Yes Stan calls edge to B on the shot at 10:34 because that is the perception FOR THAT SHOT.
What's the issue?
It's not about angles as Mohrt pointed out.
Millions of Views!!!!
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
- Status
Yes Stan calls edge to B on the shot at 10:34 because that is the perception FOR THAT SHOT.
What's the issue?
It's not about angles as Mohrt pointed out.
Again it's not about angles. If it were then the same Edge to A perception wouldn't work for all the five shots.
If you think of aiming in terms of angle degrees then of course CTE won't work for you.
It's not a matter of what the exact angle is. No CTE user cares about that. Only what solution works for the shot they are facing. What solution works for any other shot at any other angle is not relevant.
You keep trying to couple shots together like that has any meaning. You can only take one shot at a time and that's the only shot to think about.
You're not helping me at all other than to reinforce what I already know.
Lol...well can you at least see why people think you guys are nuts?
Some of you say that the pocket gives the right perception( I think).
He says a curtain wouldnt make a difference on his perception.
Just don't add up, I'm certain your all crazy, but some of do shoot well.
Not you though, need goggles and helmet around you.
Lol...well can you at least see why people think you guys are nuts?
Some of you say that the pocket gives the right perception( I think).
He says a curtain wouldnt make a difference on his perception.
Just don't add up, I'm certain your all crazy, but some of do shoot well.
Not you though, need goggles and helmet around you.
Stan is right, he has practiced enough that even with a curtain he sees the right perception.
I shoot well enough that you won't ever come to OKC to play me. That much I know.
I have $1000 right here to play you one pocket any time you want to come down.
Funny you are the first to respond. Let me know if you plan on coming to DCC this year. Ill gladly show you what CTE has done for my game.
So what you are saying is that you can be critical of anything youd like on the internet but when it comes to actually "walking the walk" you fall well short of what you truly desire....
Lol...well can you at least see why people think you guys are nuts?
Some of you say that the pocket gives the right perception( I think).
He says a curtain wouldnt make a difference on his perception.
Just don't add up, I'm certain your all crazy, but some of do shoot well.
Not you though, need goggles and helmet around you.
I think somebody is mad Ronda Rousey lost,lol.
There is always a bigger fish
A prime example that there is always a bigger fish in the pond. I would look to see her develop her acting career next as the tough woman for action movies.
A prime example that there is always a bigger fish in the pond. I would look to see her develop her acting career next as the tough woman for action movies.
It's Called Peer Review
John, I've been away from the forum since my last post and I look forward to thinking about Stan's eventual reply to my question, which he did in post 158. But, I was quickly reading through some of the ensuing discussion and I have to stop to make this post.
I don't think you have been trained in the scientific method and in publishing scientific papers. (Disclaimer: I have not published myself but know enough about the process to comment). If you try to publish a paper about cold fusion you have to have done something that can be duplicated in at least one other lab in order for your results to mean anything. Second, if you want to publish a paper that has any weight, it must be peer reviewed. While the peer review process is sometimes bastardized in order to get something published, in theory it has great merit. The whole idea of peer review is that if you've discovered something great, you write about it and share the paper with other scientists who are knowledgeable in the general subject at hand. Their objective is to find problems with your paper, not to be your cheerleader. This does not make them evil. You can only find fault with a paper if you have an attitude like, "Oh yeah? Well then prove it." Sometimes a paper will be vague and a reviewer recommends that certain sections be clarified, sometimes a fault in methodology is found. There are a million things a reviewer can find to either make the paper better, and publishable, or to discredit the work. Either way, the reviewer must be biased, like Lou. They have to be biased toward the truth and only by picking apart everything they can find will they have done their job.
You can say that the peer reviewer (Lou in this case) isn't doing his job fairly, that he has an agenda and he is abusing the process by making false criticisms and so on. That same argument, however, wears oftly thin when probably hundreds of people over two decades have the same criticisms.
John, I've been away from the forum since my last post and I look forward to thinking about Stan's eventual reply to my question, which he did in post 158. But, I was quickly reading through some of the ensuing discussion and I have to stop to make this post.
I don't think you have been trained in the scientific method and in publishing scientific papers. (Disclaimer: I have not published myself but know enough about the process to comment). If you try to publish a paper about cold fusion you have to have done something that can be duplicated in at least one other lab in order for your results to mean anything. Second, if you want to publish a paper that has any weight, it must be peer reviewed. While the peer review process is sometimes bastardized in order to get something published, in theory it has great merit. The whole idea of peer review is that if you've discovered something great, you write about it and share the paper with other scientists who are knowledgeable in the general subject at hand. Their objective is to find problems with your paper, not to be your cheerleader. This does not make them evil. You can only find fault with a paper if you have an attitude like, "Oh yeah? Well then prove it." Sometimes a paper will be vague and a reviewer recommends that certain sections be clarified, sometimes a fault in methodology is found. There are a million things a reviewer can find to either make the paper better, and publishable, or to discredit the work. Either way, the reviewer must be biased, like Lou. They have to be biased toward the truth and only by picking apart everything they can find will they have done their job.
You can say that the peer reviewer (Lou in this case) isn't doing his job fairly, that he has an agenda and he is abusing the process by making false criticisms and so on. That same argument, however, wears oftly thin when probably hundreds of people over two decades have the same criticisms.
In response to your last sentence, Lou and PJ not hundreds of people.
You're right I am not a scientist and neither is Lou. Also, "hundreds" of people have not reported the same problems as Lou, in fact I can't think of ANY who have reported the problems Lou claimed to have with CTE.
You cannot look at this as any sort of "fair" and objective review when the reviewer showed so much bias prior to doing it. There is a HUGE difference between being scientifically critical and then doing a review and being hubristically dismissive and then doing a review.
If I told you that an engineer who works on multimillion dollar projects requiring a super high degree of precision uses Hal's methods and plays at a decently high level would you then look at it differently? We can provide examples of people who "get it" and whom are professionals in their field way more than you can provide examples of the opposite. Does that engineer's positive review cancel Lou's negative one?
I had a high level Taiwanese coach watch Stan's first DVD. He watched it, did some motions on the table and said to me, "this works". This guy trains champions and his 10 year olds would wipe the floor with Lou. So does his opinion count?
Stan put out an instructional DVD to explain a system which has been constantly knocked by a tiny amount of people. TINY AMOUNT.
He wouldn't have even done that without the knocking. Stan wasn't publishing a scientific paper.
But if you really want to make the comparison, the majority of players (peers) who have purchased the DVD and worked the material as presented have been able to duplicate the results. So what's your conclusion there?
If Lou's "review" is to be viewed as valid then the literally hundreds of satisfied players ought to also carry weight shouldn't they. Many of whom played better than Lou even before trying CTE.
And its objective..
One minute your doing the 5 different shots with the same and then its not there with A but now B on the back cut.
I get it!
Your objectivity is created subjectivity.
No?
And its objective..
One minute your doing the 5 different shots with the same and then its not there with A but now B on the back cut.
I get it!
Your objectivity is created subjectivity.
No?
You sit here and argue from the arm chair about something you don't know, but only assume from your previous knowledge of angles. Yet someone with a little experience can not only explain it but also demonstrate it at the table. What do I have to gain by lying or faking or pretending? If it didn't work I would have gave it up a long time ago. The difference between us is that I took a little blind faith in a system vastly different than anything taught in pool. I spent the time at the table to give myself a chance to grasp the perceptions. It's not hard, it's just different. The perceptions are there and they work. Not unlike defining a good stroke, it takes some time at the table to acquire.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is about as good, as accurate, and as HONEST a description that can be given and it's ALL FACT AND TRUE!
But here's what's going to happen: they'll continue to post from a position of all knowing and all predictable false disbelief from the past (almost two decades) as they've always done.
Pat Johnson will head the list since he has always wanted to be the supreme knowledge base of everything pool and against CTE. Lou Figueroa was right along side of him for those two decades. Now they've picked up a few more followers like Dan White who just HAPPENED TO BE a strong ally and friend of Lou Figueroa on RSB over this 20 year period, 8Pack, English, and a few others here and there who come and go.
Nothing else needs to be said other than continue to watch for the above names. They'll continue to surface over and over and over and over and over...until one or all of them DIES! (or Mr. Wilson and Mike Howerton hold true to their warnings and do something other than issue more warnings and let them skate forever) It really is absolutely disgusting already.
That's what you're taking from this conversation?
Over the years there have been hundreds of folks that have reported problems with making CTE work. That's one of the reasons it remains a hot topic of debate till today.
Over the years I have bought books and DVDs that now sit on my shelves that describe every kind of pool system and technique imaginable. That does not mean they all work as advertised. It does not mean I believe in them or am a fan/supporter. It does not mean I use them. By the same token, a sale of a DVD does not equal a user, a fan, a supporter, a believer. The likelihood is that it sits on a shelf or in a drawer collecting dust, long forgotten by the buyer.
And in fact, when the DVD came out, numerous folks wanted a refund because give the instructions on the DVD they couldn't make it work. It did not make sense. It was not usable.
Lou Figueroa
That is flat out lie. There have not been hundreds of people. I will donate a dollar to the BEF for every post you find where a different person complains about the dvd.
Do it for the kids Lou
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
Gail and I donate to a number of charities every year, so, John, please try and find some other justification to dole out a few bucks to a worthy cause.
To recap: no one but a handful of fanatics are using CTE. A DVD sold does not equal a believer. People buy it and forget it. Many wanted their dough back. Didn't one guy even post a picture using it for a drink coaster ;-)
Lou Figueroa
- Status