The net effect of the Shuffett approach is just that. I get it. You can only sell ghost ball once - at least you could once upon a time - maybe.
Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
Yeah, we have a working knowledge of the system and apply it practically when we play. If I had enough incentive then it might be worth it to duplicate Stan's set up. But I would rather spend the time on other stuff since the proof of concept was enough for me to explore the method.
If you want to make it worth my while then we can do a live stream with a split screen and go shot for shot to covered pockets and see which of us pockets more balls with less attempts.
The difference between us Dan is that if I fail to reproduce Stan's video shot for shot I will look at my technique and ask myself why I can't. I would ask my friends to evaluate what they see and let me know if they detect anything that is not correct. I will work to make sure I am applying the method properly. I will do this because the physical act was demonstrated and I don't believe that it was a trick of any kind. You on the other hand expend effort to try and discredit something that you appear to be so far unwilling to learn.
There are many out there who have learned CTE to some degree and whom have shared their experiences with everyone. They haven't duplicated Stan's demos verbatim either but they are enjoying the pocketing success they are having without knockers in their face.
This has been my bottom line from the very first day that I ever spoke about my experience with Hal Houle. I IMMEDIATELY got knocked for the enthusiasm and PEPPERED with harassing questions about HOW it works. My daughters don't know HOW the software they use works and they would get SUPER discouraged if they were excited to share a new tool and were immediately set upon by rabid knockers who claimed that the tool didn't work as described by the tool maker. Unfortunately for the knockers though not everyone gets discouraged by random nobodies trying to knock the fun. Good stuff has a way of surviving bitterness.
How else would a visual method be demonstrated when a human says they get it? Even GB is not provable that the human demonstrating shot making is actually using it as described/prescribed. GB is SO EASY that the simple diagrams and simple demonstrations ARE NOT ENOUGH and thus there are dozens of devices and trainers and templates to "aid" and "train" the user to "see" it. Ghost Ball is "sold" in dozens of ways in those devices, books and videos. But as you alluded to some people "get it" right away when shown GB without the need of further aids and trainers.
If you find a guy who says he created a method to throw a baseball more accurately and he tells another guy and that guy's accuracy improves measurably then what conclusion should be drawn from that? What about when you have ten people whose accuracy improves? 100? Is there an acceptable number that crosses a "proof" barrier?
Unlike religion and myth pool has a pretty simple way to determine validity. Go to the table and start shooting and keep track of success percentages. Address variables and note the results.
Last edited:
That's a common fractional overlap: 1/4 ball (~49°) cut to the right.
And we know that right edge of the cueball to the B position on the object ball is another common fractional overlap: 1/2 ball (30°) cut to the right.
The question is how does CTE specify the adjustments needed for shots between the common fractions? What's CTE's objective description of a 45° cut? A 40° cut?
Yeah, we know: "offset and pivot". Pivot how much for 45° vs 40°?
pj
chgo
@ JB you missed the point.
nuther thing wrong with perceptual aiming. Nevermind though, Stan Shuffett says CTE isn't an aiming system but on one of those links Speeder posted, it's titled as an aiming system.
nuther thing wrong with perceptual aiming. Nevermind though, Stan Shuffett says CTE isn't an aiming system but on one of those links Speeder posted, it's titled as an aiming system.
You've just illustrated how LITTLE you know about Pro1. "Offset and pivot". Is that what happens? Clueless Pat Johnson does it again. This is hilarious.
How about one of the team leaders or minions on your side answer it like Lou, Dan, Joey, straightline, JC, and whatever other couple of phony screen name pool greats under a total of 10 who comprise your entire Antifa army.
The difference between us is that I recognize the old adage, "Money talks, bullshit walks." After 20 years of using CTE you still can't reproduce Stan's bank shot videos. Can any of the other CTE experts that post here do it? mohrt, Spider, cookie, Low (lol, just kidding on that one)? That means that CTE does NOT take the ball to different pockets without a significant arsenal of experience telling you how to adjust the shot with spin and speed. I repeat: Give me 60 years of banking practice like Stan has and I'll bet you I can make any shot blindfolded. Why do you not recognize that Stan's banking experience may be more of an influence on his banking skills than he cares to admit to himself?
John, I don't know about you, but I was never any good seeing an imaginary ball way down there. Oh for little simple shots 3-4 feet it's quite easy to do. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many bangers out there...they'd take up something else as a pastime.
I have just never been able to "visualize" an imaginary ball sitting down there almost 10 feet away, lined up in perfect position to pocket a shot. I don't know how some of those guys do that...….and I don't believe the big time Pros are doing it either. (no matter what they claim). ESPECIALLY those high-powered Asians, collectively speaking, they're too smart to embrace lameness.
However, with CTE, it is easier for me to "visualize" imaginary aiming and shot lines leading to an object ball to pocket a shot.
Even back when I was utilizing the failed policies of the "fractional aiming" methods....I could visualize those lines pretty good. But "pretty good" wasn't enough. I wanted a higher percentage, so I embraced CTE
Why these people gripe and whine about what someone uses to improve their game is astounding.
"The Great White" advocates the Poolology Method.....FINE, then use that method and be happy, that's okay with me. Just lay off MY choice and what I do with it.
"The Fig" advocates the "just see the shot method"....FINE, then use that method and be happy, that's okay with me. Just lay off MY choice and what I do with it.
I don't know WHAT "The Joey" advocates ?..but whatever it is.... FINE, then use that method and be happy, that's okay with me. Just lay off MY choice and what I do with it.
"The Johnson" appears to be lost in the high weeds about ALL of it...who knows what happened to him in all those years.
But as I posted elsewhere, they have 23 years of history to surround their lives...they MUST throw out derision, twisted ridicule, and (the biggest lie of all...…."civil discussion").
By the way, I like your FB website. I hope you have it set up where jackals are not permitted to enter it and pollute the place with anger and ignorance.
Regards,
Lowenstein
Last edited:
Hear ye....Hear ye...Hear ye!
I gotta' admit, "The Great White" got something right for a change when he says "Money Talks and Bullshit Walks".
That's one reason he's banned from the CTE Pro One site.
Has he tried?? Of course he has...….(The Shadow knows)
And you, JB, etc. apparently know even less.
I ask for a CTE "perception" and get a common fractional alignment. Despite years of (angry) protests that "CTE isn't fractions", you guys are still unable to describe the difference for even one shot.
pj <- yawn
chgo
Is it? What do you think that I said? I didn't instruct you or anyone else to put the cue down on that line and shoot it.
If we were speaking about fractional aiming, full, half, quarter ball overlaps where those lines were used to determine the hit and then the user would consciously/subconsciously adjust thicker and thinner IF it were determined that the fraction chosen wouldn't work then your question would be pertinent.
CTE does not specify adjustments between fractional overlaps because fractional overlaps are not what is used in the CTE method. CTE users don't identify a cut angle and work from there. CTE users identify two visual perception lines from an offset position and using the pivot from the correct edge of the cueball they land on the shot line with no regard to whatever the actual cut angle is. The pivot is a half ball and can be done mechanically through a literal landing of the cuetip addressing the correct edge of the cueball followed by a body movement that brings the cue tip to center ball and the actual correct shot line. Or it can be done visually where the eyes start at the correct side of the cueball and the tip stops at a half tip away from center and then is mechanically pivoted to center ball to be on the accurate shot line. Or it can be done completely visually where the eyes do the work and the shooter swings in from the offset position and the cue lands on the correct shot line. Any of these three methods for going from standing position to shooting position can be used to get to the shot line. All three use the same set of perception lines to to get the shooter into the right alignment before going into the shot. The decision to use a particular combination of perception lines comes through practice to recognize which ones work for which types of shots.
So basically you are talking about a whole different and not actually common (for most players) way to aim. A far less accurate way that does use a ball overlap perception of what the HIT would be at that perception and requires adjustment/estimation for shots that don't fall on one of the fractional HIT shot lines. This method however does work as a useful guide to develop visual acuity which then helps to make those estimation judgements of thicker/thinner for the in-between hits/cut angles that you describe. CTE is just different and better at guiding the shooter to the shot line consistently in my experience.
CTE does not have a description of a 45 degree cut shot. Nor does it have a description of a 33 degree cut. CTE has descriptions of 15, 30, 45 and 60 degree perceptions that begin with a clear perception of the objective center to edge line as an initial orientation. The mechanism by which CTE leads the shooter to the correct shot line is through the application of the method as instructed with no regard for the actual cut angle. WHY this works, mathematically, geometrically, physically, or even psychologically is unknown to me.
I am a user not a programmer. I follow the directions and measure the results. If the results are acceptable to me then I share the method and get feedback from those I share it with. If others figure out better ways to use the method then I will try to learn those ways and apply them and measure the results. If those results are good then I will share those better ways. All innovation is a refinement of what has come before.
For all I know Hal Houle started with pure fractional aiming and discovered that changing the approach visually worked better. A statement that goes "the eyes lead and the body follows" can be confusing and sound hokey but really Pat isn't that what all aiming in pool is? And if so then why is hard to accept that someone somewhere might figure out something that is counterintuitive but which actually works better than conventional methods that have been discovered/created previously?
The bottom line for me isn't that you disagree with certain terminology, "objective" "accurate" and I guess possibly "no imagination shot line". It's that instead of using your clear interest and intelligence to figure out whatever is missing without simply ascribing it to the catch-all of "subconscious adjustment". Taking the time to understand that CTE isn't fractional-overlap aiming despite the usage of 15/30/45 degree terminology and then measuring everything using your analytical skills would only serve to help to answer your question of HOW does a 15 degree perception+a pivot allow the shooter to get onto a shot that is 17.5 degrees of cut AND also a shot that is 18.8 degrees and a shot that is 12.4 degrees of cut. When there are clear instructions and those instructions result in the shooter finding a clear difference in the ability to get on the true shot line accurately as contrasted with prior methods used then there must be an answer as to why and that answer does not have to be subconscious adjustment.
BUT
For the sake of argument let's say that the answer is subconscious adjustment. Let's say in a hypothetical that there is that last moment between standing and shooting position where the subconscious chooses where the body is going to place the cue stick. Everything until that moment has been conscious choice with vocal descriptions of each step as accurately as humanly possible. If that were the case and the results were getting on the shot line accurately at a far higher level of consistency than prior to the adoption of the method being used would that not indicate a much higher level of objective measuring in some way?
I think it's fair to say that the person who uses known quantities to measure with can get more consistent results. A baker who wings it on the ingredient amounts is more likely to have less consistency than one who precisely measures. So, as I have said many times before, if a method of aiming is 99.9% objective in the application and .1% is subjective subconscious choice then why is there a problem with saying that it's objective? A real percentage couldn't be applied anyway.
As Joey earlier when trying to make an equivalency, all aiming using balls is objective because balls are objects. And this is true in the sense that without objective references you would have no idea where you are in space. Objects inform us where we can go and what we can do. Not all aiming is the same level of objectivity though. As Mike Page says a lot more data is better. A player who knows exactly how far up the rail and at what angle he can consistently pocket the ball has an advantage over one who doesn't. He has the knowledge that gives him a larger range of options. Both players are using the same equipment but one of them has discovered an objective reference that he can consciously use. He doesn't need to estimate or guess or hope. He has a wider range of shots to take confidently and greater latitude in playing position consistently merely by knowing that fact about the table.
The instructions that work for CTE are all there Pat. You know this. Trying to discredit so ruthlessly over what is really a quibble in speech and the resulting animosities has been actually tragic to see.
It's not a fractional overlap. This is exactly why you fail to understand what's happening -- you keep making the same error over and over again regarding fractional overlaps (sighting down the center of the CB to OB target line) and sighing down the edge of the CB, where the OB's distance from the CB center sight line will become greater and greater as the CB/OB distance increases. If the balls are touching, the CB edge to OB center line results in a 1/2 ball sight line on the OB if you shift your eyes to CB center. If you were to move the OB, say, 7 feet away.... the CB edge to OB center line will result in missing the OB by a MILE if you parallel to CB center from that sight line.
This is exactly why there has been confusion and arguments for many years. You "think" you're saying the right things and you're not. As the OB distance increases, the visual size of the OB decreases, which increases the distance from the OB center to the CB center to "straight out" line (if you parallel your vision from the CB edge to OB center line to the center of the CB).
When sighting with either CB edge to any target.... it is NOT fractional aiming. It is impossible to hit fractional targets on the OB when sighting down the CB edge line and shooting with a straight cue.
Your turn, Captain Geometry.
Sure I do. As much business as you have telling people what not to. With all of your endless hours on the table you could BARELY beat a goof off like me. I am positive that in my life on the table I have had more TRUE FUN in any of my matches, including the ones I have lost, than you have had in your entire life. You could never ever beat me if I was only a fraction more serious about pool. You literally had to be dragged to the table to play me. I challenged you from day one 20 years ago when you decided that calling me a religious zealout was a good idea. You DUCKED me until 12 years later when a small group of people had to prod you into playing. I beat you playing one pocket the first time we played. Then when you FINALLY were pushed into playing for money by those who hate me and couldn't bully me you won 9-7. Really it says far more about how bad of a player you are that some clown could show up with a goofy stroke and jumping around like a kangaroo on energy drinks could even win a single game much less 7 against someone who touts himself as such a good player.
And the best part is that I will continue to tell people about shooting pool and having fun in this sport that I love. Your name will die and mine will continue long after no one remembers you. I have had victories and defeats that you have always been afraid to dream about. Every single moment of my pool life has been better than yours including the last victory you had over me. Why? Because I was a better person than you before we started and still a better person when it ended. In other words I have heart and you have none.
John, at least you don't have to ask your wife for permission to make a frickin bet. If you would have played him in an ahead set, the result could have been different. You had the momentum at the end and he only beat you by like 2 games when you basically gave him 2 or 3 games at the beginning.
Do you?
Here is what I recognize. Again (sigh). Stan, as an EXPERIENCED bank pool player is in a better position to tell me and you when he has found a method that IMPROVES his banking ability. And when demonstrates this improved ability by doing it with a curtain blocking the rails I have no reason to doubt him. And when I then learn and adopt the method and I find that my banking ability has greatly improved I can conclude that he has given me something of value to me and I have no need to further investigate the correlation between his pre-cte banking experience and his post-cte banking experience.
If you want to find the best banker in America who doesn't use CTE or some other objective aiming method and have them go to Stan's and duplicate Stan's performance then I am willing to bet that they can't do it. You said money talks and bullshit walks. I have $20,000 that says your bullshit walks.
Exactly. I was way too amped in the beginning. Was intense for me but I know who the better person is and I still think I am the better player. When I offered to double the bet and play again all I got was insults and denial. When my friend with his satchel of cash offered, unbeknownst to me, to play another set right then they declined.
What did I do after the loss? Went to dinner then drove to NYC to play in a tournament and got to play Earl Strickland. More heart, more fun!
lol. What is the CTE Pro One site? Is it Stan's website or his facebook page? If it is a private facebook page then everybody who is not invited is banned.Hear ye....Hear ye...Hear ye!
I gotta' admit, "The Great White" got something right for a change when he says "Money Talks and Bullshit Walks".
That's one reason he's banned from the CTE Pro One site.
Has he tried?? Of course he has...….(The Shadow knows)
Money talks, bullshit walks. Low500 Joe said he was shooting lights out and taking all the cash two weeks after learning CTE. He also said he ran 100 in straight pool because of it, too. If CTE takes the ball to different pockets then surely after a couple of years Low500 Joe could come within a ball's diameter of making all those banks, no?
Stan's banking videos don't state that he is a banking expert before CTE. He just says CTE takes the ball to different pockets in banking. You keep mentioning Usain Bolt and ignore the obvious comparison. It's like Bolt setting a 100 yd dash record and he tells you it's because of his new shoes (CTE). He conveniently leaves out that he is the previous record holder and has trained his whole life.
Look, I understand what you are saying about Stan's banking videos. I'm simply saying full disclosure is called for so a viewer can make up his own mind as to the effectiveness of CTE for banking.
Banking is covered very thoroughly and in depth in the Book. Buy it!
The Truth Series has a couple:
CTE PRO ONE Truth Series Video 18: "A Touch of Banking" - YouTube
CTE PRO ONE Truth Series Video 25: Disguised Pivoting Banking Demo - YouTube
The Truth Series has a couple:
CTE PRO ONE Truth Series Video 18: "A Touch of Banking" - YouTube
CTE PRO ONE Truth Series Video 25: Disguised Pivoting Banking Demo - YouTube
lol.
You welched on every single side bet you said you’d take at the venue. You almost got into a fight with Eric. And as witnessed and testified to here by numerous eye witnesses you cheated in our match by getting coached.
oh, and there was that little incident not so long ago when you got your nose open, played like a spastic monkey on coke, and went off for $10’s of thousands. AND THEN put the lamest sad sack video up on line about the whole thing that was so pathetic that *even I* told you you should take it down.
Lou Figueroa