Another video from Stan: The How vs. The Why

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member

Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.

Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.

Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546


Why do you keep asking questions that have been answered many times before?

As far as your so called ""proof" of the two shots being slightly different on where they entered the pocket, how do you know it is only due to throw and not due to a slightly different hit on the ob? Oh, wait, you don't and can't know that. But you jumped on an ant turd and tried to turn it into a mountain because you thought it fit your agenda.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Very entertaining. I'm glad he clarified that there's no mathematical proof/explanation in the book. I just hope the book isn't going to be a rehash of things he's already shown in DVDs and on YouTube, and in words he's already written on AZ, otherwise it won't be very helpful for those that have tried to learn it using those instructions. Well, I suppose the ones that practice it every day for a month or more begin to develop some an understanding of how to make it work. But then again, investing that amount of time in any system should get you hitting the balls pretty well.
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Very entertaining. I'm glad he clarified that there's no mathematical proof/explanation in the book. I just hope the book isn't going to be a rehash of things he's already shown in DVDs and on YouTube, and in words he's already written on AZ, otherwise it won't be very helpful for those that have tried to learn it using those instructions. Well, I suppose the ones that practice it every day for a month or more begin to develop some an understanding of how to make it work. But then again, investing that amount of time in any system should get you hitting the balls pretty well.

Why would you even buy a how-to book about something that you have no intention of ever doing?
 

BeiberLvr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Very entertaining. I'm glad he clarified that there's no mathematical proof/explanation in the book. I just hope the book isn't going to be a rehash of things he's already shown in DVDs and on YouTube, and in words he's already written on AZ, otherwise it won't be very helpful for those that have tried to learn it using those instructions. Well, I suppose the ones that practice it every day for a month or more begin to develop some an understanding of how to make it work. But then again, investing that amount of time in any system should get you hitting the balls pretty well.

Are you suggesting that if I buy your book, I would have it mastered the same day?
 

Vorpal Cue

Just galumping back
Silver Member
No Math?

I was hoping Stan had gone to MIT and got some help from a physics savant and figured out the math. I was really looking forward to doing the 3D spherical geometry and see the underlying phenomenon. Guess we'll never see the : twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. Bummer, dudes!

Oops, should have added this : :grin-devilish:
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was hoping Stan had gone to MIT and got some help from a physics savant and figured out the math. I was really looking forward to doing the 3D spherical geometry and see the underlying phenomenon. Guess we'll never see the : twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. Bummer, dudes!


No, but we can all sing a few rounds of Alice’s Restaurant Massacree.

Lou Figueroa
in four-part harmony
of course
 

Neil

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was hoping Stan had gone to MIT and got some help from a physics savant and figured out the math. I was really looking forward to doing the 3D spherical geometry and see the underlying phenomenon. Guess we'll never see the : twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was. Bummer, dudes!

I seriously doubt there ever will be any math. How would one do math for a visual offset?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Why would you even buy a how-to book about something that you have no intention of ever doing?

For the same reason I buy Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins books, or ANY book -- to learn something. I don't plan on diving into gene research or planetary studies. I don't have any dilutions that one day I'll be giving a seminar on the latest discoveries concerning quantum mechanics. But I enjoy learning....it's a hobby.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.

Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546

Let's focus on the most interesting part of that video, the first two minutes where stan pockets 7 balls of a 15I perception cleanly into a 3.5 inch pocket. He rattles the 8th and reshoots it. These shots all vary in CB placement by a substantial margin for a 3.5 pocket. So how is he able to consistently pocket them? Is he:

a) Using a 15I CTE perception for each shot, lining himself up on them repeatedly and consistently in the exact same visual manner, and stroking a pure dead stroke through them?

b) Manipulating/Adjusting each individual shot, either consciously or subconsciously, in such a manner that a clean center pocket shot is the result?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that only one of those options would result in any sort of consistency.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Are you suggesting that if I buy your book, I would have it mastered the same day?

If you can look at a distant spot, align your stroke to that spot, and then send the center of the CB directly toward that spot......yes, you can master it in one day, provided you keep the zone diagrams handy or memorize them. They aren't complicated, not grids, but more yardlines on a football field.

There is a little basic math involved, like dividing a number in half, then comparing that result to the center-to-center alignment number between CB and OB. So that's the only thing that would take a little time to master -- memorizing the three zones and quickly doing the number comparisons.

I've taken the old Quarters system and created a user friendly fractional system that eliminates the need for guesswork. I put a lot of time and work into on and off for several years trying to simplify it without losing too much accuracy. If you have a good stroke, it's good to go right out of the box. If your not good with numbers, which many people aren't, then it's probably not for you.
 

paultex

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lmao, ok, why can't the proponents agree with Dan, that Stan has in fact made his frankenstein monster out to be a class valedictorian of harvard university?

Look, it's understandable that a person and his creation can go overboard in claims when they put a lot of work and time and pride into it when the fact is it does have merit.

I wouldn't go that far but I also say I'm going to send Orcollo back on a slow boat to the islands BROKE with my SYSTEM and I have every intention of making this happen and im not bullshitting just like I know Stan isn't bullshitting either.

Stan has enough reason and so do I but the fact is, we both can be proven wrong and the evidence is obvious. If someone makes a claim that can't be proven, then it's expected to get roasted. Voodoo only goes so far past reality but I am in the camp that physics are more than just what's believed to be conventional and I agree with Stan 100% when we spoke of the concept of a frictionless game but obviously the concept should not be taken to the litteral nats ass degree......just a higher degree than what is considered standard.

Stan is no where full of himself in comparison to what is considered standard in the general pool world and that bullshit runs far and wide and deep. Stan has just crossed the line a tiny bit and I don't have a problem with that because he's just a man and nobody is perfect and the guy is excited and rightfully so. His CTE monstrocity is pretty diabolical imo but not nearly radical enough for my taste because I think pool is a high warp spin game that has two more levels that need to be achieved.

I think CTE can be a good starting platform to build a hyper drive warp game because even i who can't possibly aim, has to visually start somewhere and I've never ruled out the possibility that I may in fact have to turn toward a visual contact point or line pick up one day and CTE is going to be one of those choices if need be.
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Stan is quite good at throwing out straw man arguments and confusing the issue. Stan is responsible for years of arguments by making claims that he can't possibly back up. Most here would be perfectly fine with CTE if he would stop saying it is 100% objective and that you can achieve multiple outcome angles with one visual alignment.

Until Stan addresses one simple point, anything else he says is meant to distract. Why the throw in this video?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546

Most here are already perfectly fine with CTE. There are 3 posters here that are outspoken against it.
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You are missing the point of our argument, again. It is beginning to appear intentional. Is it?

You keep phrasing things like you are the leader of a rebel contingent. You are not.

You asserted "Most here would be ok with CTE..."

The fact is "most" here are already ok with CTE.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Most here are already perfectly fine with CTE. There are 3 posters here that are outspoken against it.

I hope you aren't including me in the "against" category. :smile:

I'm not against CTE or anyone that is using CTE. I'm against the manner in which it has been incorrectly advertised as 100% objective. I ask a simple question about how a player knows objectively, exactly, which perception to use, exactly where where to place the bridge hand before beginning the pivot or sweep, and instead of getting objective answers I get berated and accused of being part of a 10-yr conspiracy to dismantle CTE.
 

mohrt

Student of the Game
Silver Member
I hope you aren't including me in the "against" category. :smile:

I'm not against CTE or anyone that is using CTE. I'm against the manner in which it has been incorrectly advertised as 100% objective. I ask a simple question about how a player knows objectively, exactly, which perception to use, exactly where where to place the bridge hand before beginning the pivot or sweep, and instead of getting objective answers I get berated and accused of being part of a 10-yr conspiracy to dismantle CTE.

The thing is, these questions do get answered. Often they go unresponded to, only to be brought again some time later, like its a question no one answers.
 

sixpack

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I hope you aren't including me in the "against" category. :smile:

I'm not against CTE or anyone that is using CTE. I'm against the manner in which it has been incorrectly advertised as 100% objective. I ask a simple question about how a player knows objectively, exactly, which perception to use, exactly where where to place the bridge hand before beginning the pivot or sweep, and instead of getting objective answers I get berated and accused of being part of a 10-yr conspiracy to dismantle CTE.

I was including you in the 3. Not because I consider you overtly against CTE but because I was trying to be generous to Dan's cause. :)
 
Top