I hear ya. That's the subjectiveness of the Quarters system.
Alignments Contrast Video And Speed Contrast Video by Stan
- Thread starter mohrt
- Start date
I hear ya. That's the subjectiveness of the Quarters system.
Ok. That's what Stan says, that varying shot angles can be achieved with one perception. When I ask how a player knows which perception to use and exactly how much deviation from that perception is needed to produce the exact angle you need, I get a "you just know" answer. I think it's rote -- you do it enough times then eventually you get a feel for exactly how much to vary that perception. But then at some point you max it out and have to go to a thinner or thicker perception.
Like I said, I've never claimed that CTE doesn't work, because I can't test it to prove to myself whether or not it works. But that alone tells me there is a subjective nature to it. It just seems like you work toward a solution that your brain has already figured out through repetition. I am going to quit probing because I don't want to rekindle any ancient wars. I'm a natural over-thinker, been programmed that way since I was born.
Last edited:
dont know if stan is responding, but here goes.
Stan, stay or do whatever, but youre best served making videos and if you are trying to win a debate, then stop pumping up CTE as to what it can do and make videos of what other systems cant do or what it lacks. Then you strengthen your position of CTE differently by default.
Any way, good videos, you always point out or produce good context and you are very disciplined in approach. The fractional system can be made into a hybrid with offsets and so forth to fill in the gaps and or make the system more dynamic, but thats not the point of the system. Its a one liner and you use it and demonstrate it as such. You used to use the hell out of it, why didnt you morph it into something better like you did with CTE?
Any way, who gives a shyte, its more a rhetorical question and i dont care. Thats your business do or handle things the way you want. You make good videos, youre not so good at posting, its not your strength. Thats my opinion.
Stan, in this video, if im not mistaken, is this shot angle from this position on the table, "sweep neutral"? I just made that up but correct me if im wrong if there are in fact shots that work with either sweep. Hmmmm, i think its possible but i blend or manipulate eyes so much now, i cant tell but i think its very possible, that table hindrance can actually put one in a neutral position where basically a sweep isnt required in essence because left or right sweep is basically the same.
Yes? No? Thanks.....make more videos sir and good luck. Remember, im one of your critics but i think CTE is real enough. If it connects tick to tick true center ball, and i think it does, then measure it out in laboratory conditions with lasers or whatever. You have all the necessary conditions of distance, angle and diameter. Prove that part right and you got the critics beat, but im not a critic of that. I think your mechanics takes you a long way in this thing and i dont believe visuals can overcome some of the disparities that pool itself forces on a human.
Surely a snooker table that is taller has a change in effect. The reach is much different too.....but i have no doubts that a visual system or method can pull a player in correctly.....but for every shot? Well, i dont agree. But who cares, it doesnt take away from the fact that you are a sophisticated player and have alot to offer as a teacher. I learned from you and i think everyone should watch some if not all your videos.
People in all reality should listen and observe everyone because you just never know what even a moron might actually come up with. Ive seen things. Good luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrs0aWd9TD4
Stan, stay or do whatever, but youre best served making videos and if you are trying to win a debate, then stop pumping up CTE as to what it can do and make videos of what other systems cant do or what it lacks. Then you strengthen your position of CTE differently by default.
Any way, good videos, you always point out or produce good context and you are very disciplined in approach. The fractional system can be made into a hybrid with offsets and so forth to fill in the gaps and or make the system more dynamic, but thats not the point of the system. Its a one liner and you use it and demonstrate it as such. You used to use the hell out of it, why didnt you morph it into something better like you did with CTE?
Any way, who gives a shyte, its more a rhetorical question and i dont care. Thats your business do or handle things the way you want. You make good videos, youre not so good at posting, its not your strength. Thats my opinion.
Stan, in this video, if im not mistaken, is this shot angle from this position on the table, "sweep neutral"? I just made that up but correct me if im wrong if there are in fact shots that work with either sweep. Hmmmm, i think its possible but i blend or manipulate eyes so much now, i cant tell but i think its very possible, that table hindrance can actually put one in a neutral position where basically a sweep isnt required in essence because left or right sweep is basically the same.
Yes? No? Thanks.....make more videos sir and good luck. Remember, im one of your critics but i think CTE is real enough. If it connects tick to tick true center ball, and i think it does, then measure it out in laboratory conditions with lasers or whatever. You have all the necessary conditions of distance, angle and diameter. Prove that part right and you got the critics beat, but im not a critic of that. I think your mechanics takes you a long way in this thing and i dont believe visuals can overcome some of the disparities that pool itself forces on a human.
Surely a snooker table that is taller has a change in effect. The reach is much different too.....but i have no doubts that a visual system or method can pull a player in correctly.....but for every shot? Well, i dont agree. But who cares, it doesnt take away from the fact that you are a sophisticated player and have alot to offer as a teacher. I learned from you and i think everyone should watch some if not all your videos.
People in all reality should listen and observe everyone because you just never know what even a moron might actually come up with. Ive seen things. Good luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrs0aWd9TD4
OK, so here is my follow up to the second video.
https://youtu.be/0zjQoNfXcck
I guess you can put me in the category of those who are not all cleared up by Stan's new video. In fact, I believe this video proves my point. CTE is ultimately a feel based system after all the fan dance pivots and whatnot. Of course I'm happy to be shown wrong as I've said many times. Unfortunately instead of a technical back and forth I get called names (not just me but everybody who isn't satisfied with answers like "the balls present themselves differently on the table.")
If you guys really want to stop the bickering you need to meet us skeptics in the middle and start engaging in real science instead of demanding faith. Things are a bit more normal in this forum all of a sudden (ahem) so maybe some progress can be made.
Any takers?
The throw is acting like it should, and if the OB was at 1/2 table that firm shot with top would be an over-cut that misses. That explains maybe why Stan stuns most all of his shots, to force the OB toward the pocket, avoiding the over-cut.
I'm still puzzled by comments in the first clip. What does he mean when he says the single aim line doesn't work for him because it has to cross from the edge of the CB to that 3/4 aim point? It makes no sense. And really it's not difficult to fine tune a fractional aim, though according to Stan it's virtually impossible, which isn't true.
And as you've been told over and over you are wrong in that assumption
So you are asking for free info correct?
What assumption?
I'm not sure where the confusion is. Stan is aiming to the right point of the pocket. The ball throws a little for the hard shot, pocketing in the right section of the pocket, and it throws more for a soft shot. This is how everybody pockets balls, regardless of what aiming system you use.
I still haven't seen that one yet. Maybe there are some gems there, too. I wish Stan would make more videos shooting directly at the camera (hint, hint to Stan). It would help us clear more things up.
That shows how accurately Stan hit all 4 shots, how the CB struck the OB in the place for each shot. The only difference was the amount of throw that occurred. More throw occurs on the softer shots (pushes ob to the left as you described), and top spin reduces friction on the firm shots, sending the ob closer to it's exact cut angle.
I may be wrong, but I think what Dan is pointing out is the fact that if this exact angled shot were farther out from the pocket or closer to the rail (where the margin of error would be significantly smaller), the same perception would cause that firm shot with top spin to miss the pocket due to the overcut. An adjustment would need to be made or the shot would have to be struck softer or with a stun shot.
Last edited:
Yes, this is all true. There is a reason why inventors of aiming systems are nearly always framming in shots (usually with draw) when they demonstrate them. Also, typically the object ball is close to the pocket..Sadly we can't always slam in shots or even use draw all the time, so there is a major problem when someone claims to have one solution for all shot speeds and angles, especially since the effects of speed are greatly influenced by both angle and spin. The problem would still be there if the system was calibrated for soft follow shots, only the misses would be in the opposite direction. It doesn't mean that aiming systems are completely useless, but most are a bit limited in what they can be used for (without experienced based compensations, aka HAMB), IMO.
Currently I'm playing a lot of Chinese 8 ball. When you are cutting a ball that is closesly positioned along the rail the length of that table, I don't think there is an aiming system on Earth that can help you. Only experience can. You are fighting super tight pockets that cannot be rivaled by anything else in the pool world, nap effects, object ball curve, room temperature and humidity effects, ball polish breaking down over the course of the game (if it's a long game). Normally you can safely ignore most of these things, even on a quite tight table, but when the margin of error approaches zero they all come into play. You are not consciously aware of them of course, but an experienced player will notice that the contact may be getting heavier later in the game as a result of these factors, for instance.Then you have to play some sort of position as well, so you can't necessarily hit it hard enough to take these factors out, it's brutal...I've noticed that I slam in shots a lot on that table, and that is indeed the development in snooker as well, with ever tighter pockets. The tricky bit is when you need to roll the ball.
Last edited:
You guys have not found the correct CTE perceptions. You dont know what to look for yet! Stans book and new videos will reveal this. These are the same old arguments. Bottom line is CORRECT CTE PERCEPTIONS. logic from any other aiming stand point will work in your analysis of CTE. This is a visual offset system... nose down cue is not cte. Not even close. Mark my words once you actually take the time and learn cte. There are absolutely no gaps. Its a totally different visual animal. Thats all im going to say on it. But i really wish you guys would try to learn it and understand it. Then and only then you could have a conversation on it... how can you have a conversation on something you dont see yet (perceptions)? Your not going to learn cte over night. Once your visuals are trained your 15 and 30 perceptions work no matter what distance your pocketing. As for how it works i will let Stan explain that. You'd be even more confused if i a nobody tried to explain cte. I Mean absolutely no disrespect in this post towards anyone.
Last edited:
Hey bud!!
Here is Tyler Styer playing chinese 8 ball, and he is a user and instructor of CTE Pro1 aiming system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F972jFmTILU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfaY7uf-y1U
I get the perception concept. They are not difficult. In fact, set a couple of balls on the table where you'll want to use a 30° perception to pocket the ball. After you get body/eyes in the only location possible to pick up that CTE line and ETB line together, move closer to the CB (keeping the CTE line in view). You will eventually be in a position to pick up the 15° perception (CTE and ETA). The distance between your eyes and the CB makes a difference on which perception you get. But knowing you need to use a certain one helps you find the right distance to get the one you need. That is a decision you make -- choosing the correct perception for the shot.
Stan is very precise at hitting the exact perception and sweep for this particular cut angle. He shoots 4 shots with great consistency, changing absolutely nothing in his approach or execution other than speed and straight top spin. What Dan is showing, and it's very obvious, is that if this exact particular shot angle were to be setup farther from the pocket or the ob closer to that long rail, the exact same perception and shot execution would not work with the top spin. The ob would hit the long rail instead of the right pocket facing. In other words, it would be the exact same shot angle, but if Stan applied the same perception and execution as before (using top spin) he'd have to adjust something in his stroke or sweep to pocket the ball. And this might be the big secret he's going to reveal in the book. If so, that's great. I'm all for learning.
Last edited:
Nothing but crickets around here. I thought we were on to some interesting new findings in CTE land, yet nobody seems to be interested in exploring what this throw issue means for CTE Pro1. For instance, does this shed any light on how the "mystery" works. For those not following closely, "mystery" is not a dig at CTE. It is a reference to what Stan calls the "mystery," which makes CTE work in his opinion, as explained here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIFI6K_nNhE
Interesting.
How do you account for throw? I don't play snooker so I don't know. Do you hit every shot pretty much the same speed?