I think I'm picturing what you are suggesting. How have the table and pocket told the balls that the shot has changed?
Last edited:
Stevie Moore parallel shots CTE video
- Thread starter CueAndMe
- Start date
- Status
I think I'm picturing what you are suggesting. How have the table and pocket told the balls that the shot has changed?
The shot changed when the object ball was moved. Therefore a new shot solution is needed. You get the solution by rotating (or moving your feet and table position) to a new (same ETC) visual. This 'rotates' the cue ball edge (spot) so you obtain a new angle with a 90* pivot.
The solution, I believe, is the position your body makes in relationship to the object ball and cue ball. With the correct 'sight picture' and body position, a 90* pivot puts you on the shot line. You're going to have to try this on a table if you can't see it because I can't think of any other way to explain it.
The solution, I believe, is the position your body makes in relationship to the object ball and cue ball. With the correct 'sight picture' and body position, a 90* pivot puts you on the shot line. You're going to have to try this on a table if you can't see it because I can't think of any other way to explain it.
Okay, before you adjusted your body because the shot changed, how did you recognize that the shot changed? The pocket has to come into play for that recognition to occur. So are you memorizing angles (like a fractional ball system would) before deciding upon a particular visual and pivot? Are you seeing that the pocket is now angled more steeply away from your straight in shot and you now have to do something different?
Of course the pocket and shot angle comes into consideration. The visuals for a 15* and 30* shot are completely different. The system works because a particular visual for a given angle shot forces a body/table position that is unique for that angle shot.
A 12* shot will put your body in a slightly different position than a 5* cut. This difference will change the point (spot or angle) where you align the cue tip pre-pivot. This means that a cut angle between 0 and 15* can use the same visual. It's your body position and apparent cue tip placement point that will make the correct cut angle.
I don't memorize anything but I'm aware of the 'gross' angle needed for the correct visual. The most important thing is learning to do things exactly the same. Same bridge length, pivot, and etc..
A 12* shot will put your body in a slightly different position than a 5* cut. This difference will change the point (spot or angle) where you align the cue tip pre-pivot. This means that a cut angle between 0 and 15* can use the same visual. It's your body position and apparent cue tip placement point that will make the correct cut angle.
I don't memorize anything but I'm aware of the 'gross' angle needed for the correct visual. The most important thing is learning to do things exactly the same. Same bridge length, pivot, and etc..
Okay. Thanks.
If you haven't figured it out yet, you already know the answer -- CTE gets you in the general neighborhood of pocketing a ball, and the rest is feel. I fell into the same rabbit hole you are teetering on a year ago. Here's the short version: 1) If you don't get it you are either a hater or stupid, 2) Your questions will be answered with made up jargon that sounds logical but really says nothing.
Do anyone REALLY believe that Duke Laha runs 219 balls because of CTE? Really?
Also, here are some videos I made last year before I realized I was dealing more with a cult than an aiming system. As you can imagine, there was more than a little discussion of all this:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5320374&postcount=1407
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWZEoyoYMQ8
If you don't look at the object ball after acquiring the visual and shoot straight through the cue ball, how does the touchy, feely part creep in? On some of the shots I practice, I lower my head so the object ball is blocked by the bill of my ball cap. (Go Blue!).This is true of the 45 and 60 perceptions. I make more of them blind at the present time than I do if I look at the object ball. My instinct is telling me it doesn't look right and I usually dog them if I look at the object ball last. That's what happens in my case when I start using a "feel" on the shots. I've had the same problems using the 15 and 30 visuals when I first started using CTE and pivoting.
If you don't see how the cue ball 'rotates' when you move your body position and how that gives a 'different edge' to use as a pivot reference creating a different shot angle, I guess it's gonna take Voodoo.
In interest of full disclosure, I need to state that I have bad vision in my left eye. It's only 20/200 so my depth perception is most likely different than yours. Try the experiment I suggested earlier with your left eye closed and see if that helps.
If you don't see how the cue ball 'rotates' when you move your body position and how that gives a 'different edge' to use as a pivot reference creating a different shot angle, I guess it's gonna take Voodoo.
In interest of full disclosure, I need to state that I have bad vision in my left eye. It's only 20/200 so my depth perception is most likely different than yours. Try the experiment I suggested earlier with your left eye closed and see if that helps.
Just more talk about that which you know nothing. Let's see some video of you playing. I play even with Bart Goode. He has a Fargo rate of 694. I have played Adam Smith and broke even. Could put down much more, but don't see the point.
Guess it's just easy for some to try and knock the messenger when they don't have enough info to intelligently debate or discuss the actual topic. You have had at least three people just in this thread explain what Steve did differently. Yet, here you are claiming he did the exact same things on both shots.
What is your point of even posting if you aren't trying to help someone? You, Dan, and a few others always have to jump in any thread on CTE and you don't even use it. Why? What do you get out of it? You get some kind of thrill attempting to discredit those that have something to help others play better? Dan even said we are a cult. That is just sick thinking.
You guys remind me of the Hillary supporters. Make up stuff that wasn't said, then slam what you made up. No real discussion off any substance. You have your mind made up, and reason is thrown out the window because of it. You and Dan both have been told in detail many times what is different with the two shots. But neither of you are capable of even hearing it. Rather than just be quiet about it all, you feel you have to jump in and sow discord where there wasn't any. It's the only way you can feel relevant about it. Sad.
bluepepper if CTE interests you, just find out for yourself what the system is about. Stevie's video is a good subject matter that makes CTE such a controversial system. The question being, how can the same alignment/pivot result in different shots?
The key is, every CB/OB position on the table affects our perception of them. If you move either ball, the perception changes. Try this:
Take the two "B" shots from the video. We will only be doing the initial alignment from a standing position. Shot 1, align to B (as described in the DVDs) until it looks perfect. Now freeze and focus your eyes to CCB and where it crosses the OB (drawing a line through CCB to the OB mentally). Now move the balls and do the same thing for the second shot. What you should observe is that even though you aligned things identically from a procedural standpoint, the CCB crosses the OB on an ever slightly different (thinner) alignment. Same procedure, ending in slightly thinner physical alignment. The only thing that differed is the placement of the balls on the table.
You didn't *do* anything different. This is the phenomena of our perception and how we perceive two spheres on a square plane. If you just let your eyes do the work and let your body follow, you'll figure it out. It's all there, but *very* different than conventional ball aiming and thus, not easy to drop old habits to pick up new ones. I didn't get it for a while when I started. It required setting up the shots from DVD1 and shooting them for a couple weeks until it started to click. Once you get it, the pieces fall together quickly and you'll be pocketing balls like a mad man, mad why you didn't discover this years earlier. Then comes the discovery of applying the technique to banks, and all of your pool transgressions will surface
The key is, every CB/OB position on the table affects our perception of them. If you move either ball, the perception changes. Try this:
Take the two "B" shots from the video. We will only be doing the initial alignment from a standing position. Shot 1, align to B (as described in the DVDs) until it looks perfect. Now freeze and focus your eyes to CCB and where it crosses the OB (drawing a line through CCB to the OB mentally). Now move the balls and do the same thing for the second shot. What you should observe is that even though you aligned things identically from a procedural standpoint, the CCB crosses the OB on an ever slightly different (thinner) alignment. Same procedure, ending in slightly thinner physical alignment. The only thing that differed is the placement of the balls on the table.
You didn't *do* anything different. This is the phenomena of our perception and how we perceive two spheres on a square plane. If you just let your eyes do the work and let your body follow, you'll figure it out. It's all there, but *very* different than conventional ball aiming and thus, not easy to drop old habits to pick up new ones. I didn't get it for a while when I started. It required setting up the shots from DVD1 and shooting them for a couple weeks until it started to click. Once you get it, the pieces fall together quickly and you'll be pocketing balls like a mad man, mad why you didn't discover this years earlier. Then comes the discovery of applying the technique to banks, and all of your pool transgressions will surface
The process for the 2 30s is absolutely identical. Do I know more visual detail about the process? You betcha!
As far as 10 years in.....I never set out to create an AIMING system. I did not wake up one day and decide that I needed to develop a system for aiming. What I did do, though, was to completely committ to unravelling Hal Houle's 10 years of work with CTE. As a result I accomplished what I set out to do. As far as HAMB goes I probably did hit a million balls during my quest for acquiring an understanding of CTE.
If I had just wanted to have an aiming system because it was the fashionable thing to have I would've bombed out on that weekend project long ago. Instead, I chose to work with content matter that already existed but was never properly explained...not even close. I feel great that I have been able put the pieces together in just ten years. I can easily imagine wiping the slate clean and never getting it together again in 500 years. In fact, 5000 years would likely be insufficient if Hal's work completely vanished and minds were suddenly at square one.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
I guess what is confusing is you say the process is identical and Neil says Stevie did something different.
There's just too many conflicting explanations out there. The problem is probably the words being used, they mean different things to different people, so that could be causing the confusion
When you get everything together I WILL take a look at it just to try to understand a different approach to the game.
I don't think any of us come on here to bash your system, it's just that the explanations are not clear enough to make any sense to us so we call BS. Hopefully when you get done it will all be clear.
Pool doesn't transfer very well to words lol.
Anyway, have a great weekend, and look forward to a finished product.
Jason
Pool is visual....The shots can be solved without a cue in hand.
Yup, Too many explanations out there.
You are invited to any of my clinics for a first-hand look at CTE so you can see for yourself how it really works.
BS....I never once thought BS even when I did not grasp much of it. Instead I worked hard to solve its phenomenal nature.
Yup, CTE has been a 10 year deal to put into its appropriate wording. Pool is visual but CTE represents an unraveling of what the eyes can optimally see for connecting with 2x1 surfaces.
Thank you!
Stan Shuffett
When our eyes first find the perfect CTEL/A/B/C, it is a perceptual alignment, not a protractor and ruler alignment. The positions of the balls on the table affect our perception. Every CB/OB position on the table (zillions as Stan states) will have a unique physical alignment, even though we use the same procedure (aim points) to arrive at them. This concept is the windfall of understanding (and of course, controversy) behind the system.
Jason, you don't understand the words because you don't understand the system at all. Look at it this way- How do you shoot the two shots? You follow a certain process to get you onto the correct shot line for each shot. You do the exact same thing for both shots, yet you still do something technically different on each shot.
The process is the same, yet the outcome is slightly different. Look at the shot, get in the rough position you need to be in to see the shot. That is what I call the perception of the shot. From the proper perception, you are now able to obtain the correct visuals. The visuals are like putting a laser line down on the shot line. The perception gives you the rough line, the visuals fine tune to the exact shot line.
So, you see, for each of the two shots, you do the exact same thing. You get into the correct position to properly see the shot. From that position, you now obtain your visuals. Yet, that position for each shot is slightly different than the shot before it.
So, yes. You are doing the exact same thing on each shot. But at the same time you are also doing something slightly different from one shot to the next.
I just see the shot.
I look at the OB to the pocket and see the contact point, then I find contact point of the CB to the OB(happens in an instant) then align myself to make the contact points line up, drop on the shot and pull the trigger. This all happens very quickly, and there is no adjusting once down over the CB.
So yes, these explainations are very strange to people who just use contact point for aiming.
Thank you for the offer Stan. If I'm in the area I will definitely take you up on it. Even if I still don't get it, it would be great to spend time with someone who loves the game as much as I do.
Sorry for the BS I sling your way, maybe someday I can understand what you are talking about. Until then I will make every attempt to stay out of these threads at least in a negative way.
Jason
Same for you Neil. I will try to quit being negative. I know you are trying to help.
I look at the OB to the pocket and see the contact point, then I find contact point of the CB to the OB(happens in an instant) then align myself to make the contact points line up, drop on the shot and pull the trigger. This all happens very quickly, and there is no adjusting once down over the CB.
So yes, these explainations are very strange to people who just use contact point for aiming.
Thank you for the offer Stan. If I'm in the area I will definitely take you up on it. Even if I still don't get it, it would be great to spend time with someone who loves the game as much as I do.
Sorry for the BS I sling your way, maybe someday I can understand what you are talking about. Until then I will make every attempt to stay out of these threads at least in a negative way.
Jason
Same for you Neil. I will try to quit being negative. I know you are trying to help.
Small suggestion to Stan
I was able to visit Stan's facility while attending DCC a few years ago. It would probably make it easier for others too if you could do clinics before, during and after DCC.
I was able to visit Stan's facility while attending DCC a few years ago. It would probably make it easier for others too if you could do clinics before, during and after DCC.
Excellent suggestion! I WILL make that happen the very first DCC after my book is released.
Stan Shuffett
The CTErs want you to believe that you can bend spoons with your mind.
Someone writing book about HH's "theories" might as well say they dedicated themselves to unraveling the secrets of Uri Geller or Peter Popoff, when they should be writing a book debunking the craziness, lol. It's all about selling stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo
Lou Figueroa
prayer cards anyone?
Last edited:
Yup, I am nothing more than a damn huckster, a peddler at best.
Stan Shuffett
Master Huckster
Stan Shuffett
Master Huckster
Last edited:
- Status