Stan Shuffet Challenge

[nobcitypool]

Can you provide a link where any CTE/Pro One user has called you a name? What would have been nice to know? That rails are needed for the perceptions to work? Did you spend that 120/150 hours practicing on a table without rails? I must be missing something from your post.

There's another possibility as well. Perhaps you simply weren't deploying the system properly.

Gee thanks! It would have been nice to know that when I practiced CTE on the snooker table, banging balls into the rails over and over and not finding any perceptions that worked. You see I thought since the system was such an "objective" and "center pocket" system that it would work if you followed the instructions to the letter. So that's what I did. I watched only the balls (trying to forget about the pocket) and pivoted strictly, trying one perception (visual) after another. According to the DVD I watched (nr.1) there was nothing there about adjusting, just that one of the perceptions would work for center pocketing. And Stan had shown video of playing through a curtain as well. I thought that I must not be doing it correctly.

I would make a couple balls in a row, then miss a ball and not be able to make it on repeat attempts no matter what visual I used. Then I sort of gave up on this (after probably being a laughing stock at the pool hall for a couple of weeks) and tried a looser Pro 1 approach and started making more balls. I guess it gives more room for letting the subconscious mind fill in the blanks? After a couple of weeks of this I wondered: Why am I doing all this work with the pivoting and staring into the balls until I go crosseyed when I am adjusting anyway. I might as well go straight to the source and let the subconscious pick out the shot line. All the unnatural staring and twisting was wearing me out mentally and not giving any better results (compared to other systems). I had time off from work and was playing 4-5 hours every day on average for about a month. So I invested maybe 120-150 hours total. That may not seem like much, but I am telling you, that is an awful lot of time to spend in a short time frame, with nothing to show for it other than sore eyes and a messed up stance. How much time is an average potential customer going to spend, I wonder? I felt that I might as well stick with back-of-ball aiming. Going directly into the shot line, instead of twisting and messing my stance up. So that's what I did.

If CTE is working for you, then that's fantastic. I gave it my best effort and alotted quite a bit of time to it as well. I am not in any way saying the system doesn't work. I am merely challenging some of the claims made or implied by the devotees. I don't see why my and others opinons on the system calls for a lot of the name calling and ridicule and frankly both pompous and arrogant replies that we have received. If that is how you wish to debate, then go right ahead. I hope that behind all your smugness, anger and self importance are people who run out like water and enjoy the game. Otherwise it would just be sad.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

How on earth can you have the same CTEL + A/B/C relationship (and half-tip pivot) for, say, five different shots; unless the table is playing a part in the visual perception? There has to be a third variable. You can't have 2+2=4, and =5, and =6, and =7... unless there's an "unseen" variable playing into it that's not part of the "spoken" equation?

Hey, Sean, this is sure gonna complicate your mathematical proof of CTE. Maybe you will have to use a non-Euclidian geometry? If so, I suggest going to hyperbolic geometry, ya know, 'cause of all the hyperbole that surrounds the system.

 

[mohrt]

Gee thanks! It would have been nice to know that when I practiced CTE on the snooker table, banging balls into the rails over and over and not finding any perceptions that worked. You see I thought since the system was such an "objective" and "center pocket" system that it would work if you followed the instructions to the letter. So that's what I did. I watched only the balls (trying to forget about the pocket) and pivoted strictly, trying one perception (visual) after another. According to the DVD I watched (nr.1) there was nothing there about adjusting, just that one of the perceptions would work for center pocketing. And Stan had shown video of playing through a curtain as well. I thought that I must not be doing it correctly.

I would make a couple balls in a row, then miss a ball and not be able to make it on repeat attempts no matter what visual I used. Then I sort of gave up on this (after probably being a laughing stock at the pool hall for a couple of weeks) and tried a looser Pro 1 approach and started making more balls. I guess it gives more room for letting the subconscious mind fill in the blanks? After a couple of weeks of this I wondered: Why am I doing all this work with the pivoting and staring into the balls until I go crosseyed when I am adjusting anyway. I might as well go straight to the source and let the subconscious pick out the shot line. All the unnatural staring and twisting was wearing me out mentally and not giving any better results (compared to other systems). I had time off from work and was playing 4-5 hours every day on average for about a month. So I invested maybe 120-150 hours total. That may not seem like much, but I am telling you, that is an awful lot of time to spend in a short time frame, with nothing to show for it other than sore eyes and a messed up stance. How much time is an average potential customer going to spend, I wonder? I felt that I might as well stick with back-of-ball aiming. Going directly into the shot line, instead of twisting and messing my stance up. So that's what I did.

If CTE is working for you, then that's fantastic. I gave it my best effort and alotted quite a bit of time to it as well. I am not in any way saying the system doesn't work. I am merely challenging some of the claims made or implied by the devotees. I don't see why my and others opinons on the system calls for a lot of the name calling and ridicule and frankly both pompous and arrogant replies that we have received. If that is how you wish to debate, then go right ahead. I hope that behind all your smugness, anger and self importance are people who run out like water and enjoy the game. Otherwise it would just be sad.

You really shouldn't have to know any of these gritty details to use it. Your perception should "just work", all you have to do is practice the visuals and the pivots. The details would (IMHO) just get in your way of learning it. Its like, you don't have to know how a combustion engine works to drive a car. Once you have it working, diving into the theory and details is fine if it interests you.

Sorry you've had such troubles with it, it probably wouldn't take much to get you over the hump with the right instruction. Curiously, why would you be a laughing stock? Who cares what you are doing or working on? Was there a sizable crowd watching you practice or something?

 

[sfleinen]

It's actually kinda funny the lame excuses some come up with on why it can't possibly work. Yet, each and every time, the excuses get shot down. Always interesting trying to guess what nonsense excuse will come up next.

Also, very telling on who has spent any time with the system and who hasn't bothered to, but just likes to spout off about how it can't work. Very easy to tell by the poor examples given of why it can't work.

Real easy to tell which on here are really interested in improving their play, and who just likes to talk a game with nothing to back it up.

Neil, where do you see someone saying that "it doesn't / can't work"? I see people asking about how the visuals play into the picture to *make* it work. (Big difference.)

It seems if someone is asking the "why" or "how" it works question, there are certain folks (including you?) who take that to mean they're automatically assuming it "doesn't" work.

There's a big difference between someone asking how the visuals play into the picture for making something work, versus someone outright asking the "show me to prove to me it works" question.

And before you go there, please don't assume I'm writing this to be malicious. I'm not -- I'm only calling out what I think is the "hidden thorn" in peoples' sides when it comes to discussion of aiming systems -- i.e. the knee-jerk reaction that "he/she must be asking because they're trying to put 'us' into a bad position or catch 'us' in a lie." That's really getting old. (Yes, I know there are naysayers, but not all people posting the "why" and "how" question are asking in the form of naysayers.)

-Sean

 

[Straightpool_99]

Can you provide a link where any CTE/Pro One user has called you a name? What would have been nice to know? That rails are needed for the perceptions to work? Did you spend that 120/150 hours practicing on a table without rails? I must be missing something from your post.

.

If you must know, I was working mostly on cut shots into a blind pocket. These are my weakest shots and the shot that gives the smallest amount of "clues" for how to shoot them, so it made sense that if the system could make me hit those correctly, there must be something to it? Since I have a tendency to sometimes miss these shots at angles and distances where I should make them I figured it would be nice to have a system to fall back on. Had it worked all or even more of the time for those, I would obviously know that the system was an improvement on my intuitive perception of the shot line.

Of course the table had rails. But nowhere in the instructional DVD was there anything about adjusting. Only that you should find the visuals and pivot. I don't think that this a matter of course at all. Every video Mr. Shuffet makes he stresses how objective the system is and that it works from behind a curtain. How can it be objective if it relies on not only the visuals, but the individuals judgement of the relative position of the balls. This kind of knowledge takes time to develop, is typically achieved through trial and error and is highly personal and prone to failure. Why else would certain people miss a specific type of shot over and over even if they are aware of that fact?

I really don't want to argue about this much longer. That was my experience and I wanted to share it. Maybe someone who saw it could feel better about their own struggling. Just recently in this thread a CTE diehard was calling someone an idiot, and many of the posts directed at critics are very condescending in tone as well as angry. I am not personally offended by this, as I feel that these kinds of posts are more telling of the person making them, than the people they are directed at. Much like a person shouting 2 inches from your face is unpleasant, even if what he says is inaccurate or even gibberish I find it unpleasant when people get so angry over an opinion on aiming. I prefer cool and calm discussion over angry shouting.I just find it weird, and a little sad that people get so riled up over such a mundane topic.

 

[nobcitypool]

Neil, where do you see someone saying that "it doesn't / can't work"? I see people asking about how the visuals play into the picture to *make* it work. (Big difference.)



-Sean

Does this qualify? How much would you like to wager that I can't find at least a dozen more "it doesn't/it can't work" posts?

Why is it every time someone says "With all due respect", what follows is the opposite of what most would consider to be respectful?

If your aim is to be an ambassador for CTE, you failed.

Here's a technical statement that can be made about the video you mention:

Given 5 cueball/objectball pairs at different angles to a single pocket, there is no possible way to make all 5 shots directly into that pocket using a single objective edge to A, center to edge perception.

Because geometry.

If such a technical statement makes one an idiot, then I guess me and Pythagoras are idiots.

 

[nobcitypool]

Thanks, blind shot cuts are tough for me as well.

Again, though, how can you be absolutely sure you were deploying the system correctly? You're blaming the arrow here when it could have been the Indian. Just saying. You're correct, no adjusting or tweaking is needed, but you do have to deploy the system correctly. The Indian used to tell the Lone Ranger the arrow was crooked when he missed the target.

.

If you must know, I was working mostly on cut shots into a blind pocket. These are my weakest shots and the shot that gives the smallest amount of "clues" for how to shoot them, so it made sense that if the system could make me hit those correctly, there must be something to it? Since I have a tendency to sometimes miss these shots at angles and distances where I should make them I figured it would be nice to have a system to fall back on. Had it worked all or even more of the time for those, I would obviously know that the system was an improvement on my intuitive perception of the shot line.

Of course the table had rails. But nowhere in the instructional DVD was there anything about adjusting. Only that you should find the visuals and pivot. I don't think that this a matter of course at all. Every video Mr. Shuffet makes he stresses how objective the system is and that it works from behind a curtain. How can it be objective if it relies on not only the visuals, but the individuals judgement of the relative position of the balls. This kind of knowledge takes time to develop, is typically achieved through trial and error and is highly personal and prone to failure. Why else would certain people miss a specific type of shot over and over even if they are aware of that fact?

I really don't want to argue about this much longer. That was my experience and I wanted to share it. Maybe someone who saw it could feel better about their own struggling. Just recently in this thread a CTE diehard was calling someone an idiot, and many of the posts directed at critics are very condescending in tone as well as angry. I am not personally offended by this, as I feel that these kinds of posts are more telling of the person making them, than the people they are directed at. Much like a person shouting 2 inches from your face is unpleasant, even if what he says is inaccurate or even gibberish I find it unpleasant when people get so angry over an opinion on aiming. I prefer cool and calm discussion over angry shouting.I just find it weird, and a little sad that people get so riled up over such a mundane topic.

 

[sfleinen]

The table most definitely has a direct affect on visual perception, and it is part of the equation. All the talk since the beginning about the table made up of 90 degree angles and perfect squares, etc. is evidence that it has been stated as such.

I'm not sure where the above text came from, and I don't recall anyone ever saying the table was NOT part of the perception. :/

Monte:

I agree that the 2:1 relationship of the table and Stan's continued insistence (in his DVD and YouTube videos) that "CTE/Pro-1 connects you to the table" has been a long-standing assertion.

Where I think this is getting muddied, however, is in the marketing with the curtain where that same assertion gets lost, and instead is replaced with "I don't need to know where the pocket is; in fact, the curtain hides more than half of the table."

In other words, there's some inconsistency with the message, there. On the one hand, we're saying that the table is an integral part of the equation; on the other hand, we're shooting that assertion right in the forehead.

I do understand the point in a previous post where it was said that if someone were to obfuscate the location of *all the rails* (i.e. place a curtain on all four sides of the table and plop Stan or Stevie or Landon in the middle of those four curtains), that they wouldn't have any reference points, and the system would break down. That point should've been made a l-o-n-g time ago, because the inference (the "take away") all this time was that was not the case.

-Sean

 

[nobcitypool]

Yeah, I saw someone make an "assertion" 2 1/2 months ago about proving the system with math. So much for truth in advertising huh?

Monte:

I agree that the 2:1 relationship of the table and Stan's continued insistence (in his DVD and YouTube videos) that "CTE/Pro-1 connects you to the table" has been a long-standing assertion.

Where I think this is getting muddied, however, is in the marketing with the curtain where that same assertion gets lost, and instead is replaced with "I don't need to know where the pocket is; in fact, the curtain hides more than half of the table."

In other words, there's some inconsistency with the message, there. On the one hand, we're saying that the table is an integral part of the equation; on the other hand, we're shooting that assertion right in the forehead.

I do understand the point in a previous post where it was said that if someone were to obfuscate the location of *all the rails* (i.e. place a curtain on all four sides of the table and plop Stan or Stevie or Landon in the middle of those four curtains), that they wouldn't have any reference points, and the system would break down. That point should've been made a l-o-n-g time ago, because the inference (the "take away") all this time was that was not the case.

-Sean

 

[mohrt]

I do understand the point in a previous post where it was said that if someone were to obfuscate the location of *all the rails* (i.e. place a curtain on all four sides of the table and plop Stan or Stevie or Landon in the middle of those four curtains), that they wouldn't have any reference points, and the system would break down. That point should've been made a l-o-n-g time ago, because the inference (the "take away") all this time was that was not the case.

-Sean

I never painted the same picture. I don't recall any sort of thinking that hiding all the rails would work.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The table most definitely has a direct affect on visual perception, and it is part of the equation. All the talk since the beginning about the table made up of 90 degree angles and perfect squares, etc. is evidence that it has been stated as such.

I'm not sure where the above text came from, and I don't recall anyone ever saying the table was NOT part of the perception. :/

mohrt,

My post referencing sflienen's remarks was not directed toward you even though it followed one of your post's.

I was just throwing it out as a general comment.

I apologize for any confusion that I seemed to have created.

Best to Ya',
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Gee thanks! It would have been nice to know that when I practiced CTE on the snooker table (snooker table being the best tester of aim IMHO), banging balls into the rails over and over and not finding any perceptions that worked. You see I thought since the system was such an "objective" and "center pocket" system that it would work if you followed the instructions to the letter. So that's what I did. I watched only the balls (trying to forget about the pocket) and pivoted strictly, trying one perception (visual) after another. According to the DVD I watched (nr.1) there was nothing there about adjusting, just that one of the perceptions would work for center pocketing. And Stan had shown video of playing through a curtain as well. I thought that I must not be doing it correctly.

I would make a couple balls in a row, then miss a ball and not be able to make it on repeat attempts no matter what visual I used. Then I sort of gave up on this (after probably being a laughing stock at the pool hall for a couple of weeks) and tried a looser Pro 1 approach and started making more balls. I guess it gives more room for letting the subconscious mind fill in the blanks? After a couple of weeks of this I wondered: Why am I doing all this work with the pivoting and staring into the balls until I go crosseyed when I am adjusting anyway. I might as well go straight to the source and let the subconscious pick out the shot line. All the unnatural staring and twisting was wearing me out mentally and not giving any better results (compared to other systems). I had time off from work and was playing 4-5 hours every day on average for about a month. So I invested maybe 120-150 hours total. That may not seem like much, but I am telling you, that is an awful lot of time to spend in a short time frame, with nothing to show for it other than sore eyes and a messed up stance. How much time is an average potential customer going to spend, I wonder? I felt that I might as well stick with back-of-ball aiming. Going directly into the shot line, instead of twisting and messing my stance up. So that's what I did.

If CTE is working for you, then that's fantastic. I gave it my best effort and alotted quite a bit of time to it as well. I am not in any way saying the system doesn't work. I am merely challenging some of the claims made or implied by the devotees. I don't see why my and others opinons on the system calls for a lot of the name calling and ridicule and frankly both pompous and arrogant replies that we have received. If that is how you wish to debate, then go right ahead. I hope that behind all your smug, angry and self important posts are people who run out like water and enjoy the game. Otherwise it would just be sad.

I Hear You.

 

[pool101]

I never painted the same picture. I don't recall any sort of thinking that hiding all the rails would work.

You would have to go back to Dave Segal covering his table with cardboard and shooting into the corner, at that time it was said that cte needed only the balls on the table with no other visuals. As I recall.. I am not going back to look but that is what was said.

Mark

 

[Timothy Rose]

You would have to go back to Dave Segal covering his table with cardboard and shooting into the corner, at that time it was said that cte needed only the balls on the table with no other visuals. As I recall.. I am not going back to look but that is what was said.

Mark

Dave segal used a specific cte method that was highly based off of feel but he was unaware of it. <<< 100% truth

 

[pool101]

Dave segal used a specific cte method that was highly based off of feel but he was unaware of it. <<< 100% truth

Cte and Feel do not belong in the same sentence!

 

[Timothy Rose]

Cte and Feel do not belong in the same sentence!

On Az billiards it most definitely doesn't For me the system teaches you to get on the correct shot line and thats all i wanted it to do from the very beginning. Whether there is feel involved or not, is really meaningless to me because the system taught me exactly what i wanted to know and more!

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Dave segal used a specific cte method that was highly based off of feel but he was unaware of it.



There's nothing in regards to how I am that I'm unaware of and furthermore, you're clueless to what I do. Leave my name out of your nitty, faggoty discussion. Bunch of nonplaying faggots arguing the same 15yr old BS.

Like, who DOESN'T know this is a resurrected banned user.

 

[JoeyInCali]

On Az billiards it most definitely doesn't For me the system teaches you to get on the correct shot line and thats all i wanted it to do from the very beginning. Whether there is feel involved or not, is really meaningless to me because the system taught me exactly what i wanted to know and more!

And how do you judge swerve and deflection ?
Or know where the cue ball goes after contact ?

No visualization of the cue ball path or the two balls colliding ? All that is given by the system ?

 

[8pack]

Cte and Feel do not belong in the same sentence!

The heck you say...are saying once you learn cte your automatically programed to play without feel. These guys got the nuts..:grin:

 

[8pack]

Dave segal used a specific cte method that was highly based off of feel but he was unaware of it. <<< 100% truth

How would you know that Dave...I mean Timothy?