I have not studied HOW to teach CTE well enough yet to be competent enough to tell you what to do through writing and also because I was asked not to share certain details on the open forum. I could repeat what I have been told and given but I won't.

And I am confident that if you had been given the same information and asked not to share it online then you wouldn't publish it on here either.
 
champ2107 said:
I learned a method of pocketing balls using only the cue ball and object ball. Why do you have a hard time understanding this? i dont get your thinking?
Click to expand...

RIIIIGHT....but that can't work, you see. You only BELIEVE that it works, but it really doesn't. Kinda weird, huh? ;)
 
Nothing works, its all our imaginations, none of us are really here. I put my key in the ignition and the truck starts, wow its a miracle.
 
Seeing as I get to see his posts through people quoting him, I'll give GMT his magic answer he's been looking for, in regards to how Stan can pocket a ball without having to consider the target.

The first assumption is that a table is twice as long as it is wide. The pool tables I play on, on Planet Earth, have this quality. In GMT's realm of dominion, he'll have to confirm.

Now, the "magical" pocketing of the ball without having to actually look at the pocket. When you stand behind the cueball, and line it up to the object ball, you have already taken the pocket into account. Depending on where the ball is, you have at most 3 pockets you can cut the ball into, not counting banks. Now, we've said this isn't a banking system, so you will, at most, have 3 pockets to play to. Here's the kicker - which edge of the object ball you choose to cut reduces that number down.

I'll break that down, just so you can "get it". Let's say the ball is on the foot spot, and the ball is on the head string. I cannot back cut the ball into a side pocket, so there are only 2 pockets I can play to - the two bottom corners. The second you pick the right or left edge of that ball, you have automatically chosen your pocket, so the pocket's position is irrelevant.

Let's say the ball happens to be near centre table. Depending on where the cueball and object ball are, you could have three possible pockets - the nearest side, the corner on the same side of the table, and a really thin cut to the opposite corner pocket. You will have one edge that allows you to cut to the side or corner. The opposite side is the back cut to the corner pocket. Again, by choosing which edge of the object ball you're sighting, you've already positioned yourself for those pockets, so their position is irrelevant.

That's the magic. Feel free to disect and report back to the group. I won't see the response unless someone quotes you again, which is inevitable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top