CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

[Tony_in_MD]

Agenda = Curiosity

Didnt even know about the thread till neil mentioned it

I am looking forward to your insight on this to Dr. Dave.

You made more than just a casual observation.

You had to go out of your normal way to actually count my posts.

To me, & I'm sure others, that would suggest that you had an agenda.

Agenda

 

[lfigueroa]

CTE can essentially work for anyone. The rules and principles for sight, human vision, are the same for all of us. The rules do not vary from person to person and there is great research that backs this up.

Stan Shuffett

People see the balls differently. THAT changes everything.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Stan I just have to say this. Think about your answer to Rick and wait till after you come back from Madi Grai.

Lol.

Btw Rick the agenda here is humour.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The correct visuals EVERYTIME take to a player to a perception that requires a pivot.

Stan Shuffett

Like I said, I understand that for the CTE prescriptions there is always a pivot.

I've wondered why & why the lines & subsequent angles with no pivot would not be a part.

Your statement here does not explain why & how the angles without a pivot are covered.

I had thought that you would have an easy answer.

Something like those angles are covered by ..... instead of shooting them with X no pivot.

I just thought you'd have an answer based on your previous post.

Sorry for the mistake.

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou, you are very close to understanding, but choose not to. The big key, if one can call it that, is that you HAVE to let go of the previous way you aimed. This is something totally different! If you try and get into the CTE way of standing and visualizing by utilizing your previous experience, it won't work. It does stand alone.

Many are not willing to let go of years of experience to try something new. And, I understand that. But, if one really wants to learn CTE, then on the PRACTICE table, all they have to do is let go, and follow the directions to the letter. (something else few seem able to do, not implying that you can't)

Neil, there is no need to start with what another person's motivation might or might not be. I choose to try and understand as much as I can.

Two things: it is possible, if not likely, that I might never be able to see what Stan sees because I stand at the table differently. Second, if I were to alter how I stand at the table to try and see what he sees, I will be changing everything that follows in terms of my PSR and shot mechanics.

And what for? To have a system "that works" if the stars align? No thank you.

Pool is as much science (if you want to generously append that descriptor to Stans' system), as it is art. You see the balls, with or without Stan's system, and then you blend in everything that you know about the game in general, and your personal game in specific, to create a favorable outcome. Just relying on Stan's system could be ruinous because in attempting to deploy it you could be fatally altering your mechanics.

Lou Figueroa

 

[stan shuffett]

People see the balls differently. THAT changes everything.

Lou Figueroa

Yes, there are lots of visual strategies for perceiving a CB OB.

One of the choices is CTE.....an objective perceptual description that leads directly to connections with right angles or pockets.

Sure, I used to see balls differently but now I choose to see perceptions that anyone can learn that connect to a 2x1 table.

The fact that people can see this special CTE perception is what really is already changing everything.

Stan Shuffett

 

[(((Satori)))]

ENGLISH and Satori: A question. Semantics about objectivity aside, how about the system as a whole? Do you think it works? Yes These examples of shooting balls under curtains, do you think this is a testament of the system, or do you think it is something else? (ie. fake, or shooting with feel, etc.)I don't know

I have always said this.

 

[Renegade_56]

You guys realize the answers to all your questions are on the Pro One DVD right?

Then again, if you already have that great of a grasp on aiming to begin with why rag Stan so much about his method?

You are starting to sound like aiming police.

Barnum & Bailey claimed to be the greatest show on earth. It was a descent circus, but I dunno about the best,, where were you guys back then?

 

[stan shuffett]

Like I said, I understand that for the CTE prescriptions there is always a pivot.

I've wondered why & why the lines & subsequent angles with no pivot would not be a part.

Your statement here does not explain why & how the angles without a pivot are covered.

I had thought that you would have an easy answer.

Something like those angles are covered by ..... instead of shooting them with X no pivot.

I just thought you'd have an answer based on your previous post.

Sorry for the mistake.

You know, One of the reasons that CTE is so potent is because the CTE perceptions go beyond anything that was ever thought to be normally aspired for typical aiming.

Real Cte quite simply is of another aiming dimension.

Since you have studied my work, how's about you just present a few shots with visuals that require no pivot and I will respond accordingly within the context of CTE PRO ONE?

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

ENGLISH and Satori: A question. Semantics about objectivity aside, how about the system as a whole? Do you think it works? These examples of shooting balls under curtains, do you think this is a testament of the system, or do you think it is something else? (ie. fake, or shooting with feel, etc.)

Those are not easily answered questions.

Are there many that are successful & some very successful that are using what they consider to be CTE? Yes.

Are they using it in a totally objective manner? At this time, I would say no.

Are they aware that they are not using it in a totally objective manner?
I would say that some don't & some perhaps do.

As to the curtain thing, I've seen an individual that does not use CTE & he does just as well & with long shots. I can't remember who, but it's on YouTube.

There are many shots that I shoot that I do not 'look' at the pocket at all. One's awareness &/or 'feel' for where the balls are on the table can tell one after much experience from many reps of the same shot how to shoot it. The light also causes a certain look. It's visual recognition based on much repetition & what many call 'feel'.

So, I don't think the curtain stuff is conclusive proof of anything one way or the other but...

that said, it is rather impressive & I know that I could not replicate it with the percentage of success that is exhibited on those videos. I'm sure that I'd rattle a double digit percentage & miss the pocket completely on some as my subconscious has used the knowledge & peripheral view of the pocket to gage the line. So, to take that away I'd think would upset my subconscious rather much. Now maybe with some or much practice, who knows.

Now...If someone could put someone like Satorie on the table & call out the visuals & the pivots & he did that objectively & pocketed balls right & left through the curtain, I think that would give him, I & others more to think about, especially if they were long shots.

That said, my initial intrigue with CTE was certainly tweaked when I saw some of the curtain stuff.

Those are my honest answers & opinions.

Now, what's your purpose?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS I appreciated all of your past civil attempts to help & I again thank you for them.

 

[ENGLISH!]

You know, One of the reasons that CTE is so potent is because the CTE perceptions go beyond anything that was ever thought to be normally aspired for typical aiming.

Real Cte quite simply is of another aiming dimension.

Since you have studied my work, how's about you just present a few shots with visuals that require no pivot and I will respond accordingly within the context of CTE PRO ONE?

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

Are you saying in veiled wording that there are no angled shots that can be pocket by positioning one's self on the line that allows one to see both lines simultaneously without a pivot of some sort?

Are you saying that that angle, whatever it is, does not exist as a shot on a pool table?

I can hardly imagine that that IS what you're saying, but perhaps you are.

Sincerely,
Rick

 

[Neil]

Neil, there is no need to start with what another person's motivation might or might not be. I choose to try and understand as much as I can.

Two things: it is possible, if not likely, that I might never be able to see what Stan sees because I stand at the table differently. Second, if I were to alter how I stand at the table to try and see what he sees, I will be changing everything that follows in terms of my PSR and shot mechanics.

And what for? To have a system "that works" if the stars align? No thank you.

Pool is as much science (if you want to generously append that descriptor to Stans' system), as it is art. You see the balls, with or without Stan's system, and then you blend in everything that you know about the game in general, and your personal game in specific, to create a favorable outcome. Just relying on Stan's system could be ruinous because in attempting to deploy it you could be fatally altering your mechanics.

Lou Figueroa

Lou, I totally understand your "fears", and you are right about them. It will change how you view the balls, and it will change your PSR. I totally get that after so many years, you are very reluctant to do that. And, there wouldn't be a huge jump in gain for you at your level now. You already pocket balls pretty good. And, at your age, not many care to "start over".

All that means though, is that at this time, it's just not for you. For me, I found it enhanced my PSR and forced me to improve my mechanics.

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

Are you saying in veiled wording that there are no angled shots that can be pocket by positioning one's self on the line that allows one to see both lines simultaneously without a pivot of some sort?

Are you saying that that angle, whatever it is, does not exist as a shot on a pool table?

I can hardly imagine that that IS what you're saying, but perhaps you are.

Sincerely,
Rick

Yes.....and keep in mind that when the OB is near a pocket, at times more than one visual can work but only one will be optimal for a slight center pocket over cut aim.
Or. The same visual with an inside and outside pivot.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think there is a reason no one is willing to give Patrick a clear description for how to obtain cte visuals. If they did it would easily be proven not to be objective.

To answer your question though, No. I think there would still be a slight variance when lining up the objects that could prove to be enough to cause a miss on shots that require precision. That is why I say aiming is not a conscious act of lining up precisely and then dropping in precisely in a conscious effort. It is more an act of lining up and dropping in with a clear picture of the outcome in your mind. This may or may not make sense.

You added the last paragraph after my response.

I understand what you mean. I've pocket many a ball into pockets that were all but completely blocked by another ball.

I've done it by slow rolling, with english, & with TOI. I just shot a shot while waiting for my Wife & Daughter yesterday that was maybe the most severe angle into a side pocket that I've ever shot & made. I did it with a bit of soft high inside english. Well I'm not sure I'd actually call it english. It was just more of an angled roll so the OB would get just that bit of opposite roll to help it in off the facing. I've shot many like this one but this was really a severe angle.

Anyway, I hear you.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

Stan I just have to say this. Think about your answer to Rick and wait till after you come back from Madi Grai.

Lol.

Btw Rick the agenda here is humour.

I almost missed that last statement, but I don't find it funny when putting it in context with your other posts.

There is what is almost like ongoing conversations here & then there are days or even weeks or even months between responses.

If you genuinely want to let bygones be bygones I'm capable of that.

If you don't want to do that, I can deal with that too.

Best 2 You,
Rick

 

[mohrt]

Those are not easily answered questions.

Are there many that are successful & some very successful that are using what they consider to be CTE? Yes.

Are they using it in a totally objective manner? At this time, I would say no.

Are they aware that they are not using it in a totally objective manner?
I would say that some don't & some perhaps do.

As to the curtain thing, I've seen an individual that does not use CTE & he does just as well & with long shots. I can't remember who, but it's on YouTube.

There are many shots that I shoot that I do not 'look' at the pocket at all. One's awareness &/or 'feel' for where the balls are on the table can tell one after much experience from many reps of the same shot how to shoot it. The light also causes a certain look. It's visual recognition based on much repetition & what many call 'feel'.

So, I don't think the curtain stuff is conclusive proof of anything one way or the other but...

that said, it is rather impressive & I know that I could not replicate it with the percentage of success that is exhibited on those videos. I'm sure that I'd rattle a double digit percentage & miss the pocket completely on some as my subconscious has used the knowledge & peripheral view of the pocket to gage the line. So, to take that away I'd think would upset my subconscious rather much. Now maybe with some or much practice, who knows.

Now...If someone could put someone like Satorie on the table & call out the visuals & the pivots & he did that objectively & pocketed balls right & left through the curtain, I think that would give him, I & others more to think about, especially if they were long shots.

That said, my initial intrigue with CTE was certainly tweaked when I saw some of the curtain stuff.

Those are my honest answers & opinions.

Now, what's your purpose?

Best 2 You & All,
Rick

PS I appreciated all of your past civil attempts to help & I again thank you for them.

My point is I think often we spend too much time nit picking about semantics and not anything productive. IMHO CTE visuals are very exact and reproducible, which strongly validates the system. Whether they fit your definition of objective or not doesn't change anything. The balls under the curtain are a direct outcome of using the system exactly as stated. I have a video shooting a few myself. That's all

 

[ENGLISH!]

Yes.....and keep in mind that when the OB is near a pocket, at times more than one visual can work but only one will be optimal for a slight center pocket over cut aim.
Or. The same visual with an inside and outside pivot.

Stan Shuffett

Sir,

I certainly understand what you say about when a ball is very near a pocket being able to be pocketed by more than one means.

But can you please clarify your Yes answer?

But...by saying "Yes", do you actually mean to say that there are no shots on a pool table that exist for the angle of a visual with no pivot?

I'm not asking about your CTE application here but in general.

I think this is a rather important question & answer.

Sincerely,
Rick

 

[stan shuffett]

Sir,

I certainly understand what you say about when a ball is very near a pocket being able to be pocketed by more than one means.

But can you please clarify your Yes answer?

But...by saying "Yes", do you actually mean to say that there are no shots on a pool table that exist for the angle of a visual with no pivot?

I'm not asking about your CTE application here but in general.

I think this is a rather important question & answer.

Sincerely,
Rick

Yes, No shots as in zero......just not the perceptual nature of real CTE.

Stan Shuffett

 

[cookie man]

Are they using it in a totally objective manner? At this time, I would say no.

Are they aware that they are not using it in a totally objective manner?
I would say that some don't & some perhaps do.








Best 2 You & All,
Rick

Care to elaborate more on your opinions. Tell me why I'm not using CTE in a totally objective manner. Thanks.

 

[mohrt]

do you actually mean to say that there are no shots on a pool table that exist for the angle of a visual with no pivot?

Rick,

Just thinking out loud here. If I line up a perception, say 15 degrees, and I shoot straight into it with no pivot, that is going to be ROUGHLY a 3/4 ball overlap. I say roughly because the physical alignment will slightly differ depending on CB/OB orientation. So even if I could line up the shot to a pocket, it would be good for only one specific angle. Somewhat like a 1/2 ball hit or center-to-center shot. There would be no point to it, because there would always be an appropriate CTE alignment/sweep for the given shot.

Monte