Another video from Stan, looks like his reply regarding cut induced throw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE
CTE Trumps CIT
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
Some people see a new thing and appreciate it and spend time to perfect it. Thereby helping many others in their own journey to improvement. These kind of people benefit mankind.
Others see what great thing someone else has accomplished and spend their time dissecting it to prove that great thing of no real value. They will attempt to pick apart every word they can. This kind of person never does anything of true value in their own life. They can only feel good about themselves when they attempt to discredit what great things others have done. They mistakenly think they raise themselves up by trying to tear others down.
These same destroyers will never be satisfied. They will always seek to discredit. Never knowing the satisfaction and joy of true accomplishment. They will go to any length, tell any lie, call others of true accomplishment names such as charlatan, snake oil salesman, ect, in the vain attempt to make themselves feel better about their own failures.
So, ask yourself this- which one are you?
Others see what great thing someone else has accomplished and spend their time dissecting it to prove that great thing of no real value. They will attempt to pick apart every word they can. This kind of person never does anything of true value in their own life. They can only feel good about themselves when they attempt to discredit what great things others have done. They mistakenly think they raise themselves up by trying to tear others down.
These same destroyers will never be satisfied. They will always seek to discredit. Never knowing the satisfaction and joy of true accomplishment. They will go to any length, tell any lie, call others of true accomplishment names such as charlatan, snake oil salesman, ect, in the vain attempt to make themselves feel better about their own failures.
So, ask yourself this- which one are you?
Mohrt - first of all let me say that I like this format. Stan gives you stuff to post and you post it. That is not a dig on anybody. You are far more reasonable and level headed than Stan. I think paultex said it best. Stan makes great videos but he sucks at posting in the forum.
So I'd like to reply to this latest video by asking a couple of questions:
1. Why is it that Stan throws the ball a good inch in the first video when he's not thinking about it, and throws it virtually not at all in the second video when he triple shims the pocket and is thinking about it? What has changed? (Note: It is significant that he hits soft and hard shots twice in the first video. In both cases the ball throws an inch less when hitting hard. If he had done it only once he could say it was just a fluke. Doing it twice exactly the same proves that the throw effect while using CTE is real.)
2. You never answered my question so I'll ask it again. If you wanted to hit a shot softly with CTE and then again hard, how would you put both balls into center pocket knowing that the throw changes the ob path by an inch?
Side note: the speed of the 8 shots in this video are all pretty similar to each other. In the first video he actually hit it softly first, and then hard. Doesn't happen in this video.
Side note 2: EVERY system over cuts the ball to center pocket, so what is the significance of saying it over and over? Ghost ball over cuts the pocket. If you want the ob to go center pocket, you have to over cut it. This is aiming 101 and I don't see what purpose it serves to keep repeating it as if it were some great benefit of using CTE Pro1.
Final comment. I'm not sure what purpose this video serves other than to show that Stan can hit nearly center pocket when he is trying to. Is he going to delete the evidence in the first video and leave the second one to show everybody how CTE puts the ball into center pocket every time?
I'm looking forward to the answer to question 1.
So I'd like to reply to this latest video by asking a couple of questions:
1. Why is it that Stan throws the ball a good inch in the first video when he's not thinking about it, and throws it virtually not at all in the second video when he triple shims the pocket and is thinking about it? What has changed? (Note: It is significant that he hits soft and hard shots twice in the first video. In both cases the ball throws an inch less when hitting hard. If he had done it only once he could say it was just a fluke. Doing it twice exactly the same proves that the throw effect while using CTE is real.)
2. You never answered my question so I'll ask it again. If you wanted to hit a shot softly with CTE and then again hard, how would you put both balls into center pocket knowing that the throw changes the ob path by an inch?
Side note: the speed of the 8 shots in this video are all pretty similar to each other. In the first video he actually hit it softly first, and then hard. Doesn't happen in this video.
Side note 2: EVERY system over cuts the ball to center pocket, so what is the significance of saying it over and over? Ghost ball over cuts the pocket. If you want the ob to go center pocket, you have to over cut it. This is aiming 101 and I don't see what purpose it serves to keep repeating it as if it were some great benefit of using CTE Pro1.
Final comment. I'm not sure what purpose this video serves other than to show that Stan can hit nearly center pocket when he is trying to. Is he going to delete the evidence in the first video and leave the second one to show everybody how CTE puts the ball into center pocket every time?
I'm looking forward to the answer to question 1.
Yes it is. But in all fairness, it isn't anything that the actual users of CTE didn't already know.
But, don't be surprised when certain parties start crying about being too close to the pocket or some other nonsense.
edit: oops, I see one already beat me to it!!
Last edited:
Like I said. I think this is a red herring.
Didn't you say you didn't understand Stan's version of CTE and you are pretty sure you make small adjustments when you shoot?
If you think it is a red herring, which you keep telling us, then I respectfully reply that you simply don't understand what Stan has been claiming all of these years, nor the ramifications of seeing Stan throw a ball an inch over 2 diamonds.
I'm going to read through this thread later but I want to make one thing very clear: I am in now way being told by Stan or anyone to post videos here. I am subscribed to Stan's youtube channel, and I simply post new vids here if I feel they are useful or relevant.
OK, I understand. No offense meant. It actually would be a better way to communicate with Stan if you were an intermediary.
That's an interesting point. You have a much better handle than I do on details like this as it is stuff you needed to know while developing Poolology.
I observe a couple of things. In video 1 Stan's soft hit is about pocket speed (soft) and his harder shot is almost warp speed. In video 2 his softer shots are about medium speed and his "hard" shots are what I would call slightly harder than medium... not much difference.
Also, in the first video he puts the ob on the foot spot. In the second one he puts it about a half ball diameter above the foot spot. Any reason for that? It seems like the cue balls are about in the same place, so aren't the angles in the two videos about the same? Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but wouldn't he get the same amount of throw in video 1 based on your throw comment? What do you estimate the angle to be? To me it looks a little shallower than a half ball hit, which is larger than your estimate.
Its arguable that a delivery that is truly down the line, may in fact, not create the effects that are accepted and certainly not to the degree that probably most would expect.
I said "delivery".....its certainly objective and does mean a lot of things. For instance, a cueball does not have to adhere to the cloth in its line of delivery. There are many other examples, just like the opposite end of the spectrum and effect of immediate adherence in which, after launch, the cueball immediately succumbs to the effect of friction.
I call it warpage but when one considers the cb often leaves the surface of the table, especially with above center hits from most players, then what is warpage exactly? What is a true roll? What is a true line of path etc etc.
Neil, are you aware that the world of science is based on skepticism as much, if not more than discovery? Its called keeping the claimers in check and its important.
My respect for Mr Shuffett says this, if it were most others pushing a cte or whatever, i would be more likely to dismiss it in the sense of basically going on the attack. I know Dan respects Stan and its only because we know that Stan has legit pedigree and is very disciplined in approach, that he is not dismissed out of hand, but put in check.
Somewhere in that history, its gotten nasty, temper's flare, and yes, the door of "con man" is in the equation because the criticism is legit, but the tact obviously sucks.
Beat a man with facts and ideas and it seems like both sides have not exactly stuck to the rules of rational debate and i dont see how you help with that post in this thread. It's worded specific and im not going to play your game about who it ISNT or whatever.....just say what you got to say and make it clear.
At least Dan or Stan dont make any bones about shoving it in each others faces and thats alot more respectable and i think you should agree if you are trying to be constructive.
Stan is NOTa con man in my opinion and i would be willing to lose a lot on that bet. I think Mr Shuffett is simply a firm believer beyond the line of total fact, but I repeat, I DO NOT PERSONALLY CARE, because pool has not standardized a legit book of facts yet, but they got a claim or rule for everything that is in constant flux and not for the better.
Stan has done excellent work and of few quality that i find worth a damn. Dan too has done good work. They are both putting effort in and putting themselves out there. If its on or reached a personal level between either one, then let them fight it out. Its good for pool right now.
I said "delivery".....its certainly objective and does mean a lot of things. For instance, a cueball does not have to adhere to the cloth in its line of delivery. There are many other examples, just like the opposite end of the spectrum and effect of immediate adherence in which, after launch, the cueball immediately succumbs to the effect of friction.
I call it warpage but when one considers the cb often leaves the surface of the table, especially with above center hits from most players, then what is warpage exactly? What is a true roll? What is a true line of path etc etc.
Neil, are you aware that the world of science is based on skepticism as much, if not more than discovery? Its called keeping the claimers in check and its important.
My respect for Mr Shuffett says this, if it were most others pushing a cte or whatever, i would be more likely to dismiss it in the sense of basically going on the attack. I know Dan respects Stan and its only because we know that Stan has legit pedigree and is very disciplined in approach, that he is not dismissed out of hand, but put in check.
Somewhere in that history, its gotten nasty, temper's flare, and yes, the door of "con man" is in the equation because the criticism is legit, but the tact obviously sucks.
Beat a man with facts and ideas and it seems like both sides have not exactly stuck to the rules of rational debate and i dont see how you help with that post in this thread. It's worded specific and im not going to play your game about who it ISNT or whatever.....just say what you got to say and make it clear.
At least Dan or Stan dont make any bones about shoving it in each others faces and thats alot more respectable and i think you should agree if you are trying to be constructive.
Stan is NOTa con man in my opinion and i would be willing to lose a lot on that bet. I think Mr Shuffett is simply a firm believer beyond the line of total fact, but I repeat, I DO NOT PERSONALLY CARE, because pool has not standardized a legit book of facts yet, but they got a claim or rule for everything that is in constant flux and not for the better.
Stan has done excellent work and of few quality that i find worth a damn. Dan too has done good work. They are both putting effort in and putting themselves out there. If its on or reached a personal level between either one, then let them fight it out. Its good for pool right now.
If Dan, Lou, BC21, Denwit, you, or any one else want to discuss the merits of CTE, you should at least have the decency and smarts to actually learn it first. Otherwise you all sound like fools. You all are debating a subject you don't even know much about and trying to come off as experts on it.
Sorry the other post went over your head. I thought it to be pretty clear. As far as me being blunt, that's a laugh. And if you think trolling is good for pool, you're nuts.
Based on the direction of the follow shots it looks close to a 15° angle. That's why the ball is slightly above the spot, to thicken the angle. The throw is about 2.5°. In the other vid the shot was closer to 20°, where the CIT would be about 3.5° on a stun and over 4.5 on a soft hit.
Last edited:
Paul, just let Neil be. He has no interest or apparent ability to engage in such matters. He is stuck on a short list of tired phrases. Here are the more common ones you can look out for in the future. You might even want to make a game out of it. Take a shot every time he says any of the following:
- It's been explained to you a dozen times already,
- You have never even tried to learn the system,
- If you ever spent any time at the table you wouldn't say that.
About the only thing Neil has ever said that is probably true is that he has no idea how Stan can shoot an ob in multiple directions with the same perception. Neil will probably say he never said that, but he actually did.
Anyway at some point you have to write people off as trolls and learn to ignore them.
So you figure the placement of the ob above the spot instead of on the spot is responsible for a 5 degree shallower angle, and this shallower angle causes far less throw for various speeds? I have to say, if Stan were slick enough to consciously plan that he's in a class by himself. Pure genius.
If I had more time and inclination, that would be a fun theory to try out on the table. I can't really believe that small a change in ob position would negate the throw differential in the various shots, but stranger things are true I suppose.
mohrt, can you ask Stan why he placed the ob above the spot on the second video? I know he won't answer me.
You got one thing right, I have no more interest in engaging those that only want to tear down what others have built. You have no desire to learn the system, as you have stated many times. So why try to help someone who isn't even trying to learn?
Oh, your second to last paragraph is another lie on your part.
I asked, he said his table has a slight divot on the spot, he was just avoiding that for the video.
Would you like to put your money where your mouth is? I don't need to see "many" examples. Show me, I dunno, TWO times where I have ever said that. I'll give you 10 to 1, my $1000 against your $100. You can even recruit your friends to help you find such a statement. You have until 9 am eastern to agree to the bet and I'll give you 7 days to find two examples. Your call."
Careful, Neil. Private messages never really go away.
I'm going to take my own advice and let you be, other than our little bet. I just want to demonstrate one time to Paul that you really are an empty suit. The other tactic you guys use is to cloud the issue by starting a flame war. To bad for you the flamer in chief is banned.