Could Stan clarify this statement in his video

[8pack]

The nature of cte is that knowing where the pocket is lets you rotate to the correct spot to make the shot. You do not follow a routine with A..B..C OR 1/8 and 1/2 tip pivot and come to the right spot on that alone.

With the 5 set shots its should be obvious to all that an adjustment is needed.
Can we agree on that?? You should say yes..


Now lets go to Steve's video.
The first shot... bank cross side went just six inches down the rail for the bank.
The cut to the side was 12. He then states with logic you would think that the ball should've went six inches on the the second shot, but thats not the nature of cte its takes you to right angles and thats why it went 12 to the pocket.
Wait a minute steve... it takes you to right angles..the ball cut 12"..hmmm..did you use a different cte on the first shot? lol Do some of you not see anything wrong here?? Probably not.

Knowing where the pocket is gives you the right perception to rotate to the correct spot to pocket the ball. In truth you are adjusting off your line up if needed.

 

[Timothy Rose]

The nature of cte is that knowing where the pocket is lets you rotate to the correct spot to make the shot. You do not follow a routine with A..B..C OR 1/8 and 1/2 tip pivot and come to the right spot on that alone.

With the 5 set shots its should be obvious to all that an adjustment is needed.
Can we agree on that?? You should say yes..


Now lets go to Steve's video.
The first shot... bank cross side went just six inches down the rail for the bank.
The cut to the side was 12. He then states with logic you would think that the ball should've went six inches on the the second shot, but thats not the nature of cte its takes you to right angles and thats why it went 12 to the pocket.
Wait a minute steve... it takes you to right angles..the ball cut 12"..hmmm..did you use a different cte on the first shot? lol Do some of you not see anything wrong here?? Probably not.

Knowing where the pocket is gives you the right perception to rotate to the correct spot to pocket the ball. In truth you are adjusting off your line up if needed.

dude! this debate that you 'think' you are having with pro1 users, in reality you are just having with yourself, english and a few others when are u going to understated this lol there is 100% nothing you can tell a experience users about the system lol when are u going to get it , your very amusing how smart you think you are about the system lmfao

 

[CJ Wiley]

produce your qualifications.....you do have credentials don't you?

The "problem" with my game is I can probably give you 5 games on the wire going to 10, however, that's not really my problem is it?

Since I have no idea who you are, allow me to ask the following questions to educate anyone that's interested in what you have to say:

Have you won a Major Tournament?

Have you ever beaten any top players gambling?

Do you have any teaching credentials, ie: YouTube videos or any other instructional material. Any articles, blogs, or written material you could impress us with?

Before you become the forum's "self acclaimed critic" please produce your qualifications.....you do have credentials don't you?

CJ, I have gone over point by point with you many times. Yet you fail to hear. I'm not against using inside english when appropriate. I am against the false claims you have made many times. Look over my post history if you really want to know them again. I wont be going back over them point by point again. I said my piece to you and about what you teach, and what the problems with it are. Let reality be the teacher.:wink:

 

[BeiberLvr]

Why don't post something of substance to prove or at least support that CTE is a 100% totally objective system instead of attacking me for putting up what I think & why I think it?

I have my opinion on why that is.

The only thing you need to prove it's objective.

 

[BeiberLvr]

3. My desire to learn CTE with the intent of possibly using it pretty much 'died' when I saw the 5 shots YouTube video that Stan put up.

4. Since then... I have expressed my opinion that CTE is NOT a 100% totally objective system or method so that others know that the description is contested by me & others OR...to be convinced otherwise. I thought everyone had a 'right' to their opinion.

You no longer have the desire to learn the system.

You have expressed your opinion, albeit extremely incorrect, more than once. To the point where you are constantly repeating yourself.

So with that being said. Why are you still posting about CTE?

That's a rhetorical question, Rick. Anyone with half a brain knows the real answer.

 

[cookie man]

The nature of cte is that knowing where the pocket is lets you rotate to the correct spot to make the shot. You do not follow a routine with A..B..C OR 1/8 and 1/2 tip pivot and come to the right spot on that alone.

With the 5 set shots its should be obvious to all that an adjustment is needed.
Can we agree on that?? You should say yes..


Now lets go to Steve's video.
The first shot... bank cross side went just six inches down the rail for the bank.
The cut to the side was 12. He then states with logic you would think that the ball should've went six inches on the the second shot, but thats not the nature of cte its takes you to right angles and thats why it went 12 to the pocket.
Wait a minute steve... it takes you to right angles..the ball cut 12"..hmmm..did you use a different cte on the first shot? lol Do some of you not see anything wrong here?? Probably not.

Knowing where the pocket is gives you the right perception to rotate to the correct spot to pocket the ball. In truth you are adjusting off your line up if needed.

Totally wrong

 

[cookie man]

I tried it my friend and guess what happened?

When? Describe what happened so I can help you.

 

[duckie]

The "problem" with my game is I can probably give you 5 games on the wire going to 10, however, that's not really my problem is it?

Since I have no idea who you are, allow me to ask the following questions to educate anyone that's interested in what you have to say:

Have you won a Major Tournament?

Have you ever beaten any top players gambling?

Do you have any teaching credentials, ie: YouTube videos or any other instructional material. Any articles, blogs, or written material you could impress us with?

Before you become the forum's "self acclaimed critic" please produce your qualifications.....you do have credentials don't you?

And you are nothing more than a has been that's trying to re live the good ole glory days.

It also seems to me Stan doesn't have a clue hoe CTE works since now there is a curved, arc, or bow line now, which of course is totally objective. What's next?

 

[ENGLISH!]

What do you call this quote from you? As you said, words have meanings.

" Disingenuous people sometimes do that.

Words have meanings. They are called definitions. "

That means that disingenuous people SOMETIMES use the tactic of diversion that you seemed to be attempting to utilize. That does not mean that you were being disingenuous & I did not say that you were being disingenuous.

You seem to lack something. I am not sure what it is & it may be through no fault of your own.

But...it would seem that you (& some others) actually think that you are omniscient like GOD.

Another problem is that you seem to want to do what you do not want done unto you. You want to play on a one way street that MIGHT be called hypocrisy.

I do not know why I waste my time responding to you other than that hope springs eternal.

I will soon put my hope on hold.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The nature of cte is that knowing where the pocket is lets you rotate to the correct spot to make the shot. You do not follow a routine with A..B..C OR 1/8 and 1/2 tip pivot and come to the right spot on that alone.

With the 5 set shots its should be obvious to all that an adjustment is needed.
Can we agree on that?? You should say yes..


Now lets go to Steve's video.
The first shot... bank cross side went just six inches down the rail for the bank.
The cut to the side was 12. He then states with logic you would think that the ball should've went six inches on the the second shot, but thats not the nature of cte its takes you to right angles and thats why it went 12 to the pocket.
Wait a minute steve... it takes you to right angles..the ball cut 12"..hmmm..did you use a different cte on the first shot? lol Do some of you not see anything wrong here?? Probably not.

Knowing where the pocket is gives you the right perception to rotate to the correct spot to pocket the ball. In truth you are adjusting off your line up if needed.

Hi Anthony,

We've said it seemingly many times in different ways yet some just can't seem to see it or won't admit it for some reasons which may vary with each individual.

Some won't even enter into an honest & logical discussion.

I think you & I keep coming back because we can not believe that any reasonably educated individual can not see & understand what is so extremely logical & real.

I very serious doubt that anyone will be able to convince those here on the other side of this disagreement BUT... I think those like you & I should continue to put the rationality of what is actually happening out there for those that may be interested so they can see both sides & then make their own determination & decision as to how they wish to proceed.

Anyway, that is what I have decided. I am going to very much try to disengage with those here & simply make general statements for the purpose of assisting others that may be reading these forum threads.

Best to Y'a,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

dude! this debate that you 'think' you are having with pro1 users, in reality you are just having with yourself, english and a few others when are u going to understated this lol there is 100% nothing you can tell a experience users about the system lol when are u going to get it , your very amusing how smart you think you are about the system lmfao

I have come to agree with what you say here as fans very often overlook & refuse to see the faults about that which they are fans.

But...please keep in mind that the question in dispute is not whether CTE is working but WHY it is working. At least it is for me & I think Anthony & perhaps Colin & maybe others too.

If it's working for you or anyone else then you really don't care why it's working.

I've decided for myself that it does not work as described & hence I am not interested in using it as there are other more simple methods that work just as well yet have the same shortcomings IMO that CTE has.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The only thing you need to prove it's objective.

Personally, I think anyone that wants a 100% totally objective system or method will be disappointed as I was.

But that does not mean that it can not improve what they may be doing now.

If anyone is interested then perhaps they should purchase it & make up their own minds.

Or they can watch Stan's YouTube videos & decide if it is something that they want to purchase or not. That is certainly up to each individual as it should be.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Totally wrong

cookie man,

Are you saying that if you put the balls in my Big Blue Sky hypothetical with no rails & no pockets & no intentions & no other input other than to apply the method totally objectively you would still get different outcome angles?

 

[Neil]

The "problem" with my game is I can probably give you 5 games on the wire going to 10, however, that's not really my problem is it?

Since I have no idea who you are, allow me to ask the following questions to educate anyone that's interested in what you have to say:

Have you won a Major Tournament?

Have you ever beaten any top players gambling?

Do you have any teaching credentials, ie: YouTube videos or any other instructional material. Any articles, blogs, or written material you could impress us with?

Before you become the forum's "self acclaimed critic" please produce your qualifications.....you do have credentials don't you?

1. Never said you weren't a good player, have said just the opposite many times. But, no idea who I am, yet you are going to give me that spot? Your backers must have made all your games for you, because you sure don't know how to.
2. Nope, what's that got to do with teaching? Have won local majors, not national majors.
3.Nope, smart enough not to play them. Never claimed to be a top player. Again, what's that got to do with teaching??
4. Teaching credentials? Yep. Was nationaly certified. Unlike self-certified like you. You tube videos? yep. Articles written? yep don't do blogs. Why ask for written material to impress when you don't have any yourself? All you have is your posts on here. As many attest to, not very impressive when it comes to putting things in words. Guess that is why you always have to add pictures. Im also not the one, like you are, that said "what I do is above what science knows about physics".

You were a great player CJ, one of the best. Still play better than most on here ever will. That does not equate to knowing what you are talking about when it comes to teaching. Has very little to do with it. I have science to back up 90+% of what I say, you have only your imagination. You even claim that science is wrong when it comes to what you do on the table.

Going by the claims you want to make, no one should teach except top players. We all know that is absurd at best. So, why even state what you did, except to try and puff up your ego a little more? Why do you refer to TOI as YOUR method, when you didn't even invent it? It has been around a lot longer than you have. And, using inside on some shots is common among all decent players.

 

[Neil]

That means that disingenuous people SOMETIMES use the tactic of diversion that you seemed to be attempting to utilize. That does not mean that you were being disingenuous & I did not say that you were being disingenuous.

You seem to lack something. I am not sure what it is & it may be through no fault of your own.

But...it would seem that you (& some others) actually thingk that you are omniscient like GOD.

Another problem is that you seem to want to do what you do not want done unto you. You want to play on a one way street that is MIGHT be called hypocrisy.

I do not know why I waste my time responding to you other than that hope springs eternal.

I will soon put my hope on hold.

You are terrible at discussion, and even worse at debating. If you weren't implying that word to me, why would you even use it in reference to me? Quit your flat out lying Rick every time you get caught. At least be man enough to own up to your own statements. Also, stop referring me to being omniscient like God. As a Christian, I find that a very offensive statement. As you should also, since you claim to be a Christian.

The only one way street I am "playing on", is the facts and honest discussion.You do neither. Every time you are shown where you are wrong, you dismiss it, and then ask the exact same question a few posts later. That's all you do, keep on saying the same old rhetoric over and over. You don't even make the slightest attempt to understand any of it. You don't even see where you are being two-faced. You claim you won't use CTE because you don't agree with how it is stated. But, you will use other systems even though you don't agree with their statements either.

Yes, I am lacking something. The ability to allow people like you to spew forth your lies, b.s., lead others truly wanting to learn lost in the dark,without confronting it. Unlike you, I actually care about others playing better. So, I often feel the need to correct the nonsense posted on here that will only end up hurting them in the long run. I'm not out just to see how big my ego can get by how many videos I have sold, or how many facebook hits I have, or who my buddies are, or who I have spoken to once in my life. It's not about me at all. It's all about helping others be the best they can be.

 

[ENGLISH!]

And you are nothing more than a has been that's trying to re live the good ole glory days.

It also seems to me Stan doesn't have a clue hoe CTE works since now there is a curved, arc, or bow line now, which of course is totally objective. What's next?

Greg,

IMO the difference is:

TOI works as CJ describes it as do some other things that he says.

CJ is a former World Champion that is relaying the methods that actually worked for him.

Stan has been & still is a very good player but he is trying to relay something that was never meant to be (& perhaps actually is not) & my opinion seems to agree with you that he is struggling to definitively explain his vision to where it actually fits the words he is using to describe it.

Like Anthony said the more CTE proponents talk about it in attempts to explain it they seem to be treading backwards.

Best to Y'a,
Rick

PS I wish I too could just simply see the spot on the cloth where the 'ghost ball' would sit & then simply put the cue ball there. I guess I'm not just not that talented at estimating small distances when on an angle. You should be thankful that you seem to have that ability.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You are terrible at discussion, and even worse at debating. If you weren't implying that word to me, why would you even use it in reference to me? Quit your flat out lying Rick every time you get caught. At least be man enough to own up to your own statements. Also, stop referring me to being omniscient like God. As a Christian, I find that a very offensive statement. As you should also, since you claim to be a Christian.

The only one way street I am "playing on", is the facts and honest discussion.You do neither. Every time you are shown where you are wrong, you dismiss it, and then ask the exact same question a few posts later. That's all you do, keep on saying the same old rhetoric over and over. You don't even make the slightest attempt to understand any of it. You don't even see where you are being two-faced. You claim you won't use CTE because you don't agree with how it is stated. But, you will use other systems even though you don't agree with their statements either.

Yes, I am lacking something. The ability to allow people like you to spew forth your lies, b.s., lead others truly wanting to learn lost in the dark,without confronting it. Unlike you, I actually care about others playing better. So, I often feel the need to correct the nonsense posted on here that will only end up hurting them in the long run. I'm not out just to see how big my ego can get by how many videos I have sold, or how many facebook hits I have, or who my buddies are, or who I have spoken to once in my life. It's not about me at all. It's all about helping others be the best they can be.

Your words speak for themselves. Those that have eyes can & will see.

 

[cookie man]

Hi Anthony,

We've said it seemingly many times in different ways yet some just can't seem to see it or won't admit it for some reasons which may vary with each individual.

Some won't even enter into an honest & logical discussion.

I think you & I keep coming back because we can not believe that any reasonably educated individual can not see & understand what is so extremely logical & real.

I very serious doubt that anyone will be able to convince those here on the other side of this disagreement BUT... I think those like you & I should continue to put the rationality of what is actually happening out there for those that may be interested so they can see both sides & then make their own determination & decision as to how they wish to proceed.

Anyway, that is what I have decided. I am going to very much try to disengage with those here & simply make general statements for the purpose of assisting others that may be reading these forum threads.

Best to Y'a,
Rick

Shoot Stevie's shots and report back with your exact results. Until you do that there can be no discussion. I've done them with the same results as Stevie.

 

[cookie man]

cookie man,

Are you saying that if you put the balls in my Big Blue Sky hypothetical with no rails & no pockets & no intentions & no other input other than to apply the method totally objectively you would still get different outcome angles?

Nope not even close to what i'm saying.

 

[Neil]

The nature of cte is that knowing where the pocket is lets you rotate to the correct spot to make the shot. You do not follow a routine with A..B..C OR 1/8 and 1/2 tip pivot and come to the right spot on that alone.

Correct, other than non-users, no one ever made that claim.In fact, Stan has been very clear that that is not the case.

With the 5 set shots its should be obvious to all that an adjustment is needed.
Can we agree on that?? You should say yes..

No, not really. Yes, you are doing something "different", but yet, it can rightly be claimed that you are doing everything the same. The only thing that could be claimed as different is where you initially stand to get your visuals. Which is called visual intelligence. So, while you are initially standing in a different place, you obtained that place the exact same way in each shot. Through visual intelligence of your perception of the shot.

Now lets go to Steve's video.
The first shot... bank cross side went just six inches down the rail for the bank.
The cut to the side was 12. He then states with logic you would think that the ball should've went six inches on the the second shot, but thats not the nature of cte its takes you to right angles and thats why it went 12 to the pocket.
Wait a minute steve... it takes you to right angles..the ball cut 12"..hmmm..did you use a different cte on the first shot? lol Do some of you not see anything wrong here?? Probably not.

Knowing where the pocket is gives you the right perception to rotate to the correct spot to pocket the ball. In truth you are adjusting off your line up if needed.

I can see where you would say that one is adjusting off their lineup. But, that is not really true either. You aren't adjusting OFF your lineup. You are starting on the correct lineup for the shot at hand. What is your perception of the shot? Meaning, what are you wanting to do with the shot? Do you need to bank it? If yes, then your visual intelligence tells you that you need to stand about "here". You can't stand at the other end of the table and make the shot, you have to have some reference to start with.

That reference is called your visual intelligence. It enables you to get on a rough line to make the shot you chose. Some may claim that this is now then subjective and not objective. I disagree. Everyone can objectively pick out a rough line that the cb has to travel down. We aren't talking exact here yet. Just rough. That rough line is easily obtained through several methods, the easiest being ghost ball. The ghost ball line will get you right in the ball park of where you need to be. So, why it is subjective on just what objective line you choose for that, it is still objective in the fact that you chose a line that gets you close to where you need to be. Not the exact line, but an objective line to start from.

You can't say one is adjusting off the line, because they really aren't. They are getting on the objective starting line to start with.

I think where you get stuck on the adjusting is that while "we" claim we do everything the same, which we actually do, our "the same" is not the "same" you are thinking of. You are stuck in 2-D, drawn on paper, mode. That is not reality. You don't take the cue line from the first shot, and then transfer that same line to the second shot. Doing that will give you the exact same results as the first shot.

Instead, look at it this way- Here's the "claim"- "You do the exact same thing on each shot, nothing changed" OK, what does that actually mean? It means that for each shot, you used your perception of the shot through your visual intelligence to see what you want to accomplish and where you want to start from. From your starting point, you use the same visuals that you did on the shot before."

You see, you have to follow all the steps for the system to work properly. You can't leave out the initial step of your visual perception and intelligence of the shot, Yet, you, and others, keep missing that part. It's not an adjustment to the system, it is a vital part of the system. It is different from shot to shot in the example, yet, it is exactly the same steps in each example. There are no "adjustments", only following of the same steps. See the difference in where you have been going wrong??