CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry ,misread and spelled
Nothing unusual for me

Same here. I used to think the expression was "for all intensive purposes". Never made sense to me, but whatever. Then, I learn from Mully that the expression is "for all intents and purposes". Ding dong - that's the doorbell. Logic is at the door.......
 
Yes, of course, I'm the one with the problem. Go watch Spider's video again -- you know the one where he shoots balls with half the table covered up so he can prove you don't need to know where the pockets are -- and get back to me.

Lou Figueroa

What is so hard about reading for you and GMT????? Read my post again Lou. Spidey knows the general location of the pocket. You don't need to know the exact location.
 
This is just an update about CTE/Pro One and my experience with it but before I get started I thought I would share a few things that I have observed and know. This is my personal view and nothing more. I'm not here to convince you or anyone else that you should learn CTE/Pro One.

It is particularly obvious to me that many of the people who have been bashing CTE/Pro One don't know what it is or how it works.

Originally most of them condemned it. They condemned it YEARS ago and now they are reluctantly defending its value to the pool world.

All of this is quite funny to me because most of the people who are doing the ridiculing STILL do not understand how CTE/Pro one works, when it works, or if it genuinely can help a players game.

I would be hard pressed to knock something if I didn't already make an attempt to learn what it does, particularly if other people had nothing to gain from extolling its virtues. The truth is that most people who knock it do not know CTE/Pro One.

As most of you already know, I enjoy learning different things and I try most of the things I learn in pool.

CTE/Pro One has been a journey for me. It started a long time ago and I didn't see much value in it. I didn't criticize it because some people had improved their game by using it. The core reason that I didn't criticize it is that I didn't fully understand it in the first place.

Now that I have taken a lesson from Stan Shuffett, the sole designer of CTE/Pro One I now have much more respect for CTE than ever before.

I play pool at an average level, maybe on occasion slightly above average. I'm not a champion and can hardly be called a shortstop. (That's just so that those of you who don't know me will have an idea of how I play).

In the past I used CTE primarily as an alignment system and that by itself helped my pool game, imo.

As I learned CTE/Pro One from Stan, a lot of information was transferred to me but I remained skeptical at its value to me. Afterall, I thought, I haven't seen many CTE users who played better than me.

As I put in a full day of CTE/Pro One, I started to realize that the aiming system has great value.

This has only been one week and I am seeing a change in my game for the better. Although there are certain shots that I have to make adjustments using CTE/Pro One, I make them seamlessly and the thought of the adjustments is hardly even a thought.

I am going from a "successful" manual, conscious, regimented "correct usage" CTE user to a more free-flowing aiming that I have used for most of my playing time, coming practically full circle, EXCEPT with some major differences. Now I know I am aiming correctly. Now, I can put more effort into stroking well and hitting the cue ball where I want and now, I have more confidence in my game.

While its only been a week, I can honestly say, I haven't aimed at a contact point or a ghost ball since I started. (This fact alone is amazing to me)

I've beat some of my sparring partners using it exclusively, which I didn't think I would be able to do for some time. I have looked at the object ball contact point on occasion but do not aim at the contact point, HOPING to have the proper cue ball contact point hit the proper Object ball contact point. I'm not knocking contact point to contact point or ghost ball or overlapping as they has served me well for many years.

CTE/Pro One has provided me with additional confidence which allows me to play less unfettered.

Now I can tell you one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt and that is, that it has not hurt my game one bit.

I placed second in a handicapped one pocket tournament where I have to spot the majority of the players and each week that I win a match, my handicap against that player goes up. It has become incredibly hard for me to win matches and finally I understand what the real players mean when they say outrunning the nuts.

In all fairness, I have a perverted sense of competiveness when it comes to our LOCAL handicapped tournament. This perspective aids me in the tournament and I have learned how to win when others have the nuts. I don't know if I will ever be able to outrun the nuts in gambling matches but it is what it is.

Anyway, as of right now, I am committed to using CTE/Pro One exclusively and it seems that my game has been helped and not hurt. What I didn't expect is the transition to Pro One. Right now I just seem to drop in and out of CTE and Pro One without paying attention. I have tried so hard to maintain the correct CTE system that Stan teaches that I actually enjoy the manual setup, the manual aiming, the manual pivoting that I learned from Stan. I didn't realize how easy I would move from CTE to Pro One and now realize more than ever, that professional players are seeing just what I see when I use the "CORRECT CTE" aiming system.

CTE as I have been taught by Stan, is not an instinctual aiming system but a finite ACCURATE, AIMING system that quickly becomes a NATURAL, PERCEPTION BASED, aiming system called PRO ONE.

I really am amazed that I continue to use it because I almost always revert back to what I used to use every time another player comes with some great play and this causes me to go back to what I used to use. So far that hasn't been the case. I have always had the ability to compartmentalize myself but I am CERTAIN that CTE/Pro One as taught by Stan has ALSO allowed me something that I didn't think it would add to me game. So far, it "SEEMS" that I now have additional powers of "FOCUS". The correct usage of CTE requires some specific steps which must be repeated over and over. As I repeat these same steps over and over, I believe that I am increasing my ability to focus.

I am playing in more local tournaments to test myself and will soon start gambling which is the ultimate test to see how you hold up under the heat of battle.

Tournaments are GREAT to test your mettle and I highly recommend them. In fact, I recommend them OVER gambling. Also, when I say gambling I'm not talking about gambling at stakes that will bust you but simply stakes that make a difference in how hard you play. It isn't necessary for some people to gamble to improve their game and it isn't necessary for me but I enjoy the additional pressure of gambling so I will be trying out that i the future.

For those of you who haven't gotten Stan's CTE/Pro One lesson, you should sign up for it and then you can be the judge for yourself.

So far, I have not found ONE person who has had someothing negative to say about CTE/PRO ONE. That speaks VOLUMES for me.

So far, I have found only POSITIVE BENEFITS to using CTE/PRO ONE.

It doesn't make any difference to me if I change the minds of some of the naysayers or not. That's not my goal.

My goal is to give an honest perspective and review about my personal experience with CTE/Pro One.
 
Good post Joey. I agree that it increases your focus also. That is because you are doing the same thing over and over. Being able to focus more on the other aspects of the game will improve those areas too.

Believe it or not, I feel that people are just starting to see a new wave sweeping across pool. Info that others have had for years is now open to the masses.
 
I understood that analogy. Your wording was "Taliban-like", which I saw for what it was. It was a veiled description not in good taste, jmo, especially coming from a fellow USAF compadre. But, it is not a direct attack and I understood this.

When i was growing up the term, "Nazi" was never thrown around either for obvious reasons. If it was used it was not as a description of anybody other than the Nazis themselves. Today it is thrown around to describe injustices and similarly I understand your use of the Taliban reference. Time will soften my views I suppose, but not anytime soon.

Best,
Mike
not adding anything like Lou does :-)

Mike:

You're one of the voices of reason around here, and I appreciate your posts. I agree -- we need to stop using terms like "Nazi," "Taliban," "drink the Kool-Aid" (in reference to the Jim Jones' Guyana massacre), et al. Although colorful, it adds nothing of value to the conversation -- in fact, it attracts the ire of those folks sensitive to those terms. I'm ex-military, too (I saw action, as well), and I take pride in the fact I protected the freedom-of-speech security blanket that those folks using those terms wrap themselves in. But freedom to use them doesn't make it right. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I did not agree with GMT's debating technique. And he's on vacation for that reason.

But I hope we can come out of this knowing each other better, and better equipped to engage in lively/spirited debate, without taking the attack of an idea (and its defenses) as an attack on one's person. I think all too much, we have somewhat of a "deity" or "hero" complex going on here. Folks tend to come to the defense of the pivot-aiming originators/founders/instructors (e.g. Hal, Stan, RonV) all too quickly, when an attack on those founders/instructors was not foisted in the first place -- it's only the IDEA that was attacked, not the person. However, I *can* see where GMT's "techniques" were misconstrued -- and they can very easily be misconstrued. Perhaps he'll come back slightly wiser and for the better. I hope for that. As Shawn said, give the kid a chance.

As the famous line in "The Hunt for Red October" (which was borrowed from Thomas Jefferson's famous letter to James Madison) goes, which, as applied to the questioning of ideas, is quite apropos:

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing." :)

-Sean
 
Let's move on

This thread is about Cte and Stan Shuffett. Again I post with my keen grasp of the obvious. As previously stated and mentioned by Mike Page in one of his previous posts (no, I'm not gonna look for it, I'm too lazy), parts are missing in the Cte description and he knows this fact. This is the basis of ALL the arguements in these threads.

The debaters contend that Cte can't work with the instructions offered on this forum. I agree. They are incomplete and have said so. You need to know how to do it before you can use it. Simple logic. Stan Shuffett is offering the solution, but not merely CTE which was given to us by Hal Houle. He is offering his hard earned improvement to Cte, Pro One aiming.

He does deserve credit for not only bringing Cte to the public eye after Hal and followers were beaten up unmercifully (too strong an analogy?:wink:) for years, but for having the foresight to realize there was another way to teach pool players to aim not using conventional techniques. His seminal ideas will help those that can't visual the ghost ball or line up correctly on the shot angle because of poor sighting abilities. This can be a problem for almost all of us, whether we want to admit it or not.

Cte is not Voodoo (where are u Voodoo Daddy?). It relies on visual aiming points that can be used in conjunction with a pivot to pocket balls. Eventually the user eliminates the use of a pivot and attains the aiming line naturally...a sort of feel approach to their game. This may surprise Cte debaters who envision all Cte'rs as pivoting obviously around tables and guessing when to stop at center CB.

The end result is a natural, visual method that physically resembles any other aiming system. In other words you can't tell the difference, but it's there. Only you don't have to think about it. You've assimilated it into your game and are moving on to figuring out the rest of the story.

After the release of Stan's dvd these discussions will turn to real discussions about Cte. Hopefully Pro One will remain a subject which remains taught by the dvd alone, but Cte will be out there. Meaningful exchanges of ideas and valid questions will replace the sniping (not all of it I hope :wink:) and then we can probably look forward to mending fences and some intelligent responses.

I saw on the news the other day where they had genetically engineered a pig with the wings of a Pteradactyl. I wonder what's next? Billiards in the Olympics?

Best,
Mike
 
It is particularly obvious to me that many of the people who have been bashing CTE/Pro One don't know what it is or how it works.
Agreed. We still don't have a clue what Pro-One is. All we do know is that it is a version of CTE; although, I'm not even sure about this, based on what we have heard so far. It will be nice to have something concrete to discuss after Stan's DVD comes out. Until then, any discussion and debate concerning Pro-One is meaningless, IMO. However, if Pro-One is based on CTE, then much of the discussion and debate to date has been pertinent ... but we still don't know.

Regards,
Dave

PS: By "we," I mean the collective AZB community. People who have had private lessons with Stan are the exception. They presumably know what Pro-One is but they can't (or refuse to) describe it to anyone.
 
Last edited:
I guess I have bad timing.
I just got back on-line to see if GMT accepted my offer to play Stevie Moore 10ball 12 a head for 5K and he got banned :(

If you don't think CTE/Pro1 works please answer me this question.
Is Stevie Moore or Landon Shuffett BSing all of us to sell lesions and DVDs? Do they really use the Ghost Ball method to line up there shots but tell everyone that they use CTE/Pro1?

I'll tell you one thing I met Stevie Moore for the first time at the Reno bar table tournament and again in Vegas. I am here to tell you he was one of the nicest guys you ever want to meet. As a matter of fact I have met many top pool players over the years some of them were jerks and some were nice genuine people.
Here is a list of the truly nice guys:
Tony Robles
Tommy Kennedy
Oscar Dominguez
Ernesto Dominguez
Stevie Moore
 
Agreed. We still don't have a clue what Pro-One is. All we do know is that it is a version of CTE; although, I'm not even sure about this, based on what we have heard so far. It will be nice to have something concrete to discuss after Stan's DVD comes out. Until then, any discussion and debate concerning Pro-One is meaningless, IMO. However, if Pro-One is based on CTE, then much of the discussion and debate to date has been pertinent ... but we still don't know.

Regards,
Dave

PS: By "we," I mean the collective AZB community. People who have had private lessons with Stan are the exception. They presumably know what Pro-One is but are not allowed to described it to anyone.

That's not true Dave.
Stan never once suggested that I not describe CTE/Pro One to anyone.

Myself and others have seen fit to not GIVE AWAY Stan's hard-earned information FREE OF CHARGE or publish it on our websites for others to read FREE OF CHARGE.
 
I guess I have bad timing.
I just got back on-line to see if GMT accepted my offer to play Stevie Moore 10ball 12 a head for 5K and he got banned :(

If you don't think CTE/Pro1 works please answer me this question.
Is Stevie Moore or Landon Shuffett BSing all of us to sell lesions and DVDs? Do they really use the Ghost Ball method to line up there shots but tell everyone that they use CTE/Pro1?

I'll tell you one thing I met Stevie Moore for the first time at the Reno bar table tournament and again in Vegas. I am here to tell you he was one of the nicest guys you ever want to meet. As a matter of fact I have met many top pool players over the years some of them were jerks and some were nice genuine people.
Here is a list of the truly nice guys:
Tony Robles
Tommy Kennedy
Oscar Dominguez
Ernesto Dominguez
Stevie Moore

Your list is pretty good, well, all except for that character Tommy Kennedy & OzzieMan. :wink:
 
Myself and others have seen fit to not GIVE AWAY Stan's hard-earned information FREE OF CHARGE or publish it on our websites for others to read FREE OF CHARGE.
I'm sure Stan's "information" will eventually be shared and critically reviewed (both positively and negatively, where appropriate), but I doubt "information" is the true value of a lesson or a DVD from Stan. If that were the case, and the "information" can be summarized in just a few sentences and paragraphs, then I would question the "value" of such a lesson or DVD.

People can get "information" from books, DVDs, and the Internet. IMO, the value a good instructor offers is not information ... it is the ability to work one-on-one with an individual to help that individual identify and learn things that can help that individual improve. CTE might be the answer for some individuals. For others, CTE "information" might not be the answer.

Regards,
Dave
 
You don't need to know the exact location.


Well, I guess it's just me then. But if someone is talking about an *aiming system* and is saying you don't need to know the exact location of the target... that would be a bit of a problem for me to buy (literally :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
If you don't think CTE/Pro1 works please answer me this question.
Is Stevie Moore or Landon Shuffett BSing all of us to sell lesions and DVDs? Do they really use the Ghost Ball method to line up there shots but tell everyone that they use CTE/Pro1?


Hypothetically speaking, I'm guessing that if someone believed anything like that they could not say it here without being shown the door.

Lou Figueroa
 
Last edited:
Stop it. You're maxing out my Irony Meter, lol.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, you make these dumb statements and dont back them up, why brother?

Here is question i asked your buddy GMT: So, when i get down on the table and i want to shoot the ball in the corner pocket using cte and i make the ball. You consider this coincidence? that is your answer?

Here is his answer: Yes, it's a kind of "coincidence." The apparent "use" of CTE is coincident with pocketing a ball by the normal, ordinary method of "feel."

I guess you agree with that, right?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top