Some added perspective for my 5 shot video

S

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It is true that 15I and 30O are interchangeable.

The 5 shots with 15 I go as demonstrated.
The 5 shots also go with 30 O. Then the first shot becomes the toughest to align to but much easier than the 5th shot for the 15 I group.

It is true that the 5th shot for the inside 15s is the toughest of all of the inside 15s that I have encountered. But I can make it easily because I know precisely how to align my cue across my vision.

It is true that at the PRO level of CTE there are 2 base CCB shots: CENTER TO CENTER and CENTER TO EDGE....that's it!

The 15 Is are all but weaned out at the pro CTE level because the OB outer edge is more objective than the Quarter. ( Does that mean that the 15 insides should not be learned as presented in DVD 1 and 2? NO, In order to be comprehensive in your work with CTE, the 15 Is are part of the connection to a 2x1 table.

I could do a comprehensive chapter on thIs and may do so.....I have 8 total years of CTE work and I will pass it all on........

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
It is true that 15I and 30O are interchangeable.

The 5 shots with 15 I go as demonstrated.
The 5 shots also go with 30 O. Then the first shot becomes the toughest to align to but much easier than the 5th shot for the 15 I group.

It is true that the 5th shot for the inside 15s is the toughest of all of the inside 15s that I have encountered. But I can make it easily because I know precisely how to align my cue across my vision.

It is true that at the PRO level of CTE that there are 2 base CCB shots: CENTER TO CENTER and CENTER TO EDGE....that's it!

The 15 Is are all but weaned out at the pro CTE level because the OB outer edge is more objective than the Quarter.

I could do a comprehensive chapter on thIs and may do so.....I have 8 total years of CTE work and I will pass it all on........

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...


--------------------------
 
Last edited:
Stan Shuffett...a genius ahead of his time

stan shuffett said:
English, you need not worry...my post is not going anywhere.
You are as transparent as glass.
Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...
Again...thanks so much for putting this repeatable aiming process together into an exciting understandable plan.
"They" will never take the time required in doing the work to understand any of it.
After viewing the game through CTE it is now hard for me to even attempt going back to the old methods of estimation. Funny how the brain rejects the failures of the past and embraces new ideas when it is taught to do so.
Judgment day is coming for the haters. A quiet, calm, stranger is coming into their lives just long enough to drain them of a lot of money...and then one day that stranger will disappear just as quietly as he entered. Then it's on to the next one.
I calculate that $150,000 a year will be quite easy by staying under the radar and just cleaning them out without a lot of fanfare.
This is going to be fun.
Regards,
Flash
 
Last edited:
GoldenFlash said:
Again...thanks so much for putting this repeatable aiming process together into an exciting understandable plan.Opinions vary.
"They" will never take the time required in doing the work to understand any of it.
After viewing the game through CTE it is now hard for me to even attempt going back to the old methods of estimation. Funny how the brain rejects the failures of the past and embraces new ideas when it is taught to do so.Nothing wrong with being enthusiastic about pool.
Judgment day is coming for the haters.Ok, now this is where it all went wrong. Nobody can take you seriously when you talk like that. That is how cultists, religious fundamentalists and lunatics talk. A quiet, calm, stranger is coming into their lives just long enough to drain them of a lot of money...and then one day that stranger will disappear just as quietly as he entered. Then it's on to the next one.Is this some kind of prophecy (because, again that is not how normal people talk), or is it your plan on how to make a living in pool?
I calculate that $150,000 a year will be quite easy by staying under the radar and just cleaning them out without a lot of fanfare. Exactly ONE POST AGO you were asking about how big action works, now suddenly you are the big expert? I don't get it. And how exactly did you come up with that number? What mathmatical wizardry was behind it, I wonder? Did you crunch the numbers on exactly how many people you needed to beat to make that much money, and how much you needed to win, because most pool gamblers ended up sleeping in their cars or barely scraping out a living. Guess their math weren't quite up to snuff, or maybe, just maybe it isn't quite as easy as you think? Are you going to play Bartram et al for the money (good luck to you if that is the case, you'll need it), or all the well off gamblers that hang around in pool halls,betting sky high with a C-player game? I hear that there are plenty of those guys everywhere. Too bad nobody ever seems to find them when they want to gamble.
This is going to be fun.
Regards,
Flash
Click to expand...

This thread was a matter of fact thread about the interchangability of certain visuals, but got derailed into this strange nonsense. The post from Stan was easily understandable (within the context of the system) and I have no objection to it what so ever. It will be up to anyone to try it and see for themselves wether it works or not, if they are curious. But this... This kind of prophetic religious imagery is what makes people think CTE'ers are completely loco. It's an aiming system. It will not give you the talent or years of practice needed to make more money than Shane Van Boening. Unless you grew up in a pool hall and had lots of talent as well, it's pretty much impossible to make a living in pool today, and even so it will not be easy. Every action thread is about how it is impossible to get any kind of action at all, suddenly because of CTE pool playing is a gold mine? Sigh.
 

Attachments

  • Tigerfan45_facepalm.jpg
    Tigerfan45_facepalm.jpg
    58.7 KB · Views: 466
Last edited:
Straightpool_99 said:
This thread was a matter of fact thread about the interchangability of certain visuals, but got derailed into this strange nonsense. The post from Stan was easily understandable (within the context of the system) and I have no objection to it what so ever. It will be up to anyone to try it and see for themselves wether it works or not, if they are curious. But this... This kind of prophetic religious imagery is what makes people think CTE'ers are completely loco. It's an aiming system. It will not give you the talent or years of practice needed to make more money than Shane Van Boening. Unless you grew up in a pool hall and had lots of talent as well, it's pretty much impossible to make a living in pool today, and even so it will not be easy. Every action thread is about how it is impossible to get any kind of action at all, suddenly because of CTE pool playing is a gold mine? Sigh.
Click to expand...
$250 - $300 a day is easily accomplished. IF YOU KNOW how to manage pool players and their egos. Drain them slowly and be a nice guy. NEVER win any local tournaments (and stay out of the big ones completely)...just quietly finish down in the money somewhere.
CTE offers a deadly accurate method for "throwing off".....if the perception is 30 degrees, simply hit it at a 15 degree perception and the ball rattles off the rail just perfect...without any guess work.
Of course you don't know all this because you are an ego driven pool PLAYER...and I am not. I'm just a nobody who picks up extra dough here and there and never says a word.
A pool player named Don Watson told me long ago...."remember kid, you don't make real money gambling at pool by playing with other pool players...you make money by playing with idiots".
Pool players who die broke are victims of the choices THEY HAVE MADE THEMSELVES....by gambling stupidly on cards, dice, and other junk action. Instead of sticking to their trade and become journeymen players.
Use of drugs, heavy on the booze, womanizing, and bragging how many times "they went busted", and other road stories of "how me and so-and-so stuck up old Cleo and got out of town with enough loot to sink an aircraft carrier" lead to their obscure lives as well.
Oldest gig in the game.
By the way, I like being "loco"....it's fun and very profitable.
I love your picture of the tiger....I just have to "borrow" it and use it elsewhere. Thank you for posting it.
 
Last edited:
'Deleted' due a memory brain fart that caused a significant error.

The point regarding what GoldenFlash said about a 30 rattling if shot with a 15 is asked about in a subsequent post.

Best Wishes to All.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
I find the part that I put in big bold very interesting.

Stan just said here that the 15 & 30 are interchangeable & each can pocket all 5 shots.

Yet here you say. "if the perception is 30 degrees, simply hit it at a 15 degree perception and the ball rattles off the rail just perfect".

Now on the YouTube Perception Video with the 3 Big Balls Stan did say, that the last shot that is in the position of shot #5 on the 5 shot video can be made with 15 & inside, but...

@ about the 7:15 mark he said that '30 & outside over cuts the ball'.

When I shot #5 with 30 & the thickening outside pivot it did over cut the ball just as Stan said that it would.

Why now, 'all of a sudden', can all 5 shots be made with 30 & outside?

Especially when the other 4 shots & ALL in between are each of lesser & lesser angle than shot #5.

And why do you find that one 'rattles off the rail just perfect' when Stan says here that the 15 & 30 are interchangeable?

Why just a relatively short time ago 30 & outside over cuts the ball & now either 15 & inside or 30 & outside can pocket all 5 shots?

These are really rhetorical questions as I already know what the answers will be.

It's all about THE PERCEPTION.

Which to some of us is exactly the same as saying it depends on one's subjective perception of the shot & whether or not one can get it right & correct so that the ball pockets with that 'perception' of the shot.

Hence, no 'objective' 'system'.

This is just food for thought for anyone that wants to do a bit of critical thinking about it. It is NOT intended as any argument or 'proof' of anything.

Best Wishes to All.
Click to expand...

Why are you lying?

Stan says "B inside overcuts the shot", as it does. A inside is the solution, or B OUTSIDE, BECAUSE A INSIDE AND B OUTSIDE ARE THE SAME - THEY ARE THE ONLY PAIR OF VISUALS+PIVOT WHICH ARE INTERCHANGEABLE WHICH STAN SAID MORE THAN 100 TIMES HERE!?!?!?

Here is the link to the video where everyone can see and hear that you are lying: https://youtu.be/bAKAP8iR3Lw?t=7m20s

And everyone can come to their own conclusion about why you are lying, as you like to put it.
 
Mirza said:
Why are you lying?

Stan says "B inside overcuts the shot", as it does. A inside is the solution, or B OUTSIDE, BECAUSE A INSIDE AND B OUTSIDE ARE THE SAME - THEY ARE THE ONLY PAIR OF VISUALS+PIVOT WHICH ARE INTERCHANGEABLE WHICH STAN SAID MORE THAN 100 TIMES HERE!?!?!?

Here is the link to the video where everyone can see and hear that you are lying: https://youtu.be/bAKAP8iR3Lw?t=7m20s

And everyone can come to their own conclusion about why you are lying, as you like to put it.
Click to expand...


No!

I am NOT a liar!

I made a mistake!

My bad memory. I thought he had said B 'outside' because that is what I shot it with & it over cut for me & it seems that that would be the next progression... IF... there were any progressions.

Thanks for the correction.

Again, I am NOT a liar. I made a mistake.

But... why then does Golden Flash say what he says, that the ball rattles if indeed they are interchangeable?

I'll wipe my post because I was mistaken due to my personal experience with it where it did not fit the interchangeable declaration. When I shot it with 15 inside it went no where near the pocket & the 30 "outside" over cut the ball for me but went much closer to the pocket.

But... I was shooting them 'objectively' & not applying my subjective perception of the shot.

Again thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Best Wishes to You & ALL.
 
Last edited:
stan shuffett said:
It is true that 15I and 30O are interchangeable.

The 5 shots with 15 I go as demonstrated.
The 5 shots also go with 30 O. Then the first shot becomes the toughest to align to but much easier than the 5th shot for the 15 I group.

It is true that the 5th shot for the inside 15s is the toughest of all of the inside 15s that I have encountered. But I can make it easily because I know precisely how to align my cue across my vision.

It is true that at the PRO level of CTE there are 2 base CCB shots: CENTER TO CENTER and CENTER TO EDGE....that's it!

The 15 Is are all but weaned out at the pro CTE level because the OB outer edge is more objective than the Quarter. ( Does that mean that the 15 insides should not be learned as presented in DVD 1 and 2? NO, In order to be comprehensive in your work with CTE, the 15 Is are part of the connection to a 2x1 table.

I could do a comprehensive chapter on thIs and may do so.....I have 8 total years of CTE work and I will pass it all on........

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Appreciate you posting this info.
Thanks !
 
The following is just some food for thought for those that might be so inclined.

Shot #1 is about 15*.

Shot #5 is about 40*.

That's about 25* of separation.

That means that there are at least 25 different angled shots & perhaps as many as 50 different individual shots...

... that are ALL supposed to be 'objectively' covered with the same visual & the same pivot.

Since the 'system' is supposed to be a center pocket 'system' with a 'naturally' built in slight over cut i order to off set CIT... so that the ball goes to center pocket...

...that would mean that there are at least 25 to maybe even 50 different objective 'PERCEPTIONS' necessary in order to pocket all of the shots to 'center pocket' with no 'pocket slop' involved.

That's an awful lot of objective 'PERCEPTIONS' for an individual to consciously pick up on based only from all of those different individual presentations made by the two balls.

But that is what it would take for an 'objective system'.

I, for one, just do not see what there is that would 'objectively' tell one which of those numerous objective 'PERCEPTIONS' is the correct ONE.

Again, this is just food for thought for anyone that might be so inclined.

Best Wishes to ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
I, for one, just do not see what there is that would 'objectively' tell one which of those numerous objective 'PERCEPTIONS' is the correct ONE.
Click to expand...

I think the obligatory reply is something like, "You suck, Stan's kid is awesome and so there's your proof."

(Just trying to save some time).
 
Dan White said:
I think the obligatory reply is something like, "You suck, Stan's kid is awesome and so there's your proof."

(Just trying to save some time).
Click to expand...

Hi Dan,

I was not looking for any answers as I did not ask any questions.

I was merely putting out some food for thought for anyone so inclined to do some critical thinking.

Best Wishes to You & Yours.
 
ENGLISH! said:
The following is just some food for thought for those that might be so inclined.

Shot #1 is about 15*.

Shot #5 is about 40*.

That's about 25* of separation.

That means that there are at least 25 different angled shots & perhaps as many as 50 different individual shots...

... that are ALL supposed to be 'objectively' covered with the same visual & the same pivot.

Since the 'system' is supposed to be a center pocket 'system' with a 'naturally' built in slight over cut i order to off set CIT... so that the ball goes to center pocket...

...that would mean that there are at least 25 to maybe even 50 different objective 'PERCEPTIONS' necessary in order to pocket all of the shots to 'center pocket' with no 'pocket slop' involved.

That's an awful lot of objective 'PERCEPTIONS' for an individual to consciously pick up on based only from all of those different individual presentations made by the two balls.

But that is what it would take for an 'objective system'.

I, for one, just do not see what there is that would 'objectively' tell one which of those numerous objective 'PERCEPTIONS' is the correct ONE.

Again, this is just food for thought for anyone that might be so inclined.

Best Wishes to ALL.
Click to expand...



I think I mentioned this awhile back. You'd have to reference the whole table to get the right perception for the right shot. I don't think this happening, they're choosing a..b or c and going into the shot, and adjustments are made with out them knowing.

Kinda like fractional aiming only different.:smile:
 
8pack said:
I think I mentioned this awhile back. You'd have to reference the whole table to get the right perception for the right shot. I don't think this happening, they're choosing a..b or c and going into the shot, and adjustments are made with out them knowing.

Kinda like fractional aiming only different.:smile:
Click to expand...

Hi Anthony,

The area of interest in my post is just for the shots that are parallel to the long rails between the center 3 diamonds.

PJ has been making the comparison to fractional for a long time now.

If "IT" is helping anyone play better, more power to them & "IT".

The rest of what I would say to you I'll say in My Thread.

Best Wishes to You & Yours...

& ALL.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
...that would mean that there are at least 25 to maybe even 50 different objective 'PERCEPTIONS' necessary in order to pocket all of the shots to 'center pocket' with no 'pocket slop' involved.

That's an awful lot of objective 'PERCEPTIONS' for an individual to consciously pick up on based only from all of those different individual presentations made by the two balls.
Click to expand...

This has been explained several times. Perception != Angle. You only need to "choose" one perception, such as CTEL/A, for the entire range of shots. Every CB/OB arrangement presents a unique perception which results in a unique orientation, even though on the surface the execution is simply CTEL/A. You can only realize this at the table, obviously explanation by words will never be enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top