Stans New 'Truth" YouTube Video Series.

One Pocket John said:

Would anyone like to take the lead on this that way they can all be in one thread rather than scattered all over the place.

Thanks
John

Click to expand...

My understanding is that Stan has not yet started the Truth Series of videos and won't do so until closer to the book release. Right now he's only looking for a head count to see how many it is worth doing. He has committed to a minimum of 6 videos even if there is no interest.

Looks like we have about 9 or 10 people so far from AZ wanting more than the 6 videos.

I for one am looking forward to the book and the videos. Nothing like learning new information that will further my Billiard education.

One Pocket John said:

Your right Dan he hasn't. What I wanted to do is to start a thread, in advance, to place all oth the "Truth" series videos as the first post has stated.

If you would like to copy and paste all of Stan's "Truth" series videos to this thread that would be great.

He has a ton of support that's a given.

John

Click to expand...

I'm all in favor of the truth series videos! Stan mentions how knowledge is very important, and I agree 100%.

I just hope there's no soap box preaching about "naysayers and haters" in the truth series, because that's simply not true. Many of us "naysayers" have taken CTE to the table for long sessions, trying to understand it, trying to gain the knowledge that Stan himself admits he doesn't have -- the why or how it works for him and others. All he knows is how to do it. I want more knowledge than that, because the simple "how to" knowledge isn't enough. Stan is fooling himself and all CTE users by saying things like this around 9:05 in this video...https://youtu.be/0Y4xh89CWXg?t=545s

The example scenario he gives is exactly what I and others have done countless times. He's assuming we've never taken it to the table, but he's way off there. The fact that we've taken it to the table is the reason we question the objectivity of the system. Especially the part about the perception not leading the player directly to the shot, but instead leading the player to a line that's either thick or thin of the true shot line needed, and that's where the pivot or sweep adjustment comes into play.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to the truth series videos and I hope they stick to the point of teaching CTE without any time wasted on defensive tactics.

Michael S said:

Nothing like learning new information
that will further my Billiard education.

Click to expand...

You're a poet but don't know it.
Your feet must be Longfellows. :wink:

.

BC21 said:

I'm all in favor of the truth series videos! Stan mentions how knowledge is very important, and I agree 100%.

I just hope there's no soap box preaching about "naysayers and haters" in the truth series, because that's simply not true. Many of us "naysayers" have taken CTE to the table for long sessions, trying to understand it, trying to gain the knowledge that Stan himself admits he doesn't have -- the why or how it works for him and others. All he knows is how to do it. I want more knowledge than that, because the simple "how to" knowledge isn't enough. Stan is fooling himself and all CTE users by saying things like this around 9:05 in this video...https://youtu.be/0Y4xh89CWXg?t=545s

The example scenario he gives is exactly what I and others have done countless times. He's assuming we've never taken it to the table, but he's way off there. The fact that we've taken it to the table is the reason we question the objectivity of the system. Especially the part about the perception not leading the player directly to the shot, but instead leading the player to a line that's either thick or thin of the true shot line needed, and that's where the pivot or sweep adjustment comes into play.

Regardless, I'm looking forward to the truth series videos and I hope they stick to the point of teaching CTE without any time wasted on defensive tactics.

Click to expand...

Brian, it seems pretty simple to me that CTE acts as a method to reference point a truer perception of connectivity to a pocket because of repeatability of a consistent double line reference point.

The only problem I see is that your stroke line has to match the CTE point of reference and that's the only problem I see that why people including myself, can't make it work unless you hone your stroke to that visual reference, but that's where, speaking for me, is even more of a problem because I know there is at least 30% of shot lay outs that skew my delivery system because if my hips get out of wack, my shooting arm gets effected big time.

I have to assume many of us have this problem but that's not my point.

Let me ask you a question in the form of a story I experienced about 9 months ago if not more.

I would often encounter a 30 degree right cut down the rail. The visual of lining my shaft straight through the center of cb to the left edge of the ob, looked so comfortable, I just couldn't see how I could miss that ball.

I'm actually happy to say that there was no future in that shot visual because it opened a door of mystery that eventually led me to where im at today with "solve" being a bright light in the nightmare dark tunnel I been through and my mind twisting journey continues but it's nothing like those dark times.

When you use, I assume fractional overlap, how do you verify the overlap is consistent with the stroke line?

In CTE, a visual of edge to B, center to edge can be consistently done by standing in a known spot that shouldn't be very difficult to make work consistently over time and then come in on that visual with the required sweep that becomes obvious imediately for most shots and over time on shots that are not so obvious, but the better or truer the usage, meaning standing in the ideal or correct spot, then thick and thin should be more apparent.

This double line verification that skews accordingly, because if it's on the limits or less of a known 15,30 or 45, the proper visual adjustment will show itself through the center to edge portion, while retaining the edge to A B or C.

This method has repeatability imo if the stand up and stroke line is consistent and I don't see why either one, especially the visual, can't be consistently done, but I agree it's not automatic unless one is sincerely trying to make it work and I think it can because of the two line reference that gives a objective consistency and better connection to a given shot.

When using fractional, you got a flat over lap visual with a rifle barrel line pointed at a target but how does one know through another line of verification like let's say, connecting an edge to another or back to a point of reference to the shooter?

Perhaps you have this or perhaps through a form of tweak that comes with experience and I get all that because I think the same can be said about CTE but there is that one key difference though and that is why I couldn't find a future in the shot I described in my own personal experiences. I quickly figured out a concept of not having a second confirming point of verification to add a third dimension to the flat over lap target shoot visual......and that's where I got desperate and went to the internet to fish for ideas and discovered a couple of key concepts like cj wiley chiming in on hal houles 3 angle document and saying he "didn't know what aiming is" and used alignment to make his shots with a simple 2 angle visual of center to center and or center through edge or something like that.

I didn't give a crap about what cj was looking at, all I knew was you don't have to aim because perception is the most important thing and that can be warped any way one wants, thus my recent thesis that I've kept private, titled: Why we aim a certain way and is it necessary".

I don't like aiming of any nature except aligning one's self to a shot path and completely understanding all that it entails because it's obvious to me it's the best approach because it's the hardest imo, and that's why I don't use any of these aiming systems and im personally against it, but I also know that we aren't all the same but most of us fall into a window where certain aproaches are more user friendly than others, so im all for systems even if there is perceptual voodoo because I believe its inescapable because of the human element and "force" like a jedi because I can say for a fact of putting 10+ hours a day on the table, a very strange connection, like devining rods that move when you're standing over water, occurs in this game. I don't know how to explain why it's happening but it is not my imagination.

So, I would like to hear your answer and perhaps you would like to answer this as well, do you think your system is better than Stan's?

I think it's a fair question that has nothing to do with your legit arguments and any answer you give will not get a argumentative response from me because who the hell is anyone to say what works best for them. Personally I think CTE is better because it has a further and needed visual depth but that's just my opinion because I can't make flat visuals work and to be honest, I can't even see CTE lines any more and I'm pretty happy about that because my brain is now more engrained to "path" and overall alignment awareness that I am now working on to complete feel, transending from the visual aspect of looking at my foot position etc etc.

Thanks

Can someone please enlighten me, as I haven't read all the threads? What is this "truth" series about (other than CTE). Is it the promised free "nuts and bolts videos" or is it something else?

I want him to do more videos.

Straightpool_99 said:

Can someone please enlighten me, as I haven't read all the threads? What is this "truth" series about (other than CTE). Is it the promised free "nuts and bolts videos" or is it something else?

Click to expand...

Stan just said he's going to tell the truth about CTE in a series of videos to be released near book launch. He used the term "Truth Series" in his latest video so that's what people are calling it.

I thought CTE is a simple system?
Why so many videos/dvd's and needs a manual too ?

I enjoyed the grip stuff. Would like to hear his advice on delivering a straight stroke. CTE stuff aside, the guy is very knowledgeable

medallio said:

I enjoyed the grip stuff. Would like to hear his advice on delivering a straight stroke. CTE stuff aside, the guy is very knowledgeable

Click to expand...

I agree. He seems to have a lot of good knowledge to share.

paultex said:

Brian, it seems pretty simple to me that CTE acts as a method to reference point a truer perception of connectivity to a pocket because of repeatability of a consistent double line reference point.

The only problem I see is that your stroke line has to match the CTE point of reference and that's the only problem I see that why people including myself, can't make it work unless you hone your stroke to that visual reference, but that's where, speaking for me, is even more of a problem because I know there is at least 30% of shot lay outs that skew my delivery system because if my hips get out of wack, my shooting arm gets effected big time.

............(snip snip)........

When you use, I assume fractional overlap, how do you verify the overlap is consistent with the stroke line?

.............. (snip snip).......

Thanks

Click to expand...

The dual reference lines in CTE aiming are to get the player's visual center aligned to a certain perception based on the two lines. This perception is not the stroke line. The stroke line itself isn't revealed until after the sweep or pivot. And at that moment the player will be using one line of aim. The perception reference lines are dropped as soon as the player addresses center cue ball as given from the perception. From then on it boils down to a one-line solution, a "CCB solution" as Stan calls it, that comes from pivoting or sweeping.

I don't use fractional overlap visuals. I use one line, the known stroke/shot line that produces the proper fractional relationship to pocket the ball. I build my stance and stroke around that one shot line.

count me in on listening to what Stan is sharing

i have the impression he will rehash nutz & bolts which is gr8 for us who are somewhat lost

BC21 said:

The dual reference lines in CTE aiming are to get the player's visual center aligned to a certain perception based on the two lines. This perception is not the stroke line. The stroke line itself isn't revealed until after the sweep or pivot. And at that moment the player will be using one line of aim. The perception reference lines are dropped as soon as the player addresses center cue ball as given from the perception. From then on it boils down to a one-line solution, a "CCB solution" as Stan calls it, that comes from pivoting or sweeping.

I don't use fractional overlap visuals. I use one line, the known stroke/shot line that produces the proper fractional relationship to pocket the ball. I build my stance and stroke around that one shot line.

Click to expand...

Right, so when down and everything set with CTE, you pull the trigger and everything is dependent on the sequence that has to be performed correctly and you're left with a one line picture that over time, you'll know when it's right or wrong. But the sequence is supposed to be part of a method that has a true nature of finding center cb to the contact point of the ob. So I guess it's more of a aim the bullet thing vs aim the rifle.

Ok, thanks for explaining your method and I agree it sounds correct since you offset alignment to fit a particular shotline.

Do you always retain a accurate visual or is there some shots you apply a gap filler of some sort. For instance, when spinning inside English on some shots, do you have to compensate the visual more than others even though it's the same shot angle but the table forces a undesireable alignment?

Thanks

paultex said:

Right, so when down and everything set with CTE, you pull the trigger and everything is dependent on the sequence that has to be performed correctly and you're left with a one line picture that over time, you'll know when it's right or wrong. But the sequence is supposed to be part of a method that has a true nature of finding center cb to the contact point of the ob. So I guess it's more of a aim the bullet thing vs aim the rifle.

Ok, thanks for explaining your method and I agree it sounds correct since you offset alignment to fit a particular shotline.

Do you always retain a accurate visual or is there some shots you apply a gap filler of some sort. For instance, when spinning inside English on some shots, do you have to compensate the visual more than others even though it's the same shot angle but the table forces a undesireable alignment?

Thanks

Click to expand...

I always retain the aim line for the shot, even when adding english or accounting for table conditions. In other words, the aim is where it is, and whatever I do with the CB it should still find it's way on to that sim line before it reaches the OB, else it's a probably a missed shot.

BC21 said:

I always retain the aim line for the shot, even when adding english or accounting for table conditions. In other words, the aim is where it is, and whatever I do with the CB it should still find it's way on to that sim line before it reaches the OB, else it's a probably a missed shot.

Click to expand...

Yeah or i call it a bandaid if you have to compensate more than usual. There are certain positions on the table that skew alignment and make it hard to execute and get the result one expects.

I know the table being in the way is one factor but I still haven't figured out why exactly the shot line visual is harder to see than others. My theory is the rails, whether a corner or down the rail, interferes with the visual alignment. I can't think of anything else it could be but it gets annoying that I still get owned by it and have to use another visual aproach.

Do you or anyone else experience this as well?

paultex said:

Yeah or i call it a bandaid if you have to compensate more than usual. There are certain positions on the table that skew alignment and make it hard to execute and get the result one expects.



I know the table being in the way is one factor but I still haven't figured out why exactly the shot line visual is harder to see than others. My theory is the rails, whether a corner or down the rail, interferes with the visual alignment. I can't think of anything else it could be but it gets annoying that I still get owned by it and have to use another visual aproach.



Do you or anyone else experience this as well?

Click to expand...

Sent from my iPad using AzBilliards Forums