What is your PSR?

Brian, get used to it because it's the nature of the beast. You've virtually come out of the womb 7 months ago since you joined as a member in Feb. 2017. A babe in the woods.

I joined AZ 11 1/2 years ago in 2006 and it was going on heavily.

Come to find out it started 9 years prior to my joining on another forum, RSB and spread over to the Billiard's Digest Forum. Some of same cast of characters are still involved now. Not Hal, because he died.

Who are the negative and who are the positive posters? Was Hal Houle a positive poster for sharing his discoveries 5 or 6 decades earlier about aiming and then brought it to light with one of the first pool forums on the internet, or was he a negative poster for exposing it the world of pool by those branding it as a worthless fraud? Were the bashers negative or positive because they thought of themselves as saving the world.

You're in the same boat now as Hal was back in 1997. Luckily for you, there has been no negative backlash so you can't walk in Hal's shoes or those who learned from Hal.

Yes, this perfect forum world you want to live in would be great for all of us. But Democrats and Republicans in our own country can't come to a meeting of minds on anything and it's supposedly all for our own good. It's worse on a pool forum.

I hear you, but that was years ago. Since I've been here I haven't seen any blatant frying of aiming systems...well, except for Denwit's recently spilled opinion. I've read plenty of probing questions toward a few systems, and asked a few questions of my own. Questioning a particular aspect of any system isn't the same as ridiculing that system. Or stating an obvious difficulty or understanding regarding any part of a system is also not ridiculing.

From what I've observed, the condescending attitudes typically come from those that should be able to answer questions in a civil and professional manner, but instead become aggressively defensive. I believe that's why I haven't had a lot of negative backlash -- I have an open mind and respect others. I try to remain professional and answer questions as openly as possible without resorting to personal attacks or degradation tactics. And sometimes it's hard to do when facing varying degrees of egos and arrogance.

But I hear you. It is what it is, always has been, and probably won't change because the past has left too many scars.
 
So why does it work when you cover the pockets and most of the rails with a curtain? I'm not sure you understand what the debate is about.

Maybe because it's a visual "perspective" that can only be seen from one focal point/location. I can find this location on every shot using the two lines, but beyond that it's beyond me. We can visually get varying perspectives (like center-to-edge and edge-to-quarter) from any two objects on any particularly shaped surface. So I'm not sure why it's special when using two spheres on a 2x4 surface, but my curiosity level is peaked and I hope Stan's book sheds some light on the mystery.
 
So why does it work when you cover the pockets and most of the rails with a curtain? I'm not sure you understand what the debate is about.

Just answering how the mysterious perception works. As far as covering the pockets with a curtain, who cares. What seems credible to some isn't nothing more then bs to others.
 
Just answering how the mysterious perception works. As far as covering the pockets with a curtain, who cares. What seems credible to some isn't nothing more then bs to others.

I used to think it was mysterious until I finally understood the concept. Now I get it. I just don't get the next step, coming into CCB, or how to tell if it's a thick or thin, unless that's an individual interpretation based on experience. But I'm fine not knowing, and I don't lose sleep thinking about it. If it makes you play better pool, nothing else matters.
 
Maybe because it's a visual "perspective" that can only be seen from one focal point/location. I can find this location on every shot using the two lines, but beyond that it's beyond me. We can visually get varying perspectives (like center-to-edge and edge-to-quarter) from any two objects on any particularly shaped surface. So I'm not sure why it's special when using two spheres on a 2x4 surface, but my curiosity level is peaked and I hope Stan's book sheds some light on the mystery.

So.... you are saying: that you can see the two lines that the OB goes into the pocket based on the 2 X 1 table? It wouldn't work on a 2.5 X 1 table? I'm just not qualified to see this happening. I think he knows his shots and works them out with with his knowledge. Nothing to do with... "the aiming system".
 
So.... you are saying: that you can see the two lines that the OB goes into the pocket based on the 2 X 1 table? It wouldn't work on a 2.5 X 1 table? I'm just not qualified to see this happening. I think he knows his shots and works them out with with his knowledge. Nothing to do with... "the aiming system".

No. The two lines I'm talking about do not lead toward a pocket. They basically provide a location for the proper shot alignment. I believe CTE users call it a "fixed" cue ball. For example, I can stand in a manner behind the CB and see a CTE line and an ETA or ETB or C line at the same time. It's a visual perspective than can only be seen from one place, one focal point. A proficient CTE user would have to explain what comes next because I don't know.
 
No. The two lines I'm talking about do not lead toward a pocket. They basically provide a location for the proper shot alignment. I believe CTE users call it a "fixed" cue ball. For example, I can stand in a manner behind the CB and see a CTE line and an ETA or ETB or C line at the same time. It's a visual perspective than can only be seen from one place, one focal point. A proficient CTE user would have to explain what comes next because I don't know.

You're getting your ducks in row!

Stan Shuffett
 
I used to think it was mysterious until I finally understood the concept. Now I get it. I just don't get the next step, coming into CCB, or how to tell if it's a thick or thin, unless that's an individual interpretation based on experience. But I'm fine not knowing, and I don't lose sleep thinking about it. If it makes you play better pool, nothing else matters.

Just to be clear, the "mysterious" part is a specific thing that Stan refers to. It is what makes his version of CTE work and is the same thing you write about in italics above. Basically, how you get multiple outcomes from the same visual, all to be answered in the book.
 
Just to be clear, the "mysterious" part is a specific thing that Stan refers to. It is what makes his version of CTE work and is the same thing you write about in italics above. Basically, how you get multiple outcomes from the same visual, all to be answered in the book.


I can and have already frameworked why it works to the extent that I can at this time. To be honest, and for the 4th or 5th time, I don't give a hoot why it works, it just does and I CAN EXPLAIN HOW! That is what really matters to 99% of those that are interested. CTE is an outlier, no doubt. It was not supposed to be.......

You are not pinning me down to WHY it works but I'm all in for the HOW side of the phenomena.

Stan Shuffett
 
I can and have already frameworked why it works to the extent that I can at this time. To be honest, and for the 4th or 5th time, I don't give a hoot why it works, it just does and I CAN EXPLAIN HOW! That is what really matters to 99% of those that are interested. CTE is an outlier, no doubt. It was not supposed to be.......

You are not pinning me down to WHY it works but I'm all in for the HOW side of the phenomena.

Stan Shuffett

...and there it is. OK, whatever, Stan. I hope you do well with the book.
 
...and there it is. OK, whatever, Stan. I hope you do well with the book.

It is like Hal once told me, "It took me 10 years to figure it out but I can teach it in 30 minutes."

The couple of things that Brian is stumped on are simple explanations. One of the explanations, however, was not simple in acquiring as knowledge but I finally nailed it down after many years of tryin. I sort of think of it as a 500 year piece of info. No BS!

Stan Shuffett
 
...and there it is. OK, whatever, Stan. I hope you do well with the book.

Yes, me too. Seems like a camera or a laser would be able to line up the lines for everyone to see and visualize. With the balls ONLY going into the holes provided for because the 2 X 1 table. Can't wait for that.
 
Yes, me too. Seems like a camera or a laser would be able to line up the lines for everyone to see and visualize. With the balls ONLY going into the holes provided for because the 2 X 1 table. Can't wait for that.

Cameras and lasers can not do what human vision can do. It's laughable to think otherwise.

Stan Shuffett
 
Cameras and lasers can not do what human vision can do. It's laughable to think otherwise.

Stan Shuffett

So.... there are three lines from the CB to the OB, but only the human eye can see them? Nothing from a camera, nor a laser can detect them at all. So, physics, and time and space can NOT see them at all? Something like a magician?
 
It is like Hal once told me, "It took me 10 years to figure it out but I can teach it in 30 minutes."

The couple of things that Brian is stumped on are simple explanations. One of the explanations, however, was not simple in acquiring as knowledge but I finally nailed it down after many years of tryin. I sort of think of it as a 500 year piece of info. No BS!

Stan Shuffett

I'm confused. You just said you are not going to explain WHY it works, but only HOW it works. By HOW, I assume you mean the 1,2,3 steps needed to make the system work. Like on your 5 shot perception video, you show HOW to make the shots (ie, line up eta and cte till it looks right, sweep in and shoot), but not WHY you are able to make 5 different shots with the same perception. I just want to be sure I understand what you are actually going to provide in the book.
 
So.... there are three lines from the CB to the OB, but only the human eye can see them? Nothing from a camera, nor a laser can detect them at all. So, physics, and time and space can NOT see them at all? Something like a magician?

You can comprenend, I assume. You did read what I wrote and by that I mean rather than just calling out words in your mind, you actually thought about what the sentences meant.

Stan Shuffett
 
I'm confused. You just said you are not going to explain WHY it works, but only HOW it works. By HOW, I assume you mean the 1,2,3 steps needed to make the system work. Like on your 5 shot perception video, you show HOW to make the shots (ie, line up eta and cte till it looks right, sweep in and shoot), but not WHY you are able to make 5 different shots with the same perception. I just want to be sure I understand what you are actually going to provide in the book.

I meant just what I said. I don't know WHY the phenomena exist but I CAN explain how it works. There will be MANY that get what I present. There's a list of a few that the world can be assured of that they'll never get it, no matter what

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
I'm confused. You just said you are not going to explain WHY it works, but only HOW it works. By HOW, I assume you mean the 1,2,3 steps needed to make the system work. Like on your 5 shot perception video, you show HOW to make the shots (ie, line up eta and cte till it looks right, sweep in and shoot), but not WHY you are able to make 5 different shots with the same perception. I just want to be sure I understand what you are actually going to provide in the book.

I have no interest in learning the details of a sex change, because I'm never going to get one.
 
I meant just what I said. I don't know WHY the phenomena exist but I CAN explain how it works. There will be MANY that get what I present. There's a list of a few that the world can be assured of that they'll never get it, no matter what Stan Shuffett
------------
 
Last edited:
(I don't know how or why gravity works and could care less................but I know if someone dives off a 30 story building downtown on to the sidewalk, I'm betting they will be dead as a doornail)

The gravity thing was pretty well figured out by Einstein many years ago. The CTE thing remains a more vexing problem, apparently.

"Not that there is anything wrong with that."
 
Back
Top