Wrong! There are no gaps in Cte! But there are overlaps! An inside 15degree perception can be made with 30 degree outside! All the angles are covered do your homework!
Last edited:
Stan and a 33 minute video...
- Thread starter Dan White
- Start date
Wrong! There are no gaps in Cte! But there are overlaps! An inside 15degree perception can be made with 30 degree outside! All the angles are covered do your homework!
Stan? Knock, knock... Is that you? :grin:
You must have gone to the Dave Segal school of posting in AZ, with the blue text inside my quote. It will take me a little time to unscramble it so I can reply properly, but I do recognize that you actually answered the two questions to the best of your ability. It brings up some interesting thoughts, which I'll get back to you with later.
Thanks again.
Ragging on guys that don't post here anymore, mighty big of you,
Dan, let it go.
Mike
Mike
OK, but it wasn't meant as a dig against Spider. It takes more time to cobble together a reply when quotes are nested like that. That was the only point I wanted to make.
morht said:
I know you don't like the word "slop" but it gets the point across. Let's say it this way: In bold above you are saying that the overcut brings you to a center ball hit, so if you hit harder or softer you are still within the pocket width and so will still pocket the ball either to the left or right of center depending on the speed. I believe that is what you are saying. Stan disagrees. Let me show you:
After we noticed that the ball in the first video threw an inch less with more speed (which you seem to agree with), Stan produced this video with the tight pockets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE&t=448s
The whole video directly contradicts you. He is saying that throw at different speeds does not interfere with CTE simply because CTE is an over cut system. Particularly see the following clips:
https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=3m
https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=5m12s
Here's one where he says it is laughable to think that throw is a factor to be worried about with CTE: https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=8m37s
So forgive my confusion. Stan puts a lot of belief in your knowledge of CTE, more than anyone else, yet you seem to disagree on something as simple as whether CTE needs to adjust for throw with speed differences or not. How are we to understand it if you guys don't even agree?
Of course then there is the question of how Stan is able to make all those shots at different speeds in such a tight pocket. I say he is making very small adjustments either in initial aim or during the stroke. The other possibility, which Stan definitely doesn't get, is that by moving that ob just that little bit above the foot spot, he may have moved the shot angle into the part of the throw curve where speed doesn't matter. Brian posted the graph the other day. It is very interesting and is something I had forgotten about. Might be worth a separate post.
Regarding the 5 shots, mohrt said:
I think there is an opportunity for the arguing to end if Stan would simply moderate his claims. If you are going to offer a product on the basis that it has never, in the history of the game, been known or revealed up to this point, something that "was not supposed to be" and is 100% objective, is it too much to ask for that person to actually know how all that comes about? If we have to hire a team of scientists at a major university to understand it, maybe we shouldn't make those claims until they get back to you. Is that so unreasonable?
I know you don't like the word "slop" but it gets the point across. Let's say it this way: In bold above you are saying that the overcut brings you to a center ball hit, so if you hit harder or softer you are still within the pocket width and so will still pocket the ball either to the left or right of center depending on the speed. I believe that is what you are saying. Stan disagrees. Let me show you:
After we noticed that the ball in the first video threw an inch less with more speed (which you seem to agree with), Stan produced this video with the tight pockets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERJ-bZJTGfE&t=448s
The whole video directly contradicts you. He is saying that throw at different speeds does not interfere with CTE simply because CTE is an over cut system. Particularly see the following clips:
https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=3m
https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=5m12s
Here's one where he says it is laughable to think that throw is a factor to be worried about with CTE: https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=8m37s
So forgive my confusion. Stan puts a lot of belief in your knowledge of CTE, more than anyone else, yet you seem to disagree on something as simple as whether CTE needs to adjust for throw with speed differences or not. How are we to understand it if you guys don't even agree?
Of course then there is the question of how Stan is able to make all those shots at different speeds in such a tight pocket. I say he is making very small adjustments either in initial aim or during the stroke. The other possibility, which Stan definitely doesn't get, is that by moving that ob just that little bit above the foot spot, he may have moved the shot angle into the part of the throw curve where speed doesn't matter. Brian posted the graph the other day. It is very interesting and is something I had forgotten about. Might be worth a separate post.
Regarding the 5 shots, mohrt said:
I think there is an opportunity for the arguing to end if Stan would simply moderate his claims. If you are going to offer a product on the basis that it has never, in the history of the game, been known or revealed up to this point, something that "was not supposed to be" and is 100% objective, is it too much to ask for that person to actually know how all that comes about? If we have to hire a team of scientists at a major university to understand it, maybe we shouldn't make those claims until they get back to you. Is that so unreasonable?
I think there is an opportunity for the arguing to end if Stan would simply moderate his claims. If you are going to offer a product on the basis that it has never, in the history of the game, been known or revealed up to this point, something that "was not supposed to be" and is 100% objective, is it too much to ask for that person to actually know how all that comes about? If we have to hire a team of scientists at a major university to understand it, maybe we shouldn't make those claims until they get back to you. Is that so unreasonable?
How about if someone, suppose you, offers a prize, say about $40,000, to a major university, perhaps MIT to prove CTE works. If a bored savant comes along, you may indeed get your beloved proof.
How about if someone, suppose you, offers a prize, say about $40,000, to a major university, perhaps MIT to prove CTE works. If a bored savant comes along, you may indeed get your beloved proof.
Last edited:
Dan, I believe Mohrt would've been a better spokesperson for cte than Stan from the beginning. Maybe could've provided a smoother road for CTE. I mean, Stan seems to be so passionate that his subjective bias is off the charts. He just can't admit that there is an obvious element of judgement that must be used to determine the proper perception and also to determine if the perception "looks" too thick/thin. Mohrt has already said there are individual judgements/determinations that occur. I believe that's correct and true.
With an 8 to 10 inch bridge, the offset pivot or sweep provides about a +/- 1.5° shot angle adjustment. Such a fine amount may be easy to recognize for me or you or Mohrt or Stan, but certainly not for the average player that lacks consistent ball pocketing skills. They probably can't tell if a shot needs to be thinned or thickened by a mere 1.5°.
I’ll admit that you are getting into some details that I don’t have a definitive answer to. Stan would be the person to ask. Why do I not know? Because they never occurred to me. Since I’ve used CTE as part of my game, very rarely do I need to concern myself with CIT. The balls go with the basic instructions. I can play at a very high level, even when I add a little spin or speed here and there. Since it’s very largely not an issue, I don’t lose to much sleep at night if I don’t completely understand why it works so well, even with all the proof you have that it must not work. It does work. It works for a very large range of shots. Even with speed and spin adjustments, still works. CIT is a red herring. I don’t concern myself with it. CTE is easy and precise the way it is. Then there is banks. Oh Lordy. If I pick the right perception and pivot, I stick with stun and medium roll and they usually go in! It’s great to hit those clutch shots when you need them. That’s what hooked me on CTE.
Why haven't you started a class-action suit against Stan?
I’m sure you guys all mean well (look for sarcasm) but wow...I log in, look for this train wreck CTE rag session (not hard to find), and realize that none of you are truly happy. I’m going back to doing terrible things to my dog with a fork (find it?).
Sent from my iPad using AzBilliards Forums
Sent from my iPad using AzBilliards Forums
I would think the warning also goes for your constant personal sarcastic digs at Stan also.
Papa Dan??
Dan? (crick-et)
Dan?! (crick-et)
Danny can you hear me? Can I help to cheer you?
If you offer the White CTE Prize for the proof of Stan's system, the next time our cult gets together we'll hold an enclave and elect you Pope. We'll even let you design a nice white pointed hat to wear.
Dan? (crick-et)
Dan?! (crick-et)
Danny can you hear me? Can I help to cheer you?
If you offer the White CTE Prize for the proof of Stan's system, the next time our cult gets together we'll hold an enclave and elect you Pope. We'll even let you design a nice white pointed hat to wear.
ROFL. I gotta say I like your style, Vorpal, even if your brain has gone cross-eyed with all those diagrams you make. I've been a bit busy today.
Here's the deal, I'll contact some people at MIT and will ask them to make a ruling. If I am wrong, I will donate $40,000 to the physics department. If I am right, I'll give them your contact info so you can donate $40,000. This isn't a one way street. I mean, talk is cheap.
White hats aren't my thing. Anyway, you already have your pope. :grin-square:
You know, the fact is this forum has never been healthier. For a long time a lot of topics couldn't be discussed because some people reacted too strongly and it wrecked any chance for back and forth. The last week or two has been the result of the flood gates opening where several of us feel like we can bring up ideas that couldn't be in the past. This pace of posting will not last and I believe in a couple of days things will settle down. I think just about everybody here (even Neil :thumbup
is an adult and so things don't get too far down into the mud.JMO
What bet?
Here's the deal, I'll contact some people at MIT and will ask them to make a ruling. If I am wrong, I will donate $40,000 to the physics department. If I am right, I'll give them your contact info so you can donate $40,000. This isn't a one way street. I mean, talk is cheap.
I'm confused and maybe you can help me out. You offered Stan $40,000 if he could prove CTE is objective and the math behind it. I'll find the post if you want but probably remember the statement. Now you're reluctant to offer the White CTE Prize to someone else. Would it be because you're not really interested in the proof for CTE? Afraid to have someone examine it who could take your lunch money? This wasn't a bet. It was you shooting your mouth off. Offer the prize or STFU.
P.S. Your style sucks
Here's the deal, I'll contact some people at MIT and will ask them to make a ruling. If I am wrong, I will donate $40,000 to the physics department. If I am right, I'll give them your contact info so you can donate $40,000. This isn't a one way street. I mean, talk is cheap.
I'm confused and maybe you can help me out. You offered Stan $40,000 if he could prove CTE is objective and the math behind it. I'll find the post if you want but probably remember the statement. Now you're reluctant to offer the White CTE Prize to someone else. Would it be because you're not really interested in the proof for CTE? Afraid to have someone examine it who could take your lunch money? This wasn't a bet. It was you shooting your mouth off. Offer the prize or STFU.
P.S. Your style sucks
I first became interested in CTE when I heard it could make 3 rail banks no problem. (Well I did have a phone session with Hal years ago, but I didn't do anything with it at the time).
What you are really saying is that you don't know why or how it works and you don't care. You get your perception and make the shot. Great! I've always said that CTE seems to be of benefit to some people and if you want to try it, then great! However, you also seem to believe that if you don't find it important or interesting then it is a red herring. I disagree. In my world, people are expected to have proof for their advertising claims.
If you can look at all the evidence that shows CTE Pro1 is not an objective system and still say it is, and everything we have been discussing is a school of red herrings, then I guess there isn't much more to debate. I believe you are making the system work at a subconscious level, and you believe it works objectively, without you introducing any corrective measured to pocket the ball. I think science is on my side, but that is my opinion.
Stan could have avoided lots and lots of arguments that have caused forum bans on good people (ENGLISH! comes to mind, for one) if he could have moderated his advertising a little. For instance, instead of claiming loudly that nothing like this has ever existed because it is 100% objective and the perceptions change depending on where the balls are on the table, he could instead make a claim something to this effect:
My CTE Pro1 system is an improvement over Hal's foundational work on CTE aiming. To this day, it is unclear as to exactly why CTE Pro1 is so effective, but I believe my "two line" perception system with a pivot is the key. I believe that by focusing your active attention on aiming through two lines simultaneously, this frees the subconscious mind to align the shooter on the true shot line either at ball address or during pivot placement. After shooting enough balls with this system, your subconscious will make the small adjustments needed to pocket the balls without you even realizing it. Just concentrate on picking out the two lines and the pivot. Follow the steps in my DVD and I guarantee you'll be pocketing balls like never before in just weeks.
So I think that still makes a compelling sales pitch without violating the laws of physics. Had I read this years ago, I would have just clicked on the next topic. No big deal. Can't argue with that. Stan clearly makes a first rate presentation, has passion for the game out the wazu, and has a first class set up at his home for instruction. He has everything needed for success, but I believe his over the top proclamations have caused a lot of hard feelings, and whatever success he has had to date is in spite of that. It's just unnecessary.
Neil, cookie, flame away! :grin-square:
Easy there, down boy. The original bet was $40,000, which is the amount of money Stan committed to the book. I suggested he save his $40G for our bet and if he put his money where his mouth is he would basically be able to publish his book for free. That was the offer. I have said ever since that I have an open $40G offer to Stan. I'm sorry if I didn't disclose all the fine print for you each and every time I made the offer. Please try to keep up.
For that matter, really, it doesn't matter if Stan or you matches the $40G or not. It is a waste of time because the phenomenon does not exist. Furthermore, it makes no sense for me to put my $$ on the line when the people making the claims in the first place won't do it. Think about that. If I told everyone that 2 plus 2 equals 4 and you are saying it equals 5, then I'll be taking you up on a bet for any amount of money. I'd get my cash out so fast the wind would knock you over.
I still like your sense of humor, what can I say? :lovies:
Maybe you're a piker?