Millions of Views!!!!

[Mirza]

Dan, I think a better video from you would be of you shooting those 5 shots with CTE and manual pivoting, as you understand it, and showing that it doesn't work for you, maybe someone will point you then to the right direction about why it doesn't work for you, just my oppinion.

EDIT: Something like this, here is Gerry Williams doing it, but he is using Pro1 sweeps, you should do this but with manual pivoting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fKl1W-7GE

 

[mohrt]

mohrt - I took a look at your website and I respect the fact that you allow debate and try to answer questions (unlike others who disable comments). I also think something about CTE has genuinely helped you.



One criticism in your debate with "skeptic" is that you refer to Stan's 3 perception videos and state that these videos clear everything up. Nothing could be further from the truth, IMO!



Regards,

If you have the original material from one of the DVDs and have spent some time at the table with it, the perception videos make a lot more sense. You have to know the basics first. Trying to learn CTE from the 5 shot perception video is like trying to learn archery with 50 yard targets. Start with the basic shots from the DVDs. They are structured for the purpose of learning from scratch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If you have the original material from one of the DVDs and have spent some time at the table with it, the perception videos make a lot more sense. You have to know the basics first. Trying to learn CTE from the 5 shot perception video is like trying to learn archery with 50 yard targets. Start with the basic shots from the DVDs. They are structured for the purpose of learning from scratch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Naaahhh. Why would he do that when he'd have to spend money and work at it as well as being deprived of calling Stan a bad teacher/instructor.

It has never been his intention to praise anything about CTE or else he would have had to say SOME THINGS positive about what he learned. He didn't. All he ended up doing was to pick it apart and attempt to find what was wrong and then badmouth Stan. Hence, agenda + classless.

 

[TheThaiger]

Hence, agenda + classless.

Lol.

.......

 

[JB Cases]

You've been chasing down Hal, CTE, CTE Users, and Stan Shuffett for 18 years now and you've pretty much said all of it thousands of times over, which doesn't make logical sense.

Here is YOUR FIRST POST in September of 1997 about Hal's first post. He latched in YOUR mouth hook, line, and sinker and you're still thrashing around in the water.

PAT JOHNSON - September 1997

"This is the biggest crock of transcendental pool bull I've ever heard. Even
worse than I imagined. Is this really the line (including hook and sinker) you
Houle Pool suckers... er, students are buying? Does he do seances, too? Can he
channel Efren through me for the Chicago RSB Shootout?

You know, if you count up your fingers and toes and subtract the number of tries
it took to get it right, that leaves sixteen... exactly the number of balls in
pool! Weird, huh? You don't think that's an accident, do you?"

Pat Johnson
Chicago

This is funny. At that Chicago RSB shootout I beat Deno Andrews and Lou Figueroa. I did lose to Pat Johnson but the fact of it is that those of us using Hal's methods at the time did very well.

Pat has a standing offer to bet very high but he will never take any of us up on it.

Both Deno and Lou were incredibly dismissive and insulting back then and it was a joy to beat both of them after their bullying and degrading remarks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You've been chasing down Hal, CTE, CTE Users, and Stan Shuffett for 18 years now and you've pretty much said all of it thousands of times over, which doesn't make logical sense.

Here is YOUR FIRST POST in September of 1997 about Hal's first post. He latched in YOUR mouth hook, line, and sinker and you're still thrashing around in the water.

PAT JOHNSON - September 1997

"This is the biggest crock of transcendental pool bull I've ever heard. Even
worse than I imagined. Is this really the line (including hook and sinker) you
Houle Pool suckers... er, students are buying? Does he do seances, too? Can he
channel Efren through me for the Chicago RSB Shootout?

You know, if you count up your fingers and toes and subtract the number of tries
it took to get it right, that leaves sixteen... exactly the number of balls in
pool! Weird, huh? You don't think that's an accident, do you?"

Pat Johnson
Chicago

You conveniently left off Hal's email (sent to somebody else) that I was commenting on:

Hal Houle in his own words (an email he sent to somebody else):

>Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7,
>4 x 8, 4 ½ x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is
>wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from
>the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45
>degrees. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond
>on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30 degrees. When you
>lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end
>rail, you are forming an angle of 15 degrees. When you add up these 3
>angles, they total 90 degrees, which is the same angle formed by the
>table corners.

If you don't think that's some transcendental pool bull, or if you really think Hal said all that hilarious bullshit just to "mess with the naysayers", then you're even more clueless than I think (that's a high bar). It's pretty amazing to me that any sentient human could take him seriously at all.

pj
chgo

 

[stan shuffett]

You conveniently left off Hal's email (copied by somebody else) that I responded to:


If you don't think that's some transcendental pool bull, or if you really think Hal said all that hilarious bullshit just to "mess with the naysayers", then you're even more clueless than I think (that's a high bar).

pj
chgo

You take the position of halarious BS and I will take the position of serious information and you can get 4 to 1 up 40 G.
Want to post today?

Stan Shuffett

 

[Patrick Johnson]

you can get 4 to 1 up 40 G.

lol

Only 40 G? I don't think it proves anything scientifically unless it's at least a mil.

pj <- scientific minimum
chgo

 

[stan shuffett]

lol

Only 40 G? I don't think it proves anything scientifically unless it's at least a mil.

pj <- scientific minimum
chgo

You are nothing but empty rhetoric......you spew out your insults but when it comes time to discuss CTE at a table in front of an audience you do not have the courage to put out 10g against my 40g........and then declare hilarious BS......you'd be dead in the water and you know that.....Johnson's Last Stand is what it would be known as....

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You conveniently left off Hal's email (sent to somebody else) that I was commenting on:


If you don't think that's some transcendental pool bull, or if you really think Hal said all that hilarious bullshit just to "mess with the naysayers", then you're even more clueless than I think (that's a high bar). It's pretty amazing to me that any sentient human could take him seriously at all.

pj
chgo

It's pretty amazing to me than any sentient human could take YOU seriously at all.

This is the way YOU think pool is played and how it should be thought out:

http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/physics-of-billiards.html

As I've delved into the archives of RSB, you and a couple of other Ph.D.nerds on there used to have the formulas listed like it really meant EVERYTHING to pool and if others on the forum didn't understand it bad for them because they'd never make it as players.

If you think what Hal wrote was insanity and not to be taken seriously, this crap is a TOTALLY WORTHLESS WASTE OF TIME!

Btw...if you're going to quote an email from Hal at least quote the entire part about the 3 LINES in the aiming system being able to make ever shot on the table even though you thought and still think it was literally to STRIKE those lines with the CB.

Would you still like to blow off that IT is bullsh*t and can't possibly work?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...when it comes time to discuss CTE at a table in front of an audience you do not have the courage

You don't seem willing to discuss anything here in front of this audience, Stan - why should I expect that to change somewhere else?

pj
chgo

 

[stan shuffett]

You don't seem willing to discuss anything here in front of this audience, Stan - why should I expect that to change somewhere else?

pj
chgo

Just let me know if you want to try me out! There is not 1 chance in hades that you will stand like a man behind your word.

Hal's document represents a decade of work. Couple that with 8 years of my work. That is 18 years of work, coincidentally, the same number of years that you have been thrashing in the water since RSB.

And you think I will stand idly by while some clown declares my work in conjunction with Hal's as harilious BS.......Back up your word at a table. I will stand proudly and defend my work!!

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

So you want KEY info for free but you are not cheap.lol

So by your reasoning the only reason I didn't buy a DVD is because I'm cheap... can't possibly be any other reason. I'm just cheap. OK.

This isn't much different than "I know CTE Pro1 is 100% objective absolutely, definitely 110% of the time for sure 150% absolutely. Oh... how does it work, you ask? Uhh, I'm not sure, but I know it's 200% completely objective!"

 

[Dan White]

I base it on the fact I sent you a youtube of good info and you dismissed it in ten minutes, pretty telling.

Apparently you forgot the exchange we had about that. The video you sent me (thank you) covered the use of inside and outside sweeps to thin or thicken a shot, and how an alignment to A gradually becomes an alignment to B with the use of these sweeps. While helpful for understanding, it had nothing to do with the video in question, which was Stan's 5 ball perception video that I keep linking to. He specifically said he used the same inside sweep on all 5 shots.

So, yes, I dismiss that video as an explanation of the perception video. If anything your video contradicts the perception video and is one of the reasons I keep posting this:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

 

[Dan White]

Btw, all you ever wanted to do is attempt picking some things apart which all of your gang members like Pat Johnson have ever done...but you NEVER once posted if you had success for the most part on different shots. If you did, can you explain why it worked? Did you have success? What shots or cut angles did you find to be the best when you worked with it? ANY?

Spider - if you want to go back to the Sam thread and find where I first started posting, be my guest. You'll find that I was interested in learning IF CTE really worked. Who wouldn't want a foolproof way to play? Otherwise you just look silly attributing motives to my participation in this group.

To answer your question, I never had success with any shot using CTE where the angle wasn't already correct, if you know what I mean. I had some results that were different from what Rick and some others have had, so it is possible I did something wrong. I have more on that thought in a follow up post somewhere below.

 

[Dan White]

Dan, I think a better video from you would be of you shooting those 5 shots with CTE and manual pivoting, as you understand it, and showing that it doesn't work for you, maybe someone will point you then to the right direction about why it doesn't work for you, just my oppinion.

EDIT: Something like this, here is Gerry Williams doing it, but he is using Pro1 sweeps, you should do this but with manual pivoting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98fKl1W-7GE

You read my mind. I was thinking about doing something like that.

Thanks.

 

[Dan White]

If you have the original material from one of the DVDs and have spent some time at the table with it, the perception videos make a lot more sense. You have to know the basics first. Trying to learn CTE from the 5 shot perception video is like trying to learn archery with 50 yard targets. Start with the basic shots from the DVDs. They are structured for the purpose of learning from scratch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not completely learning from scratch, however. I did learn initially from Hal's phone call and spent some time on it years ago. It was so long ago you'd have to ask Spider what I thought of it. He's maintaining my archives apparently. :smile:

 

[Dan White]

Naaahhh. Why would he do that when he'd have to spend money and work at it as well as being deprived of calling Stan a bad teacher/instructor.

It has never been his intention to praise anything about CTE or else he would have had to say SOME THINGS positive about what he learned. He didn't. All he ended up doing was to pick it apart and attempt to find what was wrong and then badmouth Stan. Hence, agenda + classless.

I'll tell you one thing I picked up on from Stan's video. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with CTE and probably is a major reason he is such a good shot. I think it was in Stan's 5 ball video with the curtain over half the table. The camera angle shows Stan's shooting arm perfectly. He hits the ball hard, but his elbow is absolutely rock solid still. If he came from the Briesath camp, this makes sense. I find it very difficult to maintain that perfect stillness when shooting hard. Watching Stan motivated me to pay more attention to what it feels like to stroke the cue like that. It was very helpful to see. I don't care how you aim. If you can't deliver the cue straight you are in for a lot of frustration.

 

[Dan White]

I'm going to try and bow out of this discussion before someone tells the moderators I'm a bad actor and need to have my mind put straight. I'll probably post a follow up when I'm attacked, but otherwise I'm done. Of course it would be wonderful if Stan would kindly step in and explain himself so that his followers don't have to spend countless hours debating skeptics.

One more time for the road:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5321812&postcount=1615

I'm thinking of making a video shooting with CTE so you guys can tell me what I'm doing wrong. Maybe I've got inside vs outside sweep backwards, I don't know (but don't believe so). I might make the video this Sunday or might never do it. If I do it will be in a separate post.

One more time for those of you who didn't understand it the first time: Of course I think Stan is probably a tremendous instructor. I was hoping to get a reaction out of Stan by saying that he must not be much of a teacher if he can't even explain his own method clearly. I mean think about it. What kind of instructor presents all this information so nicely but when a whole lot of people clearly don't get what the hell he is saying, he turns off comments on his videos, refuses to address the issue, and starts name calling? I'm just saying if I had something that worked so well I'd find a way to make it understandable. (and please don't say, "You have to get the DVD to understand" because it is clear that not even the supporters of CTE understand it).

So why doesn't Stan defend his perception videos? Some ideas:

1. He doesn't want to teach the method to people who ask probing questions, only to those who do it without questioning,
2. He doesn't understand what he is doing and can't admit that,
3. He does understand what he is doing and doesn't want anybody looking into it too closely,
4. He made a mistake in the video and doesn't want to correct the record,
5. He has defended it in the past (has he?) but still nobody understands, so he's given up explaining it,

I'm sure there are other possibilities. Oh, before you make number 6 be that I'm a jerk and why should he answer my questions, go read the Sam thread. I only started questioning Stan's ability to communicate after he ignored my honest and polite requests for clarification. Some others like cookie tried, but he just sent me an unrelated video.

OK, flame away!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...you think I will stand idly by while some clown declares my work in conjunction with Hal's as harilious BS...

Are you saying your claim that CTE is "connected to the geometry of the table" comes from the numerology stuff that Hal was into? Most people consider that to be a pseudoscience like astrology.

pj
chgo