But dats my name lol
CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
But dats my name lol
Petey:
First, I hope you had a wonderful birthday recently, and a happy/healthy/safe Thanksgiving to top it all off.
Second, don't worry about your typing. Just do your best. I will do my best to understand it.
Third -- and no offense to you -- your post above is EXACTLY the type of stuff that I think Stan should avoid. This is pontificating. The "I have seen beginners see results faster..." and "truly amazing" and "exceed expectations" type of stuff should be left to the "testimonials" part of the website, and if need be, to the back jacket of the DVD jewel case. It should NOT be in the DVD content itself. Just because you "say" it is, doesn't explain why. Just because Stan "says" it is, doesn't explain why. It's pure pontification.
Now, if Stan wanted to hit a homerun, and really stuff a sock into the mouths of the known skeptics on these boards, he'd set up a laser aimer, or draw chalk lines showing both the pre-pivot line of aim, the post-pivot line of aim, and the line of travel for the object ball to the pocket, and show the math why "x" amount of pivot arrives at that so-highly-proclaimed "center pocket" position. That is what the skeptics on these boards have been clamoring for, for so long, and the CTE advocates have been UNABLE to deliver. For some of the blue-collars, merely stating that a system is "center pocket" and then showing the mechanics of the system, is enough. But there are those of us above that, and want to know *why*. Statements of "just because I said so" or "so many of my students have gone on and become two levels higher than they were" is pure pontification.
That's really it in a nutshell. I hope either A.) Stan hits a homerun and gives the needed infrastructural/geometric evidence, or failing that, B.) stays away from pontification altogether.
-Sean
Sean, I don't think we know how he is going to advertise or explain it on dvd yet. I do know that Stan is 100% a classy individual. He has alot of integrity and I have to believe the dvd will be done right. Will everyone understand, no, but that's life. Will there be people that understand and pretend they don't, yes, also a fact of life. I know it's not your intention to put Stan down nor do I think you have, I just have to believe this project was done with Stan getting good advice from people he is connected too. Whether the math is there or not it is indeed a center-pocket system. I get compliments frequently about how clean I pocket balls but before CTE people I gambled with kept trying to get me on a tight table, said I slopped to many balls in, I don't here that anymore. This dvd will be good.
Or maybe the skeptics will actually try it and say F%$% the math, this shit is gooooood.lol. Don't really believe that and I get what your trying to say.
Pat - stop talking like a mongoloid. Access to that site SHOULD be free since none of it is his....except for that peace sign stuff. Everything else is quoted and provided by other people.
Dr. Dave, as I've said before, should be posting answers HERE and not linking back to his site. He should be supporting the site he loves to spend time on and building content HERE on AZB... not building clicks on his site.
Someone have a question? Answer it HERE and not by sending traffic to his site of a million quotes.
If everyone who he quoted demanded that he take down their stuff, he'd have the biggest site of nothing on the web. Dr. Dave is an OK guy--- even though we're on opposite sides of almost everything. But, to deify him as the biggest jock-strap on the web information-wise is silly.
I dont know about the math part of it and this is my experiences with cte
and I have not seen the DVD. The WHY part of it does not matter to me.
I just know HOW it works and my results.
Petey
Dave:
First, good post. You flew down from the wire, joined the party, and are engaging in nice civil conversation. I like this!
Second, I think you got loud and clear that my posts are NEVER to demean Stan or RonV. What "gets my gourd" are unsubstantiated sales pitches and groundless/unsupported pontification. I really dislike the Billy Mays / "Vince" style of advertising.
If you don't mind, for the purposes of clarity in this conversation, I'm going to quote some things you wrote, and then reply to them:
Wow, now *that there* is exhibit A of pontification if ever I saw one! "Whether the math is there or not" is truly a dismissive statement; how can it "indeed be a center-pocket system" (as you say) if there's no proof substantiating why? Again, video of a shot going into the pocket is not "proof" itself. I can make a video proclaiming I'm using "X" aiming system, but pocket the ball using "Y" aiming system, and if I hid the tell-tale pre-shot routine steps leading up to the delivery of the cue, you'd never know. You'd actually think I used "X" aiming system, when in fact, I didn't. Or, if Stan's reputation is on the line (i.e. you misread what I wrote as an indirect attack on Stan), something *in addition* to the Pro/1 could've intervened -- i.e. that "feel" aspect that many experienced players use.
Which leads us to this statement you made...
And so do I, Dave. One thing you will notice about me is how CLEANLY I pocket balls as well. I would think one would have to be, to be a hundred ball runner. Tight table? Feh. I'll take you (not you personally, Dave -- I mean the royal "you" to the readership) to a 12'x6' snooker table and show you cleanly pocketed balls. And I'm using an advanced form of ghostball aiming, called "Back of Ball" (taught in snooker) to do so. No pivot, I promise. I just "see" the shot, and know instantly what I have to do to thwack the back of the pocket.
Does that mean I write-off CTE/pivot-aiming? No, not at all. I am interested in them, for the science/"how does it work?" mind I have. And, oh heck, who knows? I admit I don't know everything -- I might learn something from it. Everyone has their "trouble shots" -- you know, those shots that you don't feel as comfortable approaching as others. If the DVD shows me even one thing that I can use at the table, the price was worth it.
To summarize, I'm looking forward to my copy. I'm cautiously guarded, because I don't want to see the aforementioned pontification or sales pitches (you can bet I'll have my quick-draw outlaw thumbs on the remote, ready to mash the FastForward button if I even hear a hint of pontification). But still eager to view it -- and learn something -- nonetheless.
-Sean
Last edited:
CTE + ghostball can very well be what you say. If CTE doesn't include ghostball adjustments, then it can't...unless somewhat heroic attempts at memorizing offset/pivot positions are performed. Not understanding the math is not equivalent to it being wrong. Nor is math, in any formal sense, required.
I wish some of the advocates would put a halt to all this negativity. Here we have happy-go-lucky, gregarious, whistle-while-you-work sorts, feverishly laboring to forge a union of the old and new so that at least half of it is right. But along come the naysayers, dark brooding types full of the bile, who say things like "ghostball is passe," "ghostball is for beginners and old farts," or "we just cannot abide that crummy miserable lousy ghostball, and we'd be better off if it was forsaken altogether!" Can you imagine how that makes us feel?
Ask your folks to step out into the sunshine and come join us in celebrating the marriage of a great old tradition in billiards, and this new, well, whatever it is. Let them to set aside whatever personal motives they may have for their bitter opposition, as we need to get past this, and soon, for the good of the game.
Jim
What's the "advanced" part?
John,
You're welcome.
I think you are going to be in for a treat.
Stan has taken CTE/Pro One to another level.
Here's another little thing that I have noticed. In the past, I have been guilty of moving the tip around on the center of the cue ball "to make the shot", not to make shape but to either throw the ball or to squirt the cue ball because I didn't line up PERFECT. The manual pivoting of CTE/Pro One has allowed me to "Square up" with the cue ball and hit it far closer to center than ever before. If I need Side Spin or draw or follow, I apply it just like always, instinctively. It seems to get me in line better and keep my tip closer to the center of the cue ball.
Some of these things that I am experiencing might not be the same things that others experience. This is just what I am seeing and experiencing and I'm sharing it as I go along.
John, I know how passionate you are about CTE and other things and I sincerely think you should find some time to take a lesson with Stan on CTE/Pro One. It will refine what you already know about CTE.
Best Regards,
JoeyA
Hey Sean,
Thank you for the objective subject matter you introduced in this Cte group hug thread. I'm sure Stan won't need me to notify him of your constructive suggestions as I assume he is keeping abreast of all pertinent (and "PLONK!") developments in these threads.
One thing I can say is that, it is what it is. The dvd is finished and yes, some adjectives and adverbs have been thrown about with abandon. I realize though that if I was promoting an item for sale I would probably not say, "Here it is. Don't know the details about how it works. All I know is it's for sale." Would you buy it?
My point is it's kinda late to take back the marketing of this dvd. It wasn't any more high pressure than a bunch of pool aficianados debating and whining back and forth. No ad company drove it down anyone's throats and as far as I know no animals were harmed in the making of the dvd.
Simply put, Mr. Stan Shuffett described his sytem to the best of his ability and without any reservations or ulterior motives other than to defend his body of work...Pro One. After countless hours of research he put together a system he believes does exactly what he says. It doesn't make you a pro overnight; it won't straighten out a crooked stroke; it won't move the CB for perfect position; according to him. What it will do is pocket balls when used correctly.
Some on this forum may have imbibed at the Cte fountain a little too often in the past. And their claims are noteworthy. Stan has never exaggerated his system parameters. Instead of a center pocket system, do you say a third or half pocket system? :smile: I think not. He has a fine rep and will increase it after the dvd is released.
Stan has not posted in a while and doesn't need to. After all, he has the Cte Pom Pom squad here to take care of the weak stuff on this forum. And what is in the past should stay there. With your sage advice for the future though, it should also be noted to be more "accurate" with the descriptions around here. I, for one, have never in a million years ever praised exceedingly Cte, Pro One, 90/90 or any other terrific aiming system from heaven, in the past.
Best,
Mike
sees Sean going for the pepper
spray by the door...and no, Lou F.
didn't write this
CTE + ghostball can very well be what you say. If CTE doesn't include ghostball adjustments, then it can't...unless somewhat heroic attempts at memorizing offset/pivot positions are performed. Not understanding the math is not equivalent to it being wrong. Nor is math, in any formal sense, required.
I wish some of the advocates would put a halt to all this negativity. Here we have happy-go-lucky, gregarious, whistle-while-you-work sorts, feverishly laboring to forge a union of the old and new so that at least half of it is right. But along come the naysayers, dark brooding types full of the bile, who say things like "ghostball is passe," "ghostball is for beginners and old farts," or "we just cannot abide that crummy miserable lousy ghostball, and we'd be better off if it was forsaken altogether!" Can you imagine how that makes us feel?
Ask your folks to step out into the sunshine and come join us in celebrating the marriage of a great old tradition in billiards, and this new, well, whatever it is. Let them to set aside whatever personal motives they may have for their bitter opposition, as we need to get past this, and soon, for the good of the game.
Jim
Good post Jim. Onward! :smile:
Best,
Mike
How is it that after all these posts of mine you still think I'm saying CTE "doesn't work"? Could your (and other CTE users') bullheaded lack of comprehension have anything to do with all the "controversy" in these threads?How is it possible that Pj and GMT have a combined 137 posts in this thread going head to head with cte system users telling them, it does not work without even trying it
pj
chgo
CTE + ghostball can very well be what you say. If CTE doesn't include ghostball adjustments, then it can't...unless somewhat heroic attempts at memorizing offset/pivot positions are performed. Not understanding the math is not equivalent to it being wrong. Nor is math, in any formal sense, required.
I wish some of the advocates would put a halt to all this negativity. Here we have happy-go-lucky, gregarious, whistle-while-you-work sorts, feverishly laboring to forge a union of the old and new so that at least half of it is right. But along come the naysayers, dark brooding types full of the bile, who say things like "ghostball is passe," "ghostball is for beginners and old farts," or "we just cannot abide that crummy miserable lousy ghostball, and we'd be better off if it was forsaken altogether!" Can you imagine how that makes us feel?
Ask your folks to step out into the sunshine and come join us in celebrating the marriage of a great old tradition in billiards, and this new, well, whatever it is. Let them to set aside whatever personal motives they may have for their bitter opposition, as we need to get past this, and soon, for the good of the game.
Jim
Hey Jim, just for the record i have never said anything negative about ghost or any other method of potting balls.I have only posted positively about cte. Pro cte people are coming across as pushing cte down peoples throats because they are being told what they are saying are basically lies by uninformed opinions.
If it makes anyone feel better i will say this, i get my ass kicked by guys, that never have even herd of this website or cte. Just dont come on here and daily tell me im full of crap and the system i use to pocket balls, which i have been using it with success for like 2 years, doesnt work! that is insulting would you agree?
The math isnt out on cte, what can i say? dont you think the people that really want to know it should stop waiting for someone else to give them an answer?
Why would someone want to know the math/science etc of something they dont understand/doesnt work/is not possible/unwilling to learn it anyway?
If the math is thrown down in front of you, what will this prove, really?
this is not meant as an attack on you Jim... im just speaking out
Last edited:
sorry pj :thumbup:
LOL. This from the math expert who can't tell 2 dimensions from 3.
pj
chgo
Petey,
I did not read your post previous to my post just before this one. When I read the part of your post about hitting the OB Squarer, I had to smile because not only do I hit the object ball more perfectly, I also hit the cue ball better and I said that in my previous post.
I'm glad to see that other people are achieving similar results with CTE/Pro One.
I understand what Sean is saying and I KNOW he is meaning well.
Sean is my kind of guy and always will be no matter what side of an issued he is on.
However, if you are able to shoot straighter, if you are able to pocket balls better than when you use ghost ball, contact point to contact point or ANY OTHER aiming system, isn't this a MORE ACCURATE aiming system?
I guess if I had to make a statement and still wanted to be truthful but didn't want to aggravate the academics, I would say that CTE/Pro One is effectively a MORE ACCURATE aiming system than any of the other aiming systems I have used.
Personally, it is far more interesting (AND BENEFICIAL) to me if CTE/Pro One helps me to be more accurate than contact point to contact point or ghost ball or any other aiming system than if someone can "prove the math" of CTE/Pro One.
The core problem with all of this is the academics haven't taken the time to learn "CTE/Pro One". Nor have they chosen to prove why it works. Sure they have guesses as to why it works but that's about all it is. They've gleaned bits and pieces from some of the users who haven't put in the time defining and refining CTE. They've taken these bits and pieces of information and come to their own conclusions. They've made statements as Silly as:
CTE doesn't work.
People who are using CTE are delusional.
CTE may work but not for the reasons that the users think it works.
CTE users are idiots who wear tin foil hats.
People that teach CTE/Pro One are snake oil salesmen.
I guess I could fill up a few more pages with the negative comments that have been made about CTE/Pro One and CTE but I'm tired of typing how incredibly insensitive the academics have been to others who see CTE/Pro One through their eyes and not on some graph paper.
The fact is I can play AT LEAST AS WELL using CTE/Pro One as I can with any other aiming system. Early indicators are that I MAY be playing BETTER with CTE/Pro One (not any one else, not Dr. Dave, not Pat Johnson, not Lou Figueroa, not gmt, whoever the hell he is. JUST ME. I'm not speaking for other CTE/Pro One users. I'm speaking for MYSELF.
This thread is about CTE/Pro One and what I have learned and what I am experiencing.
If others care to share their story and their perspective in this thread whether they agree with my findings are not, are most welcome.
Those who haven't taken the lesson in CTE/Pro One don't really have any basis for making criticism about CTE/Pro One. The video isn't even out and a few people are howling like banshees. CTE/ Pro One isn't dead and it isn't dying so the banshees can go wail in another thread. CTE/Pro One may be about to become one of the most popular aiming systems in the world. I would love to have others who have taken the CTE/Pro One lesson with Stan to come forward and dispute ANYTHING that I have said. I haven't made any exaggerated statements about what I have experienced or what I have seen with my own two eyes. Some of the things do seem pretty incredible. I haven't shared what I have learned because I believe Stan Shuffett DESERVES to have an opportunity to make back his expenses on the video and then some before I "give away" his hard earned information.
Actually what I wish is that people like Sean would purchase the video, do the investigation, take the lesson and come back on here and give his review. I believe based upon what I know about Sean (and I've never met the guy) he would be fair and honest. He might even say that it may work for some people but that his ghost ball works better for HIM. I could buy that quite easily. I KNOW he wouldn't say it was "ridiculous", or "insane" or "delusional", "stupid" or "silly". If he put in some quality time learning it, I would probably bet that he might even choose to use it as his primary aiming system.
For me, I am still using it EXCLUSIVELY and don't have any plans to change it. I played in our handicapped one pocket tournament today. This time, my first match was against the best player in the pool room and because he had given me 8-7 in a previous tournament (where I beat him last week), I was obligated to play him even. He didn't have a real good match, although he ran out on me on my break making an incredible carom shot to get out of my "super break" and win that game. Unfortunately, it was the only game he was to win. His play wasn't up to his normal speed and mine was doing a little better than normal. This is a race to two so don't anyone get too excited about how well I am playing. A race to two isn't a great measuring stick for anything, including CTE/Pro One, but it's all I have to offer at the moment.
If anyone thinks that they can just pick up an aiming system for the first time and play better immediately, I'll pull a line from Bartram; "I'll tell 'em". As crazy as this sounds, I swear I think I am playing better, not a lot better but BETTER. It is hard for me to prove it to myself, except through my efforts on the table and the outcomes of my matches. I don't have a background in physics although I made EXCELLENT grades in Geometry and the object balls seem to splitting the pocket.
Yeah, I wish decent, honest, talented people like Sean would take up the effort to see if CTE/ Pro One would improve their game. I would LOVE to compare notes and if his notes didn't match mine, I wouldn't object.
But the bottom line, is I don't take it kindly for people to ridicule the users of CTE/Pro One or the refiners and definers who have put in the time to make it work. I also don't feel like sharing that hard earned information free of charge to anyone, especially those who have used the negative terms to describe the people who use CTE/Pro One or its inventor.
I don't know how much time Hal Houle has left on this earth but I am eager to see if others find CTE/Pro One as useful as it appears to me. I am hoping he and Stan get their just deserves without a bunch of wailing banshees screaming, "it doesn't work" at the top of their lungs.
Don't worry, you can make a bet on this. Some of the detractors will change their tunes and reluctantly agree that there is far more to CTE/Pro One than what they thought they knew, ESPECIALLY if they make a genuine effort to become proficient with it. I'll also predict that they will cling to some of their other bold statements and attempt to make statements like, "I told you so", maybe with a little more flowery language but the same sentiments.
It would humiliate them if CTE/Pro One works as well as I have said it works. That's a sad thing but I didn't say a thing about CTE/Pro One that I wouldn't say to anyone in private. So I won't be waiting for the detractors to raise their pom-poms nor do I care for their blessing. My apologies to Stan, the forum and anyone else that hasn't tried to cast dispersions on my experience with CTE/Pro One.
JoeyA
Well, at least I don't rail on gambling like you do then turn around and gamble on pool as you do. Isn't that kind of like being for Prohibition during the day and spending your nights in a speakeasy?
Yes, I used "we" as in the me and the OTHER people in this thread who have the same sentiments about Dave's behavior.
You know what the funny thing really is?
I would bet Dr. Dave has sold more of his books through Sterling Gaming, my employer, than you have sold of ALL your books.
What was that children's book you wrote again about people accepting others as they are? Oh yes, Song for a Giraffe.
As for sending you any emails or PMs I don't care what you do with them. They are nothing to me except an expression of my thoughts at the moment and if you read them or not makes no difference to me. I already know that you are a coward as indicated by your refusal to deal with me one on one.
However the last one was speaking about your new website. I find typically hypocritical of you to tell me that I "should" act a certain way as a representative of my business and yet you go and create a website to be a representative of "the game" while coming on here and attacking people.
What was it you said? That you would stand up and tell me all this to my face? Easy to say when you know I am half a planet away from you. So I tried to call you as that's the next best thing to being there, or so the ads claimed. Bet you were surprised to hear I was on the other end of the line. Then you turned around and lied about the conversation and made it seem as I was stalking you. Let's be honest here Michael Lalumiere, you stated your name and location and said you would "say it to my face" and I looked you up. Thanks to your invitation I know your phone number and where you live.
So Michael, you can continue to run behind me on this forum and spew your nonsense all you like. You had better hope though for your sake that I am not "crazy" because as the old proverb goes, "be careful what you wish for as you may get it."
Sincerely,
John Barton <-------------- you may be right, I may be crazy, I just may be the lunatic you're looking for. (thanks Billy)
Oh and Michael,
If anyone on these forums NEEDS a better way to play it's you. The only redeeming quality to your play is to show everyone what NOT to do. I could bring Chinese women to Phoenix to gamble with you playing one pocket and despite never onece playing a game of one pocket in their lives and not even knowing the rules they would destroy you.
I mean they would beat you so bad you would absolutely retire from pool altogehter. It wouldn't even be close. That's how bad you are.
Instead of using your time to stalk me and come behind my posts with your weak insults you should be studying how to play as what you do now can only be described as rail abuse. The pockets are never threatened when you are on the table. As a matter of fact you should get an award from a cloth company for wearing out the felt faster than anyone else. So perhaps you should take your own advice that you want to give people on your website and learn to play better instead of running around the forums trying to bait me. This is a fish you don't want to land.
If anyone on these forums NEEDS a better way to play it's you. The only redeeming quality to your play is to show everyone what NOT to do. I could bring Chinese women to Phoenix to gamble with you playing one pocket and despite never onece playing a game of one pocket in their lives and not even knowing the rules they would destroy you.
I mean they would beat you so bad you would absolutely retire from pool altogehter. It wouldn't even be close. That's how bad you are.
Instead of using your time to stalk me and come behind my posts with your weak insults you should be studying how to play as what you do now can only be described as rail abuse. The pockets are never threatened when you are on the table. As a matter of fact you should get an award from a cloth company for wearing out the felt faster than anyone else. So perhaps you should take your own advice that you want to give people on your website and learn to play better instead of running around the forums trying to bait me. This is a fish you don't want to land.
- Status