I Used to Use a System But Now....

[stan shuffett]

Hi mohrt. You're one of the few who actually tries to explain this stuff. What does the bold part mean? On each of the 5 shots I get the exact same alignment. Why would I stand anywhere different based on where the pocket is? Stan shoots shots with blind pockets. Their position is not supposed to matter, but I recall from the last time we discussed this that someone said you have to stand in the approximate correct position to make the shot before doing the CTE pre shot routine. So which is it?

Also, what does the underlined part mean?

You are wasting your time with your continual cross examination of the five shots in question.......

The issues you are concerned about will still be present but my progression in visually connecting with CTE began at ball address and progressed into full stance which was the major prompt for considering a book project. Those five shots were based on ball address perspective and not at the closest source to the shot.......my point is that you should wait to debate those shots when you have the full hand.........those five shots were videod years ago and I will explain them but it ain't gonna happen now.......

Stan Shuffett

 

[mohrt]

Why would I stand anywhere different based on where the pocket is?

I'll address this question separately.

You don't *do* anything different. From a procedural point of view, you align CB edge to A all the same. And certainly not based on where the pocket lies, the pocket is insignificant. BUT, what actually happens: where the balls lie on the table affects our perception. Our eyes take us to a physical alignment that is slightly different for each shot. Executed all the same, procedure the same, but visually they are different shots, our perception is affected by every shot, our physical destination is also slightly affected. Repeatable for every CB/OB orientation and 15/30/45/60 perception.

 

[BeiberLvr]

If this is the correct description of what I have learned and teach, all of you that read this can rest assured that I would throw in the towel this minute.

Truth of the matter is is that you do not know CTE and you are basing what know on how you feel your way through the process.....

Having said that, I will take the blame that you don't get it. Perhaps, in the future you will understand CTE better.

Stan Shuffett

Unlike guys like PJ, Lou, Dan White, ENGLISH, and a few others. I actually own both DVDs, and have put in the time on the table.

My statements are not meant to be critical nor turn off anyone from learning the system.

 

[stan shuffett]

Unlike guys like PJ, Lou, Dan White, ENGLISH, and a few others. I actually own both DVDs, and have put in the time on the table.

My statements are not meant to be critical nor turn off anyone from learning the system.

I do not care who or what you turn off......your understanding of CTE is luke warm at best.

Stan Shuffett

 

[BeiberLvr]

I do not care who or what you turn off......your understanding of CTE is luke warm at best.

Stan Shuffett

Stan,

I'm afraid you dont' understand what I'm saying.

So I'll bow out. Take care

 

[Dan White]

Stan,

I'm afraid you dont' understand what I'm saying.

So I'll bow out. Take care

OUCH! Stan layin' down the law!

 

[Dan White]

You are wasting your time with your continual cross examination of the five shots in question.......

The issues you are concerned about will still be present but my progression in visually connecting with CTE began at ball address and progressed into full stance which was the major prompt for considering a book project. Those five shots were based on ball address perspective and not at the closest source to the shot.......my point is that you should wait to debate those shots when you have the full hand.........those five shots were videod years ago and I will explain them but it ain't gonna happen now.......

Stan Shuffett

OK. If you simply said the video was a mistake and didn't convey the system correctly, then I'd say fine. But instead we have years of argument.

 

[Dan White]

I'll address this question separately.

You don't *do* anything different. From a procedural point of view, you align CB edge to A all the same. And certainly not based on where the pocket lies, the pocket is insignificant. BUT, what actually happens: where the balls lie on the table affects our perception. Our eyes take us to a physical alignment that is slightly different for each shot. Executed all the same, procedure the same, but visually they are different shots, our perception is affected by every shot, our physical destination is also slightly affected. Repeatable for every CB/OB orientation and 15/30/45/60 perception.

I'm sorry mohrt, but I'm calling BS on this. I know you are genuine, but you are telling me that the CTA perception is going to put me in a different spot each time because of how the balls look with the rail in the background? Logically, then, wouldn't a straight in shot put me in different locations based on where the rail is relative to the two balls?

Also, what happened to CTE? Stan says you have to use both ETA and CTE at the same time, but you are only talking about using ETA.

 

[stan shuffett]

OK. If you simply said the video was a mistake and didn't convey the system correctly, then I'd say fine. But instead we have years of argument.

I did not say that the video was a mistake......ny YouTube videos represent years of my ongoing work with CTE.......I am happy for any mistakes....I learn from them.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Our eyes perceive a given shot uniquely given their position on a 2x1 table. Exactly why, I don't think we really know exactly, or at least not able to convey in words in a scientific way, why this happens. It is described as having to do with perfect squares (the rails) and pockets at the corners, and how two spheres fall inside these squares, and how our eyes perceive the alignments. I'd chalk it up as a phenomenon of how the human eyes work. Now, if you are always standing in the same physical location regardless of where the balls lay, my only answer is that you are not taking into account how our eyes takes a part in finding the edges and centers within the square, the entire perception. That said, I really don't know how to inform you how to see this, how to find this, how to describe it. I was the same way when I first started. How did I begin to realize them? Hitting balls. I went through the practice shots on DVD1 for several weeks, basically blindly setting them up and executing them, until it just started coming together, and it came pretty quickly once it did. After that the fine tuning just kept coming.

With the curtain shots, there is enough information to know a) what pocket we want to go to and b) what perception to choose for the shot. Once you know those two pieces of information, you only need to see the CB, OB and the portion of the table the lie to put the pieces together.

Regarding the first bold section. This sounds like the HAMB method, especially the part about fine tuning.

Regarding the second bold section. In your other reply to me you said that you are able to achieve two different shot angles with the same perception (as in the 5 shot video) because your eyes are essentially tricked into finding the correct line because of the rail locations on a 2x1 table (you didn't use the word "tricked" but I think that word conveys the same thing you were saying). But then with the curtain shots you (and Stan in the past) say that the rails are not necessary to see, as long as you have a general idea of what pocket you want to shoot at.

So this is an inconsistency. To restate, let's take two situations. First, you have a 30 degree cut shot and you can see the rails. So you get your perception (ETA? it doesn't really matter for this discussion) and make the shot. Then we reset the balls so that it is now a 33 degree cut. But, as you say, the rails fool our eyes so that now the same ETA perception is going to give us a 33 degree cut successfully. In the second situation we have a curtain up near the two balls so that you don't see any rails other than what is below your shooting arm. If we shoot the same 30 and then 33 degree shots again with ETA, how are we able to do this without those rails fooling our eyes into the correct position?

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It can't work. It is bogus. No one with a science background (spelt: peer review) can explain it or make it work.

That's right, the same way you opened your big fat mouth saying exactly the same thing over and over along with the science guys Bob Jewett and Dave Alciatore that you can't bend a bank shot after John Brumback said it can be done and made a video. Alciatore did everything he could with slow motion and stopping the video with lines showing it couldn't be done with his "conclusive proof".

Oh yeh, you stood on the sidelines clapping your hands and blowing off that big fat mouth again attacking Brumback trying to make the best bank player in the world look like a fool which is your favorite game. Kind of strange how quickly you can change your stripes because at one time after the DCC you were sucking up to him trying to make it seem as if the two of you were best buddies while you did your normal job of being a financial contributor in the one pocket division.

I guess John didn't have the right video equipment to illustrate it better but somebody else did and the bend could be clearly seen. What happened next?
Jewett and Alciatore had to eat crow (should have been something that comes from a dog's behind) and concede a banked ball can bend, although they did it begrudgingly as if bamboo slivers were being forced under their fingernails. Alciatore
has learned how to talk out of both sides of his mouth to cover his a$$ when he stated, "well I always "thought" it could be possible but no proof was ever shown".

Jewett said, "now that I see HOW IT'S DONE"... which means he had no idea how it was done beforehand but was using HIS pseudoscience to disprove and claim impossibility. This is the SAME CRAP that's been going on with CTE. NONE of you with big fat mouths have a clue how it's done and you stand at the front of the pack.

After it was shown on video, Jewett and Alciatore came up with a challenge for anyone else to do it with all kinds of whacky provisions for a monetary prize to show what great humanitarians they were. The way it was set up was impossible and took so much work to do it that nobody needed the couple of hundred bucks that badly.

Where did you go? You drifted off into the sunset without a word and finally STFU.
Brumback called you weird, which is far to mild, got pi$$ed off at the idiocy of the
science guys and your constant belittlement to elevate your own ego and hardly puts in any time or energy to post on AZ.

Now, as has been pointed out many times, some players may derive benefit from trying to deploy the system, only because it gives them structure in their set up up and makes them focus more in a consistent manner on the shot making process.

But that's it.

Lou Figueroa

Sure would have been a lot easier if you described YOUR ever changing PSR to everyone so they can be great playing Figueroa clones like you.

You've never done it. Never taken the time to put your actions into words. Oh and your aiming method, "Just SEE THE SHOT". Great stuff!!

Brumback was right "weird" and a disgusting excuse for a human being.

 

[mohrt]

I'm sorry mohrt, but I'm calling BS on this. I know you are genuine, but you are telling me that the CTA perception is going to put me in a different spot each time because of how the balls look with the rail in the background? Logically, then, wouldn't a straight in shot put me in different locations based on where the rail is relative to the two balls?

Also, what happened to CTE? Stan says you have to use both ETA and CTE at the same time, but you are only talking about using ETA.

This is how our perception works, and CTE is a system that leverages our perception to pocket balls. A straight in shot is where the perceptions "converge", for lack of better description. It is the only shot where CTE/A and CTE/C with an outside pivot give the same result.

As for CTE, I imply using CTE along with the 15 degree perceptions in the context of CTE Pro One.

 

[mohrt]

Regarding the first bold section. This sounds like the HAMB method, especially the part about fine tuning.

I am describing how first came to understand the perceptions. You are a perfect example. Try as I may to explain everything to you, I don't think you will be effective with the system until you put a little time in at the table and hit balls with it. As for fine tuning, that is always happening as I use the system. I think that is true for any aspect of pool.

Regarding the second bold section. In your other reply to me you said that you are able to achieve two different shot angles with the same perception (as in the 5 shot video) because your eyes are essentially tricked into finding the correct line because of the rail locations on a 2x1 table (you didn't use the word "tricked" but I think that word conveys the same thing you were saying). But then with the curtain shots you (and Stan in the past) say that the rails are not necessary to see, as long as you have a general idea of what pocket you want to shoot at.


"trick" isn't the right word, it is just how our perception already works. As Stan states it, "something that was never meant to be". Hal basically figured out that there is perceptual information at the table, such that we can harness this information to pocket balls, and in a very natural way. As for the curtain shots, I'm pretty sure you have to be able to see enough rails to orient yourself on the table. I never tried to cover ALL the rails except the one under my arm, but I'm going to guess that won't work. As we know, this is never a situation we have in a game. It is just meant to demonstrate the use of perception.

So this is an inconsistency. To restate, let's take two situations. First, you have a 30 degree cut shot and you can see the rails. So you get your perception (ETA? it doesn't really matter for this discussion) and make the shot. Then we reset the balls so that it is now a 33 degree cut. But, as you say, the rails fool our eyes so that now the same ETA perception is going to give us a 33 degree cut successfully. In the second situation we have a curtain up near the two balls so that you don't see any rails other than what is below your shooting arm. If we shoot the same 30 and then 33 degree shots again with ETA, how are we able to do this without those rails fooling our eyes into the correct position?


When you move the balls to a 33 degree cut, this is a different shot, and when we orient ourselves behind the CB/OB with ETA/CTE, the result is a slightly different alignment. I already answered the curtain question above.

See all remarks above in blue. I'll also state that I may not be conveying all the technical intricacies of the system perfectly, as I am only conveying them as I understand them. The WHY is hard to put into words. The HOW is easy to do, and easy to discover with a little table time.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I do not care who or what you turn off......your understanding of CTE is luke warm at best.

Stan Shuffett

Have you ever found it odd that people who own both DVDs have what you call a luke warm understanding of CTE? You have said many times that all the information needed is in each DVD individually. Isn't the second DVD called the Final Chapter? It is hard for me to understand why you would need to write a book and provide so many supplemental videos if the system was so easy.

People say the system works if you put in the time. How much time do you have to put in if all there is to it is several alignments and two sweeps? Does it take a large number of hours to get the sweeps down? It seems like center to edge and edge to A should be easy to find. The same perception changes on slightly different shots. Is the work needed to figure out what needs to be changed by you to find the perception?

I have seen both DVDs and gave up on the system. I asked many questions here about problems I was having and got no helpful answers. Just along the lines of it works so you need to change something. I thought it was great when cutting balls in one direction but could not go the other way to save my life. Not that it matters but there are people who gave the system an honest effort and feel frustrated. You and your defenders take these as personal attacks. That is probably the main problem.

I wish it worked for me on all shots but it does not. Maybe others are having similar issues. Who knows?

 

[lfigueroa]

I guess some people aren't so petty that they actually care about what something is called so long as they get the results they are after.

It's not an issue of what it's called. It's an issue about the wild claims made.

And getting some coincidental benefit is not the same as the system performing as advertised.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Unlike guys like PJ, Lou, Dan White, ENGLISH, and a few others. I actually own both DVDs, and have put in the time on the table.

My statements are not meant to be critical nor turn off anyone from learning the system.

I bought the 1st DVD and reviewed it here. Another member sent me a copy of the 2nd DVD and asked me to review it as well. I watched it but decided to pass on reviewing it. Thought it'd be "piling on."

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

You are liar! Plain and simple.

Stan Shuffett

I ask again: what about that submission of your "work" to academics for review, that you touted for so long? How'd that work out for for you?

You get the boys at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, anywhere else, to stand up and applaud?

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It's not an issue of what it's called. It's an issue about the wild claims made.

The primary issue is dolts who have never put the time in to learn it making all the NEGATIVE CLAIMS with no leg to stand on but their big mouths certainly do a good job.

And getting some coincidental benefit is not the same as the system performing as advertised.

Lou Figueroa

It performs as advertised just like being able to bend a bank which you and the science guys so staunchly nixed.

 

[stan shuffett]

I ask again: what about that submission of your "work" to academics for review, that you touted for so long? How'd that work out for for you?

You get the boys at Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, anywhere else, to stand up and applaud?

Lou Figueroa

You are a sickening human being! All that you have is to tear down something that you know very very little about in hopes that your spewing of negativity will stick over time......and adversely effect the growth of CTE.....
The growth is happening as I write and you can NOT stop it.

Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

Have you ever found it odd that people who own both DVDs have what you call a luke warm understanding of CTE? You have said many times that all the information needed is in each DVD individually. Isn't the second DVD called the Final Chapter? It is hard for me to understand why you would need to write a book and provide so many supplemental videos if the system was so easy.

People say the system works if you put in the time. How much time do you have to put in if all there is to it is several alignments and two sweeps? Does it take a large number of hours to get the sweeps down? It seems like center to edge and edge to A should be easy to find. The same perception changes on slightly different shots. Is the work needed to figure out what needs to be changed by you to find the perception?

I have seen both DVDs and gave up on the system. I asked many questions here about problems I was having and got no helpful answers. Just along the lines of it works so you need to change something. I thought it was great when cutting balls in one direction but could not go the other way to save my life. Not that it matters but there are people who gave the system an honest effort and feel frustrated. You and your defenders take these as personal attacks. That is probably the main problem.

I wish it worked for me on all shots but it does not. Maybe others are having similar issues. Who knows?

I call it like it is. All that matters to me is that the truth of CTE is revealed to the fullest extent possible.

I would describe many aspects of my own journey along the way with CTE as luke warm but I knew I was on track.......I was not perfect with CTE on day one or even on year number five.....It took Hal ten years..........He was not perfect along the way either....

Stan Shuffett