My Thread… Regarding The Truth about so called ‘Objective Aiming Systems’ such as CTE

[JB Cases]

I don't know about anyone else but when I went to see Stan on my travels I spent a day challenging him.

I told him I would take all the "naysayer" points and challenge him to see what he could show me on the table that refuted them.

My friend Andreas Sattler from Germany was there with me. Andi is an open level player - what we would call a 9-10 speed in America, so no slouch. And of course he is trained in the "German Perfect Form" way that they all are over there.

To say Andi's mind was blown is an understatement. Prior to going there he indulged my little CTE obsession the way someone does when their friend can't stop talking about something, with a "that's nice" essentially.

And frankly I didn't know what to expect either. But I wasn't going in to blow smoke up Stan's ass either.

If anyone were going to be able to rebut the naysayer points then he ought to be able to.

The man displayed the system's ability to handle every shot thrown at him. EVERY SHOT.

IF there was a shot where he could not find a CTE solution then he would explain why and what the remedy was. Essentially the remedy was to go old school and figure it out with trial and error. But the shots which had no CTE solution were literally just a few over the course of several hours of challenging him. It was frankly ridiculous how easily Stan was making shots to all pockets, banks, multi-rail banks and so on.

I had an unbiased witness there. Someone who had zero clue about these debates, A guy who drives a truck across Europe and didn't get into pool discussions.

Andi eagerly tried the shots and he was not as consistent as Stan. I ended up buying him a full lesson on CTE and Andi uses it to this day and feels it does work as claimed.

But the point is that I played Devil's Advocate and didn't hold back. So, honestly when someone tells me that CTE is not objective (practically speaking) and has holes, I ask you to please show me where the holes are. What I got from my time with Stan is that not making shots when using CTE comes from three things, picking the wrong solution or the wrong execution or a combination of wrong solution and bad execution.

So the end result for me is that I saw that CTE is a tool but like most good tools requires practice to get to an expert user level.

 

[JB Cases]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay... John,

Do you realize that due to friction & collision induced throw those balls won't pocket as lined up unless there is enough speed or spin to negate the CIT. We don't play pool in a book nor in a sterile vacuum laboratory.

But, what's your point?

Also IF the variance, let's say averages about 1/4 of ONE(1) mm on the shooters side of the ball what is that variance at the end of the cue stick or at the point well off the table where one stands tall & eyes the shot.

But again, what's your point?

Also, move the CB 1/2 ball to the left of the shots or toward the top of the page & then what do you get? Is it not much different edge to B lines?

But again, whats your point?

How about putting the CB near the top left corner where the 1st. ball would be a straight shot, then how much variance in cue stick angle would be required for the other shots?

But again, what's your point?

But...more importantly, what do you have to say regarding my correct premise regarding the 3 or 5 parallel shots & how there is NOTHING OBJECTIVE that would force the shooter into a different physical position to see the same visual.

You seemed to have ignored that & want to talk around it & instead want to talk about what seems to be a rather meaningless diagram & YOUR WORK regarding it.

Best Wishes.

PS What's up with the huge tip representation that is certainly not to scale & is supposed to be for size comparison?

The tip is to to scale. it's just blown up to show how tiny the divergence is.

I actually misspoke.

The lines are less than .04mm apart at the back of the cueball facing the shooter.

.05mm is about the thickness of a sheet of paper.

So here is what perspective does for the shooter, in my opinion. The nearest object is the cueball, the only one that is to be moved by the shooter's cue. With that in mind the task is to find the right line to propel it along.

When you have a method that by it's use puts the shooter's body into a position where a CENTER BALL address off a known objective line, which the CTE line is, and that line is literally less than a paper's width away from the true, but unknown, shot line then it's clear to me that merely the use of the CTE line for orientation by itself is extremely powerful to get the shooter extremely close to the actual shot line.

Just using the CTE line by itself, objective line, where the shooter perceives the line and the result is a body that is OFFSET to that line, and going into shooting position from there will result in a higher percentage of landing on the right shot line. That's without actually using anything called a CTE system.

As for your other questions, I don't really know the answer to that yet. I will form one after I get to go to the table and work it out. For now what I do know is that Stan Shuffett has no reason to make a video where he himself states surprise over the results he is observing. Basically to me this five shot - same key video demonstrates that the system is in fact objective as claimed. You get the exact opposite out of it that's clear. But ask yourself what the motivation is?

To me when a man makes a video that will incite controversy he is either being 100% genuine and is naive to the controversy it will cause or he is deliberately trying to antagonize. Stan definitely did not make the video to antagonize anyone. He made it because he noticed something interesting about the use of CTE and these shots and wanted to share it with those of us who study the CTE method.

I get it Rick that you approach CTE as an intellectual exercise at this point. You and several others treat it as a thought experiment and have formed your conclusions based on what you think can happen on the table. But honestly I think that you are thinking of this in the wrong frame of reference.

You are treating this as a matter of hard points connecting to hard points as if connected with screws and when one moves the other one moves equally with it. That's not how it works. The shooter moves and the actual shot being faced is looks different.

Let me put this another way.

Since everyone likes to think in angles. Both of these shots are 60 degree cuts and they look substantially different to the shooter.

Both shots in CTE may have the same solution or may have different solutions but either way the guessing is taken out and the shooter follows the directions and takes what the methods gives without bias.

 

[stan shuffett]

The tip is to to scale. it's just blown up to show how tiny the divergence is.

I actually misspoke.

The lines are less than .04mm apart at the back of the cueball facing the shooter.

.05mm is about the thickness of a sheet of paper.

So here is what perspective does for the shooter, in my opinion. The nearest object is the cueball, the only one that is to be moved by the shooter's cue. With that in mind the task is to find the right line to propel it along.

When you have a method that by it's use puts the shooter's body into a position where a CENTER BALL address off a known objective line, which the CTE line is, and that line is literally less than a paper's width away from the true, but unknown, shot line then it's clear to me that merely the use of the CTE line for orientation by itself is extremely powerful to get the shooter extremely close to the actual shot line.

Just using the CTE line by itself, objective line, where the shooter perceives the line and the result is a body that is OFFSET to that line, and going into shooting position from there will result in a higher percentage of landing on the right shot line. That's without actually using anything called a CTE system.

As for your other questions, I don't really know the answer to that yet. I will form one after I get to go to the table and work it out. For now what I do know is that Stan Shuffett has no reason to make a video where he himself states surprise over the results he is observing. Basically to me this five shot - same key video demonstrates that the system is in fact objective as claimed. You get the exact opposite out of it that's clear. But ask yourself what the motivation is?

To me when a man makes a video that will incite controversy he is either being 100% genuine and is naive to the controversy it will cause or he is deliberately trying to antagonize. Stan definitely did not make the video to antagonize anyone. He made it because he noticed something interesting about the use of CTE and these shots and wanted to share it with those of us who study the CTE method.

I get it Rick that you approach CTE as an intellectual exercise at this point. You and several others treat it as a thought experiment and have formed your conclusions based on what you think can happen on the table. But honestly I think that you are thinking of this in the wrong frame of reference.

You are treating this as a matter of hard points connecting to hard points as if connected with screws and when one moves the other one moves equally with it. That's not how it works. The shooter moves and the actual shot being faced is looks different.

Let me put this another way.

Since everyone likes to think in angles. Both of these shots are 60 degree cuts and they look substantially different to the shooter.

Both shots in CTE may have the same solution or may have different solutions but either way the guessing is taken out and the shooter follows the directions and takes what the methods gives without bias.

I am going shed some light on these two very excellent set-ups.

In conventional aiming with one's cue aligned to their vision center so that aiming down the shaft is the goal.......technically that is not CTE.

In CTE, there are 2 visual alignments that slightly crosses one's vision center. With a cue across one's vision center , GB CPs and fractions are voided as impossible methods. All that remains is sighting. Sighting is conducive to objectivity only.

Any CTE player must eventually learn 2 alignments: one is "in to out"and the other is "out to in"...
John's 2 shots are absolutely CTE shots.....but you must understand sighting and how to perfectly align your cue across your focal point or vision center in two different ways. Manual pivoting is great for learning the basics of proper cue alignment . And technically, there is no pivot in CTE....it is align and shoot.

Shot 1 RH player in to out
Shot 2. RH player out to in

Am I capable of supplying more details?.....sure I am.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I would kindly ask that everyone please note that I was engaged in an exchange with John Barton when Mr. Shuffett interjected himself into that exchange.

So, you don't like it when others do it to you?
This has been your MO for a long time...but now its an issue?

I find myself wondering what your point is.

 

[ENGLISH!]

So, you don't like it when others do it to you?
This has been your MO for a long time...but now its an issue?

I find myself wondering what your point is.

Not at all, Dave.

I did not mind Stan coming in at all. I had actually hoped I might get an answer & an explanation.

I would actually like it if he would have some more open discussions & try to give an explanation that would help Dan White & perhaps then an understanding of the issue might be had. I rather doubt that is possible, but perhaps.

I was merely pointing out that I did not impose myself on him, before I was accused of such. I was NOT seeking any action toward Stan. It was merely a matter of fact statement intended to ward off any false accusations.

It was not Stan of whom I complained, but another.

Perhaps I'm a bit paranoid, but perhaps with some cause.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

The tip is to to scale. it's just blown up to show how tiny the divergence is.

I actually misspoke.

The lines are less than .04mm apart at the back of the cueball facing the shooter.

.05mm is about the thickness of a sheet of paper.

So here is what perspective does for the shooter, in my opinion. The nearest object is the cueball, the only one that is to be moved by the shooter's cue. With that in mind the task is to find the right line to propel it along.

When you have a method that by it's use puts the shooter's body into a position where a CENTER BALL address off a known objective line, which the CTE line is, and that line is literally less than a paper's width away from the true, but unknown, shot line then it's clear to me that merely the use of the CTE line for orientation by itself is extremely powerful to get the shooter extremely close to the actual shot line.

Just using the CTE line by itself, objective line, where the shooter perceives the line and the result is a body that is OFFSET to that line, and going into shooting position from there will result in a higher percentage of landing on the right shot line. That's without actually using anything called a CTE system.

As for your other questions, I don't really know the answer to that yet. I will form one after I get to go to the table and work it out. For now what I do know is that Stan Shuffett has no reason to make a video where he himself states surprise over the results he is observing. Basically to me this five shot - same key video demonstrates that the system is in fact objective as claimed. You get the exact opposite out of it that's clear. But ask yourself what the motivation is?

To me when a man makes a video that will incite controversy he is either being 100% genuine and is naive to the controversy it will cause or he is deliberately trying to antagonize. Stan definitely did not make the video to antagonize anyone. He made it because he noticed something interesting about the use of CTE and these shots and wanted to share it with those of us who study the CTE method.

I get it Rick that you approach CTE as an intellectual exercise at this point. You and several others treat it as a thought experiment and have formed your conclusions based on what you think can happen on the table. But honestly I think that you are thinking of this in the wrong frame of reference.

You are treating this as a matter of hard points connecting to hard points as if connected with screws and when one moves the other one moves equally with it. That's not how it works. The shooter moves and the actual shot being faced is looks different.

Let me put this another way.

Since everyone likes to think in angles. Both of these shots are 60 degree cuts and they look substantially different to the shooter.

Both shots in CTE may have the same solution or may have different solutions but either way the guessing is taken out and the shooter follows the directions and takes what the methods gives without bias.

John,

Your chart says .4mm & you now say .04 mm. That is a 10 fold difference.

IMO, There is nothing that would put one's body in any position to the point of a thickness of a piece of paper. Our bodies are basically soft tissue around the bones & the bones are connected by soft tissue like the ligaments with cartilage.

The eyes can see a fine line though.

Your suggestion about nuts & bolts not being appropriate misses the mark, because sight & points on a line are more tight than any nuts & bolts. To me, & I'm rather sure others, that sounds like trying to wiggle out.

It was not me, Dan, or anyone else that set the tight guidelines that 'FIXES" THE CUE BALL & is supposed to be what makes the method objective.

It either is or is not. I & others say it is not & if things are not 'tight' then there is much room for subjectivity to be in play.

That is what I and others have been saying & it seems that you might actually agree even if you can not make yourself come to say it.

Points on lines are very tight, infinitely tight.

It's CTE & ETA & that don't change just because the balls are in different locations on the table. There is ONLY one place from which both lines can be equally seen & that is the line that bisects them.

If one moves off of that bisecting line then the objectivity of that & the fixed cue ball is lost, as one can move different subjective amounts.

This is not rocket or space travel science.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

When you have a method that by it's use puts the shooter's body into a position where a CENTER BALL address off a known objective line, which the CTE line is, and that line is literally less than a paper's width away from the true, but unknown, shot line then it's clear to me that merely the use of the CTE line for orientation by itself is extremely powerful to get the shooter extremely close to the actual shot line.

Are you still trying to make this mean something? It's the same small offsets (or less) for any common reference alignment. CTE isn't special in this way.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

It would seem that perhaps, maybe, the new edition might be CTC & CTE with an 'in to out' cross vision & an 'out to in' cross vision.

Sounds interesting but would that only be 4 outcome angles?

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[stan shuffett]

It would seem that perhaps, maybe, the new edition might be CTC & CTE with an 'in to out' cross vision & an 'out to in' cross vision.

Sounds interesting but would that only be 4 outcome angles?

Best Wishes to ALL.

New? Just shows your ignorance.....that is what manual pivoting does.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JB Cases]

Are you still trying to make this mean something? It's the same small offsets (or less) for any common reference alignment. CTE isn't special in this way.

pj
chgo

I think it IS a special observation. Certainly no one that I know of, not you, not Dr. Dave, and no other author discovered it before we started discussing CTE.

Before Hal Houle came along and before CTE - NO ONE was telling people to align the way he was.

So sorry but unless you have proof to the contrary I think that this means a lot.

 

[ENGLISH!]

New? Just shows your ignorance.....that is what manual pivoting does.

Stan Shuffett

I'm not ignorant.

Nor am I arrogant.

Nor am I condescending.

Nor am I insulting.

Whether a pivot gets the cue across one's vision would depend on whether the vision stays put or moves with the cue when the pivot is made, a hand/arm movement or a body movement with the head & vision going with them are options. Whether the head & vision accompany the movement or stay in place prior to the pivot is an option in most cases or dependent on what one wants to accomplish with the pivot.

Your method is not the only way.

In CJ's TOI, he explained it with a parallel shift to the inside. That can be a bit tricky for some since the cue is more conical than tubular in it's entirety & one might perceive the shift to be parallel when it may not quite be so, especially when the amount of shift is so small. CJ gave me a tip in a PM that helped to make sure that the shift is parallel, even though I have been making parallel shifts for many many year but not generally of such a small nature, his tip was helpful.

Do the eyes go with the cue or do they stay on the center line? Different individual may do it either way. Some are only comfortable looking down the shaft while others can be comfortable with the cue parallel to the line of sight.

Best Wishes to ALL.

 

[ENGLISH!]

I think it IS a special observation. Certainly no one that I know of, not you, not Dr. Dave, and no other author discovered it before we started discussing CTE.

Before Hal Houle came along and before CTE - NO ONE was telling people to align the way he was.

So sorry but unless you have proof to the contrary I think that this means a lot.

John,

People have been doing similar 'forever'.

There have been those that start inside edge to edge & then move the edge to 1/8, or inside edge to center & then edge to the outside 1/4, or they do it in reverse with an outside in approach.

I realize that you're saying the CTE line is closer to the Ghost Ball center but using an objective reference is rather old.

Best Wishes.

PS I will be waiting for the answers from my earlier post whenever you figure them out so please don't forget about them.

 

[stan shuffett]

I'm not ignorant.

Nor am I arrogant.

Nor am I condescending.

Nor am I insulting.

Whether a pivot gets the cue across one's vision would depend on whether the vision stays put or moves with the cue when the pivot is made, a hand/arm movement or a body movement with the head & vision going with them are options. Whether the head & vision accompany the movement or stay in place prior to the pivot is an option in most cases or dependent on what one wants to accomplish with the pivot.

Your method is not the only way.

In CJ's TOI, he explained it with a parallel shift to the inside. That can be a bit tricky for some since the cue is more conical than tubular in it's entirety & one might perceive the shift to be parallel when it may not quite be so, especially when the amount of shift is so small. CJ gave me a tip in a PM that helped to make sure that the shift is parallel, even though I have been making parallel shifts for many many year but not generally of such a small nature, his tip was helpful.

Do the eyes go with the cue or do they stay on the center line? Different individual may do it either way. Some are only comfortable looking down the shaft while others can be comfortable with the cue parallel to the line of sight.

Best Wishes to ALL.

If you thought what I said is a new edition to what occurs in CTE....then yes you are ignorant as to what I teach.....no wonder you ask so many questions.....you have no clue about pivoting and vision.....or maybe you were just being a smartalec by referencing my post as a new edition.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JB Cases]

John,

Your chart says .4mm & you now say .04 mm. That is a 10 fold difference.

IMO, There is nothing that would put one's body in any position to the point of a thickness of a piece of paper. Our bodies are basically soft tissue around the bones & the bones are connected by soft tissue like the ligaments with cartilage.

The eyes can see a fine line though.

Your suggestion about nuts & bolts not being appropriate misses the mark, because sight & points on a line are more tight than any nuts & bolts. To me, & I'm rather sure others, that sounds like trying to wiggle out.

It was not me, Dan, or anyone else that set the tight guidelines that 'FIXES" THE CUE BALL & is supposed to be what makes the method objective.

It either is or is not. I & others say it is not & if things are not 'tight' then there is much room for subjectivity to be in play.

That is what I and others have been saying & it seems that you might actually agree even if you can not make yourself come to say it.

Points on lines are very tight, infinitely tight.

It's CTE & ETA & that don't change just because the balls are in different locations on the table. There is ONLY one place from which both lines can be equally seen & that is the line that bisects them.

If one moves off of that bisecting line then the objectivity of that & the fixed cue ball is lost, as one can move different subjective amounts.

This is not rocket or space travel science.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.

Damn misspoke again, .4mm it is.

Not trying to wiggle out of anything.

The plain fact is that there is ONE shot line. Take any two players and tell them to get down on the shot line any way they want to.

Photograph them from above.

Overlay their bodies and their cues will be in exactly the same position.

Now tell them both to aim center to edge and prepare to lay their cue directly on the CTE line. Their bodies at that moment will be in almost the exact same position. That's the whole point behind the use of the CTE Line as the initial alignment.

Yes we are all soft tissue but we have this amazing set of ocular tools connected to a super computer and the ability to move our bodies with amazing and precise dexterity.

So it's not that tough a task to make a visual connection between two easily seen points and align to them consistently.

 

[JB Cases]

John,

People have been doing similar 'forever'.

There have been those that start inside edge to edge & then move the edge to 1/8, or inside edge to center & then edge to the outside 1/4, or they do it in reverse with an outside in approach.

I realize that you're saying the CTE line is closer to the Ghost Ball center but using an objective reference is rather old.

Best Wishes.

PS I will be waiting for the answers from my earlier post whenever you figure them out so please don't forget about them.

Proof?

Please provide your sources.

 

[ENGLISH!]

If you thought what I said is a new edition to what occurs in CTE....then yes you are ignorant as to what I teach.....no wonder you ask so many questions.....you have no clue about pivoting and vision.....or maybe you were just being a smartalec by referencing my post as a new edition.

Stan Shuffett

Not at all.

There seemed to be a couple of comments made that seemed to suggest a variation on the theme might be forth coming.

Are you sating that your understanding has always been complete & that there was never any evolution of such.

Is Pro1 the exact same as the original in how it is applied? If so then why was Pro 1 ever produced.

Perhaps you should try to get the chip off of your shoulder & not be so tight with your words & then perhaps better understandings could be had instead of people like Dan & others trying to surmise your meanings.

Best Wishes

 

[stan shuffett]

Not at all.

There seemed to be a couple of comments made that seemed to suggest a variation on the theme might be forth coming.

Are you sating that your understanding has always been complete & that there was never any evolution of such.

Is Pro1 the exact same as the original in how it is applied? If so then why was Pro 1 ever produced.

Perhaps you should try to get the chip off of your shoulder & not be so tight with your words & then perhaps better understandings could be had instead of people like Dan & others trying to surmise your meanings.

Best Wishes

My understanding of CTE has been refining for nearly 10 years. I have sought to grasp every aspect of CTE.......and yes my knowledge is complete.....I am totally satisfied with where I am with CTE......

I have zero intentions of spoon-feeding you or the likes of you.

Stan Shuffett

 

[ENGLISH!]

Damn misspoke again, .4mm it is.

Not trying to wiggle out of anything.

The plain fact is that there is ONE shot line. Take any two players and tell them to get down on the shot line any way they want to.

Photograph them from above.

Overlay their bodies and their cues will be in exactly the same position.

Now tell them both to aim center to edge and prepare to lay their cue directly on the CTE line. Their bodies at that moment will be in almost the exact same position. That's the whole point behind the use of the CTE Line as the initial alignment.

Yes we are all soft tissue but we have this amazing set of ocular tools connected to a super computer and the ability to move our bodies with amazing and precise dexterity.

So it's not that tough a task to make a visual connection between two easily seen points and align to them consistently.

Thanks for the clarification, John.

Personally I think you should not be talking bodies as we are all different.

It's the cue line that matters... and the vision does lead where one puts the cue, regardless of body type or stance.

I agree with you on our amazing abilities.

CJ's aiming method, separate from TOI, is to divide the CB into sections & then align them to only the center & edge of the OB. I find that rather interesting.

I also find CTE interesting. There are many interesting methods & they all have subjectivity in common when it comes down to the final line.

Like I said, this is not outer space science.

Best Wishes.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Proof?

Please provide your sources.

John,

Have you never talked with people about how they shoot shots?

My sources are many individuals in pool halls & bar rooms & just in my immediate area.

When I was 13 & just learning to play & started to get away from ghost ball, I first stared with fractions & was aligning inside edge to 1/4 & center & then 1/8 & 3/8.

Then quickly went to equal & opposite overlap but many times the inside edge aligns to the fractions on the OB so I was doing both.

Do you really think that something was discovered that has never been done by someone since the time the game was invented.

Well... other than using two converging lines. I'd not heard that before.

When I was 13, I thought I discovered & invented equal & opposite overlap because no one had ever told me about it ... so... for me... I did.

Best Wishes.

PS Do you not see how this post of yours is like calling me a liar?

Proof? Where's your PROOF that CTE is an objective aiming system?

 

[cookie man]

It would seem that perhaps, maybe, the new edition might be CTC & CTE with an 'in to out' cross vision & an 'out to in' cross vision.

Sounds interesting but would that only be 4 outcome angles?

Best Wishes to ALL.

Sure we only make balls from 4 angles, the rest go into the rail. You happy now