The only video you need about aiming.

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I sincerely hope that you find a means of improvement via the new procedures. Maybe they will slow you down & yield something better.

If you had any reading comprehension of note, then you would understand that I did not say you missing 11 of 14 shots was "proof" of anything.

That said, you are NOT a good representative. You ARE a Pool Player & have been at CTE for MANY YEARS & you have been to Mr. Shuffett's Facility for Private attention. Yet... when trying to show how good SS's CTE is supposed to be you miss 11 of 14 shots & could not make a rather simple cross side bank shot.

Is anyone supposed to be puling out $100 dollar bills to buy The Book? Based on that video, why would they.

It proves nothing other than you are not a good representative of SS's CTE.
Stan doesn't need me to sell books. I am a customer who happens to have 900 thousand views on cte discussion videos.

My videos discuss cte for people already interested in cte. They are not pitches for any book or dvd. They are my opinions and my thoughts on why I like cte.

Don't pretend that you didn't create a stat from one tiny slice of dozens of videos to try and knock cte.

We all see what's up with your comments. Just another knocker cherry picking for your agenda.

Just for you though I will start pitching stan's book. And I will specifically mention your username and your criticisms so that the viewers know exactly what you said and can decide for themselves which of us is more credible.
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
THAT is part of why the 'war' has been going on for so long. You just told The_JV to STFU. He has not even come to any conclusion regarding SS's CTE. He has questions as well he should because things simply do not make sense to those who have any sense of rational reason, common sense, or the sciences. Is he now a "hater"?
Yep that's what I said for anyone who wants to knock. I am on several forums where people are learning various techniques and none of them have people acting like they want to learn while making backhanded knocks.

It's ridiculous here. I am reminded why so many people hate being here.

Let me make enough to give Mike an obscene amount for this forum and watch how it gets turned around when I ban the knockers.

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be interested in learning cte or discussing it. When their statements show otherwise that's when I get testy. JV and yourself have decided that you can "get me" with this cherry picking tactic and you think that you can discredit cte in the process.

JV chose to knock Stan and denigrate his curtain demos as a party trick. None of you give any respect to Stan.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
THAT is part of why the 'war' has been going on for so long. You just told The_JV to STFU. He has not even come to any conclusion regarding SS's CTE. He has questions as well he should because things simply do not make sense to those who have any sense of rational reason, common sense, or the sciences. Is he now a "hater"?
And stop with the BS about science and reason. You have already proven to the group that you are not using science or reasoning.

All you have done this far is parrot the comments of those knockers that came before you.

It stands to reason that if a diverse group that is geographically spread out is getting clearly better results after learning cte then there is likely to be a lot of value in the method. If that method is not consistent with conventional previous instruction based on 2d diagrams that doesn't mean the method is not valid and useful.

What do you think came first, humans figuring out how to make fire or humans accurately describing the chemical reactions that cause combustion?
 
Stan doesn't need me to sell books. I am a customer who happens to have 900 thousand views on house cte discussion videos.

My videos discuss cte for people already interested in cte. They are not pitches for any book or dvd. They are my opinions and my thoughts on why I like cte.

Don't pretend that you didn't create a stat from one tiny slice of dozens of videos to try and knock cte.

We all see what's up with your comments. Just another knocker cherry picking for your agenda.

Just for you though I will start pitching stan's book. And I will specifically mention your username and your criticisms so that the viewers know exactly what you said and can decide for themselves which of us is more credible.
Who said that Stan needs you to sell books? Not me.
I did not go through any videos. I just stumbled onto that one here. Or was it on YouTube? I don't recall. AND... I did NOT post it nor a link to it.
There is no cherry picking SCIENCE.
Did you just threaten me?
It has nothing to do with credibility. You are just NOT a good representative for SS's CTE.
However, what has the most credibility is SCIENCE. You do not stand up well to SCIENCE at all. How can you?
You mention an agenda. Your agenda is to push what you think is something that it is not & you have your reasons.
I have no agenda. False assertions have been made and people should hear the other side of such. Then they can make an informed decision. That's it.

If You say that SS's CTE is a subjective method that is as good as any other & perhaps better & have no argument other than to say that it is too complex & contrived for me. I would rather something more simple & direct like Poolology or a method using the shadow or equal & opposite overlap via experience.

You guys just do not like it when anyone tells the truth or even asks some questions like The_JV did before you told him to STFU. THAT is NOT a good representative for SS's CTE.
 
Yep that's what I said for anyone who wants to knock. I am on several forums where people are learning various techniques and none of them have people acting like they want to learn while making backhanded knocks.

It's ridiculous here. I am reminded why so many people hate being here.

Let me make enough to give Mike an obscene amount for this forum and watch how it gets turned around when I ban the knockers.

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt when they claim to be interested in learning cte or discussing it. When their statements show otherwise that's when I get testy. JV and yourself have decided that you can "get me" with this cherry picking tactic and you think that you can discredit cte in the process.

JV chose to knock Stan and denigrate his curtain demos as a party trick. None of you give any respect to Stan.
Knock what?
Why do you guys always think that everyone who comes onto the Aiming Forum is interested in "learning" CTE? It is a "discussion" forum. The subject of whether or not SS's CTE is what it is said to be or not is a topic for discussion and especially given the claims.
AZB is packed.
Censorship has NEVER been used for Good.
How can we "get" you? Are you paranoid?
I have said that you missing 11 of 14 shots is "proof" of nothing.
Many have duplicated the curtain shots. Perhaps not as efficiently as Stan, but Stan is Professional.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Knock what?
Why do you guys always think that everyone who comes onto the Aiming Forum is interested in "learning" CTE? It is a "discussion" forum. The subject of whether or not SS's CTE is what it is said to be or not is a topic for discussion and especially given the claims.
AZB is packed.
Censorship has NEVER been used for Good.
How can we "get" you? Are you paranoid?
I have said that you missing 11 of 14 shots is "proof" of nothing.
Many have duplicated the curtain shots. Perhaps not as efficiently as Stan, but Stan is Professional.
What many? Please provide the videos. If what I have done is proof of nothing then why mention it?

You can't get me but you can try by continuing to parrot the attempts of others.

I have never assumed that anyone is interested in learning cte regardless of forum. But one thing is very prevalent, knockers can't stay out of cte discussions. Almost like an obsession of some kind.

Stan is a professional what? Not a pool player. He is a good shortstop level.

Not as efficiently? Come on you can dodge better than that.

No one would be censored for their words. Censorship has in fact at times been used for good and blanket generic statements are rarely accurate.

People would be shown the door for being a drag. So if anyone wants to stay they can be cool and contribute positively to the content.

Isn't this fun? Feeling good?
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Who said that Stan needs you to sell books? Not me.
I did not go through any videos. I just stumbled onto that one here. Or was it on YouTube? I don't recall. AND... I did NOT post it nor a link to it.
There is no cherry picking SCIENCE.
Did you just threaten me?
It has nothing to do with credibility. You are just NOT a good representative for SS's CTE.
However, what has the most credibility is SCIENCE. You do not stand up well to SCIENCE at all. How can you?
You mention an agenda. Your agenda is to push what you think is something that it is not & you have your reasons.
I have no agenda. False assertions have been made and people should hear the other side of such. Then they can make an informed decision. That's it.

If You say that SS's CTE is a subjective method that is as good as any other & perhaps better & have no argument other than to say that it is too complex & contrived for me. I would rather something more simple & direct like Poolology or a method using the shadow or equal & opposite overlap via experience.

You guys just do not like it when anyone tells the truth or even asks some questions like The_JV did before you told him to STFU. THAT is NOT a good representative for SS's CTE.
LoL threaten whom and how? Some random screen name on a pool forum with repeating what he/she/they said? Your threshold for hysterically interpreting the English language is very low.

If you prefer some other method of aiming then great there are many choices. I prefer cte and have found it to be the best fit for me. That doesn't mean I run around knocking the methods that I don't use.

Gosh thank you for telling us about the need to hear both sides.... Before you arrived no one had ever spoken up before from the other side. For decades people were just endlessly bombarded with only side's claims. Knockers unite your savior is here.

Again you say false assertions but have not stated any that you claim are false.

Still going with science thing? Do you think something will happen if you repeat the word science often enough?

Oh I get it, the usage of the word objective has offended you into offering us your self-proclaimed scientific-ish "wisdom". If only I would say that cte is subjective then I would be spared your wrath.

Well CTE is an objective aiming method that delivers the proficient user to the shot line consistently.

Some user's results are near 100% in their demonstration videos. Others have stretches where their pocketing percentages on difficult shots go down to as low as 24% reportedly by those who have taken it upon themselves to keep track.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Again you didn't bother to LISTEN to the commentary. When I missed I missed small, within a half ball or less and noted that. When I aimed wrong and missed I noted that and made the correction.
I did listen to the commentary the couple of times I watched the shooting display in that video. I also listened to all the other comments throughout the whole video as well. I'm not sure how making a comment that acknowledges a poorly shot ball somehow negates the fact that was indeed a miss. If you indeed did make a correction after a miss that worked then I would have expected at worst a 50% success rate. You managed a mere ~22%. Until someone dreams up a game that does not require you to pot balls then missing small is no better than missing large.

Once again I will add that the shots you were taking on were on the moderately difficult side, so I would expect a lower success rate by a player say ~600 fargo. I did just search your name in the fargo database and there are a few by the same name. However all those various players land at a low 600, so my thoughts stand to reason.

I know you'll ignore the fact that I made the effort to watch that specific >1hr video in it's entirety. You'll also ignore that I added once again that the shots in question were not easy, and instead take my suggestion that a 600 fargo would struggle with consistency on that type of shot as an attack on you.
Honestly WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU??????????
I've been pondering the same about you John. I have never encountered someone online so desperate to engage with others in such a negative manner. I understand you think I'm attacking you and/or trashing on CTE, but I'm really not. Although I have said this many times and there is zero evidence to support your claims, you still take every opportunity to berate me.
You know Hal Houle was actually right. He told me not to get into it with people online about his systems because there are those who would spoil the journey with their criticisms. I have NEVER had a bad experience discussing CTE in person on the table.
I think you may just be the architect of your own misery here John. I personally have been making a very honest effort to learn the foundations of CTE. Yet all I'm met with by you and Low500 is flamboyant negativity.
I have had people come to me at shows and ask me for help with CTE and I have taken the time to find a table and help them and they have thanked me.
Think of how many more you could potentially help if you were merely polite and not jumping to the worst possible conlcusions while typing on your keyboard here at AZB.
This is all REALLY EASY. If you don't like CTE then just STFU about it. That's it. Let the people who want to talk about it do so in peace and keep the crap to yourself.
I'm trying to merely talk about it John. I'm curious about CTE. I don't dislike or like it, just curious. Within the bounds of our mutual conversations all the crap has been coming from you. If you're not willing for whatever reason to have a civil conversation with me, then take your own advice please.
Anyway here is me making 44 balls in order using CTE.

I've never seen that drill before. The colour is a bit off so forgive me. You appear to be creating a random layout by slamming 6 balls together and then cherry picking the removal of enough balls to leave only 4 on...? I say 'cherry picking' because I can't determine the value of the ball and not sure if there's any specific criteria for it's removal.

You successfully moved the CB around a couple of times. Most impressive thing was managing to avoid clusters at the beginning of each round. Unless the cherry picking portion is meant to remedy those situations if they occur...?

You did mention once in one of your videos that you have a decent high run in 14.1. By chance have you posted any videos of 14.1 efforts.? No need to post them here I'll go hunting for them if you did.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
You will NEVER EVER duplicate Stan's curtain videos. Never. But if you want to try and you do duplicate them I will PAY YOU $1000. Go ahead and duplicate each one of them with the same set up and the same shots and make sure we can see that you have not doctored anything. I will create a committee of folks not involved in this debate to judge whether you achieved making all the shots without cutting the video and without any trickery. This is not a bet, just a challenge. I saw him do it live and in person on demand. I understand the value in what the CTE system holds. It trips me out that people think that this is some kind of gimmick when CLEARLY the addition of a blocking curtain makes every one of the shots tougher.

Here you go, get that money.

Apologies for quoting this a second time, but I would like some clarification. I watched the playlist and wanted to know if you had any idea where exactly I need to place the donuts Stan used in the second video "5-way shot". I can make my best approximation but since you're the one setting the rules and reviewing for validity, I want to make sure I do exactly what is expected.

Thanks
 
I did listen to the commentary the couple of times I watched the shooting display in that video. I also listened to all the other comments throughout the whole video as well. I'm not sure how making a comment that acknowledges a poorly shot ball somehow negates the fact that was indeed a miss. If you indeed did make a correction after a miss that worked then I would have expected at worst a 50% success rate. You managed a mere ~22%. Until someone dreams up a game that does not require you to pot balls then missing small is no better than missing large.

Once again I will add that the shots you were taking on were on the moderately difficult side, so I would expect a lower success rate by a player say ~600 fargo. I did just search your name in the fargo database and there are a few by the same name. However all those various players land at a low 600, so my thoughts stand to reason.

I know you'll ignore the fact that I made the effort to watch that specific >1hr video in it's entirety. You'll also ignore that I added once again that the shots in question were not easy, and instead take my suggestion that a 600 fargo would struggle with consistency on that type of shot as an attack on you.

I've been pondering the same about you John. I have never encountered someone online so desperate to engage with others in such a negative manner. I understand you think I'm attacking you and/or trashing on CTE, but I'm really not. Although I have said this many times and there is zero evidence to support your claims, you still take every opportunity to berate me.

I think you may just be the architect of your own misery here John. I personally have been making a very honest effort to learn the foundations of CTE. Yet all I'm met with by you and Low500 is flamboyant negativity.

Think of how many more you could potentially help if you were merely polite and not jumping to the worst possible conlcusions while typing on your keyboard here at AZB.

I'm trying to merely talk about it John. I'm curious about CTE. I don't dislike or like it, just curious. Within the bounds of our mutual conversations all the crap has been coming from you. If you're not willing for whatever reason to have a civil conversation with me, then take your own advice please.

I've never seen that drill before. The colour is a bit off so forgive me. You appear to be creating a random layout by slamming 6 balls together and then cherry picking the removal of enough balls to leave only 4 on...? I say 'cherry picking' because I can't determine the value of the ball and not sure if there's any specific criteria for it's removal.

You successfully moved the CB around a couple of times. Most impressive thing was managing to avoid clusters at the beginning of each round. Unless the cherry picking portion is meant to remedy those situations if they occur...?

You did mention once in one of your videos that you have a decent high run in 14.1. By chance have you posted any videos of 14.1 efforts.? No need to post them here I'll go hunting for them if you did.
I did listen to the commentary the couple of times I watched the shooting display in that video. I also listened to all the other comments throughout the whole video as well. I'm not sure how making a comment that acknowledges a poorly shot ball somehow negates the fact that was indeed a miss. If you indeed did make a correction after a miss that worked then I would have expected at worst a 50% success rate. You managed a mere ~22%. Until someone dreams up a game that does not require you to pot balls then missing small is no better than missing large.

Once again I will add that the shots you were taking on were on the moderately difficult side, so I would expect a lower success rate by a player say ~600 fargo. I did just search your name in the fargo database and there are a few by the same name. However all those various players land at a low 600, so my thoughts stand to reason.

I know you'll ignore the fact that I made the effort to watch that specific >1hr video in it's entirety. You'll also ignore that I added once again that the shots in question were not easy, and instead take my suggestion that a 600 fargo would struggle with consistency on that type of shot as an attack on you.

I've been pondering the same about you John. I have never encountered someone online so desperate to engage with others in such a negative manner. I understand you think I'm attacking you and/or trashing on CTE, but I'm really not. Although I have said this many times and there is zero evidence to support your claims, you still take every opportunity to berate me.

I think you may just be the architect of your own misery here John. I personally have been making a very honest effort to learn the foundations of CTE. Yet all I'm met with by you and Low500 is flamboyant negativity.

Think of how many more you could potentially help if you were merely polite and not jumping to the worst possible conlcusions while typing on your keyboard here at AZB.

I'm trying to merely talk about it John. I'm curious about CTE. I don't dislike or like it, just curious. Within the bounds of our mutual conversations all the crap has been coming from you. If you're not willing for whatever reason to have a civil conversation with me, then take your own advice please.

I've never seen that drill before. The colour is a bit off so forgive me. You appear to be creating a random layout by slamming 6 balls together and then cherry picking the removal of enough balls to leave only 4 on...? I say 'cherry picking' because I can't determine the value of the ball and not sure if there's any specific criteria for it's removal.

You successfully moved the CB around a couple of times. Most impressive thing was managing to avoid clusters at the beginning of each round. Unless the cherry picking portion is meant to remedy those situations if they occur...?

You did mention once in one of your videos that you have a decent high run in 14.1. By chance have you posted any videos of 14.1 efforts.? No need to post them here I'll go hunting for them if you did.
Welcome to the irrational world of the vocal CTEers.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
I did listen to the commentary the couple of times I watched the shooting display in that video. I also listened to all the other comments throughout the whole video as well. I'm not sure how making a comment that acknowledges a poorly shot ball somehow negates the fact that was indeed a miss. If you indeed did make a correction after a miss that worked then I would have expected at worst a 50% success rate. You managed a mere ~22%. Until someone dreams up a game that does not require you to pot balls then missing small is no better than missing large.

Once again I will add that the shots you were taking on were on the moderately difficult side, so I would expect a lower success rate by a player say ~600 fargo. I did just search your name in the fargo database and there are a few by the same name. However all those various players land at a low 600, so my thoughts stand to reason.

I know you'll ignore the fact that I made the effort to watch that specific >1hr video in it's entirety. You'll also ignore that I added once again that the shots in question were not easy, and instead take my suggestion that a 600 fargo would struggle with consistency on that type of shot as an attack on you.

I've been pondering the same about you John. I have never encountered someone online so desperate to engage with others in such a negative manner. I understand you think I'm attacking you and/or trashing on CTE, but I'm really not. Although I have said this many times and there is zero evidence to support your claims, you still take every opportunity to berate me.

I think you may just be the architect of your own misery here John. I personally have been making a very honest effort to learn the foundations of CTE. Yet all I'm met with by you and Low500 is flamboyant negativity.

Think of how many more you could potentially help if you were merely polite and not jumping to the worst possible conlcusions while typing on your keyboard here at AZB.

I'm trying to merely talk about it John. I'm curious about CTE. I don't dislike or like it, just curious. Within the bounds of our mutual conversations all the crap has been coming from you. If you're not willing for whatever reason to have a civil conversation with me, then take your own advice please.

I've never seen that drill before. The colour is a bit off so forgive me. You appear to be creating a random layout by slamming 6 balls together and then cherry picking the removal of enough balls to leave only 4 on...? I say 'cherry picking' because I can't determine the value of the ball and not sure if there's any specific criteria for it's removal.

You successfully moved the CB around a couple of times. Most impressive thing was managing to avoid clusters at the beginning of each round. Unless the cherry picking portion is meant to remedy those situations if they occur...?

You did mention once in one of your videos that you have a decent high run in 14.1. By chance have you posted any videos of 14.1 efforts.? No need to post them here I'll go hunting for them if you did.
This was a "challenge" put out by another (at that time) CTE knocker who laid out the rules and said he would bet that I couldn't beat his ghost game.

I once ran 98 in the 90s. Otherwise I took 4th in a 14.1 event in Germany and finished 3-4th in an air force tournament in Germany as well around the same time. Mostly my average was around 40-50.

But let's be brutally honest please. If I were a great player and saying the exact same things I say about cte it wouldn't matter to you.

Why? Because no one else matters or you would already see it like I see it.

I did a Facebook live and mohrt called out the perceptions while I shot the shots and we did a segment where I shot into multiple pockets from the same position using only cte perceptions.

I went to Stan's house with a neutral observer and challenged him using the statements made by the critics here. I am not simply a cult member indoctrinated and repeating party lines.

But that aside the fact that you chose to cherry pick one segment and use words like poorly struck for shots that miss by a tiny amount is indicative that you are attempting to discredit CTE through me.

With 100% certainty I know without having had to see it that you have barely missed shots where you aimed right and delivered a good stroke and yet something was not 100% which resulted in a jarred ball or catching the pocket point. You know this to be true and yet you won't acknowledge it as long as you think you can score some kind of point by being extremely selective in what parts of my shotmaking you decide to keep stats on.

You already stated that you don't like the cte process so why are you bothering to discuss it? You keep trying to draw me into some kind of confrontation with Brian by mentioning several times that you think poolology is great and works "right out of the box". Ok then just go use that if you want an aiming system.

But why waste the time and energy watching videos and cherry-picking "data" to use without context to try and make points about the effectiveness of cte when you have already decided that you wouldn't use it regardless? I can only guess that you just want to knock me down by saying in front of everyone how can it be worth it if you (me) can't do better than x out of y shots?

See, here's the thing with me, I didn't seek out aiming systems. I didn't participate in the discussions before Hal asked to see me specifically. I was not for or against them other than having the general position of use whatever works and is not against the rules. I didn't really care or care to ask if anyone I played with or against used any sort of aiming system.

But when I met Hal and started pocketing at a higher level and a cleaner level using some strange technique that I had never before seen any other person show me I was amazed and developed an interest in this phenomena.

When I was much younger an old man showed me an aiming trick for making super thin shots where the object ball is frozen to the rail. He said it took the illusion out that caused the shot to be hit too thick.

I didn't know if the reasoning was correct or not but I found that the trick worked and worked consistently. The trick was to aim and then close one eye to shoot it. Sounds stupid but it has come in handy dozens of times over the years.

I didn't think of that trick as any sort of system just a technique for one particular troublesome shot that actually worked well. Had that one guy not taken the time to show me I probably wouldn't know it today.

Now skip forward 35 years and I can aim and execute that same shot without the eye trick by using cte aiming. But if I don't do either method I almost always hit it thick. When I deliberately aim thinner, against what my brain is telling me then my results are better but still not as good as using the trick or cte.

This tells me that I am better off using a clear method with solid instructions than I am just guesstimating.

So your original question was does missing indicate subjectivity. Yes it could indicate that or out could indicate execution inconsistencies or some combination of both.

Missing is not the always the same though as you well know. Rattling a ball is not the same as missing by a diamond. Missing small indicates tiny errors and missing wide indicates either major aiming error or major stroke errors or some combination of both.

When an aiming system gives me the correct shot line and my misses get real small then the odds are good that I will also be making more of those shots attempted as well. This is why your "data" is flawed and incomplete and should not be used to draw conclusions. Let's take the severe angle cut shot and determine what the make percentage is with no system and then with a system. What if I made it one out of ten and missed by a diamond half the time with no system and then when I used a system I made it two of ten and all the misses were within a fraction of an inch? Well I would have seen an immediate 100% improvement in my pocketing percentage with the additional bonus of knowing that the aiming was consistent and that I could probably raise that pocketing percentage much further by increasing my focus and working on the delivery.

But without that information all you see is 80% failure instead of 100% improvement. And you use that to attack me, and yes it is an attack for the reasons I have mentioned. You didn't say what you said conversationally in any attempt to understand a system that you already indicated that you don't like and won't use.

You could be part of stans Facebook group and talk to him directly with your questions. He wouldn't have any idea who you are. That is if you were truly interested in learning about the details of cte aiming conversationally and not confrontationally.

You still can be. But since you think he is just doing party tricks and you have never acknowledged his or anyone's prowess with cte I think you just want to pick the lowest hanging fruit by going after me in a highly selective way.

You claim that you are making an honest effort but you refuse to acknowledge your own tone here.
 
And the anon world of knockers. You are neither rational nor honest imo
You have objectively shown that you are dishonest by claiming a gambling bet loss as advertising when such really had nothing to do with your case business. I would guess that you will "rationalize" that you arranged the gambling match so that you "could" put out your advertising sign. I am not so sure that the IRS would agree with that rationalization.
You have also objectively shown VERY Many Times that you are as irrational as the day is long.
I was NOT personal in my posts, but you were in yours... so here is a counter punch jab or two.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I once ran 98 in the 90s. <snip>....
That's awesome... I highly doubt I'll ever have the opprotunity to compete in a 14.1 event. Not even close to a popular game in my parts. Regardless I'm just a shooter and haven't had to grasp the safety aspect of the game.

I asked if you had video of the 14.1 efforts in hopes I could see you employ the CTE method with a number of light touch shots. Was thinking it may allow me to pick up on the sighting and pivots.
But let's be brutally honest please. <snip>...
No it wouldn't... However if you were generally a weak player but when you followed the CTE method for merely potting a series of difficult shots without concern of CB control, pattern play, etc, and made the bulk of them it would intrigue me.
But that aside the fact that you chose to cherry pick one segment and use words like poorly struck for shots that miss by a tiny amount is indicative that you are attempting to discredit CTE through me.
You keep saying this but I'm not. I used that segment because it was a good example of someone missing multiple shots in a row using a system that's supposed to help people not miss shots. I never have attempted discredit CTE. I suggested that you may been missing because you subjectively altered your aim incorrectly (away from the CTE aim), or your mechanics (stroke) failed you. Neither is a fault of CTE. I was just trying to get a handle on the poor performance.
With 100% certainty I know without having had to see it that you have barely missed shots where you aimed right and delivered a good stroke and yet something was not 100% which resulted in a jarred ball or catching the pocket point. You know this to be true and yet you won't acknowledge it as long as you think you can score some kind of point by being extremely selective in what parts of my shotmaking you decide to keep stats on.
To be clear, I'm not keeping any stats. Your success rate was labelled in the title of the thread I found the video link in. I did break it down into a percentage in a recent post for sake of continuity with the rest of what I was saying.

...and no I've never missed a shot that I didn't take responsibility for. It's either a bad stroke, bad aim, too hard, too soft, a variable that I didn't account for (kick?)..., etc. I also don't believe in luck at the table either. Everything that happens is the result from our actions.
You already stated that you don't like the cte process so why are you bothering to discuss it? You keep trying to draw me into some kind of confrontation with Brian by mentioning several times that you think poolology is great and works "right out of the box". Ok then just go use that if you want an aiming system.
None of the above is anything I've ever said. I do find CTE a little confusing, but I have never said I dislike it, or like it for that matter. I couldn't care less if you ever mention Poolology or speaking to Brain. I said I gave Poolology a shot to validate it for myself, and it did so in very short order. Expanding on that, I have also said I would like to attempt to validate CTE for myself. My interest is in whether or not these systems work. I won't be adopting any system. I simply don't need them to pot balls at a high percentage.
But why waste the time and energy watching videos and cherry-picking "data" to use without context to try and make points about the effectiveness of cte when you have already decided that you wouldn't use it regardless? I can only guess that you just want to knock me down by saying in front of everyone how can it be worth it if you (me) can't do better than x out of y shots?
Guess all you want, but you haven't been very good at interpreting the actual words I've been using so I wouldn't expect much good to come from it. Once again, I'm not cherry picking data. I was asking a question about a performance of CTE. What context am I excluding that changes the success rate of the shots you took...? I'm more than willing to cite this context if I ever mention your performance in that video again.
See, here's the thing with me, I didn't seek out aiming systems. I didn't participate in the discussions before Hal asked to see me specifically. I was not for or against them other than having the general position of use whatever works and is not against the rules. I didn't really care or care to ask if anyone I played with or against used any sort of aiming system.
Excellent we have common ground... I have never even thought about aiming systems until I stumbled into AZB. I knew they existed but never considered or spoke of them. Now that I know there are several factions of people who subscribe to varying systems, I'm honestly indifferent to what people choose to believe/practice.

However our one difference here is I like to have a working knowledge on the subtopics of the things I enjoy. In this case, pool and the systems people opt to use to make the game more enjoyable for them. If someone approaches me in the pool room and asks if I'm aware of aiming systems. I'd like to be able to say, yes I have experimented with ghost ball, CTE, Poolology, and here's the basic premise behind them.
This tells me that I am better off using a clear method with solid instructions than I am just guesstimating.
Right on... I lean on my fundamentals / cue action, and burn my energy attempting to recall HAMB memories.
So your original question was does missing indicate subjectivity. Yes it could indicate that or out could indicate execution inconsistencies or some combination of both.
Excellent... thank you. I had a lengthy response here comparing my experiences with systems with your efforts, but there's really no need. We all miss, we're all human. Nothing we can do about that
Missing is not the always the same though as you well know. Rattling a ball is not the same as missing by a diamond. Missing small indicates tiny errors and missing wide indicates either major aiming error or major stroke errors or some combination of both.
Granted... ...and once again the types of shots you were attempting can be very easily missed. The margin for error is small. Hammers home the improtance for extreme accuracy when lining up your shot.
When an aiming system gives me the correct shot line and my misses get real small then the odds are good that I will also be making more of those shots attempted as well. This is why your "data" is flawed and incomplete and should not be used to draw conclusions. <snip>...
I wish that you who stop referring to it as "your data" (mine). The only conclusion I have drawn is that an error had been made. It wasn't if the system was valid. Only if your application of it was sound or you stroke was in question.
But without that information all you see is 80% failure instead of 100% improvement. And you use that to attack me, and yes it is an attack for the reasons I have mentioned. You didn't say what you said conversationally in any attempt to understand a system that you already indicated that you don't like and won't use.
Once again, your ill conceived perceptions and words... I've never attacked you. I've never said I dislike CTE.
You could be part of stans Facebook group and talk to him directly with your questions. He wouldn't have any idea who you are. That is if you were truly interested in learning about the details of cte aiming conversationally and not confrontationally.
The only confrontation I have experienced has been generated by either you or Low500. This Frenchy guy(?) is finger nails on a chalk board but he hasn't berated me like you two have.
You still can be. But since you think he is just doing party tricks and you have never acknowledged his or anyone's prowess with cte I think you just want to pick the lowest hanging fruit by going after me in a highly selective way.
Once again, your words. I have never said Stan is performing party tricks. Just that I was not impressed with his ability to shoot straight in shots the length of a table with a curtain hanging in front of him. You did stretch that to include 4 videos that I had never seen before, which is fine. I'm not much of a bank player, so those did impress me slightly.

I have also mentioned Brian Parks on my own accord recently and his skill as a player and his use of CTE. Although I haven't been able to pick up on the CTE steps in his PSR. I'm not sure why you don't count him as "anyone" or why you don't equate "skill" to "prowess".
You claim that you are making an honest effort but you refuse to acknowledge your own tone here.
Maybe you just need to adjust your audio.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
John... I had to <snip> text from your quotes so I could reply in full. Please don't assume this was meant to take you out of context. This is the first time I have run into a character limit on a forum...lol
6.png
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
Mods, please lock this thread, it's devolved into nothing to do with the topic.
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
Maybe you just need to adjust your audio.
I am not trying to berate you. I am happy to converse. Happy to answer questions posed congenially.

I will reset my judgement of your purpose here and we can start over between us.

I posted several videos of various people running out.

When someone is using pro one or disguised(air pivoting) then to the spectator it would look pretty much like any other player. In fact I have said on occasion that the way a proficient cte user goes into the shot is similar to the way a lot of pros go into a shot. My thought was that maybe the cte steps sort of force a player into a sighting rhythm that places them into a similar offset position which results in a head/body motion that is very close to how pros move.

Someday when I have the time and inclination I might do some video analysis where I find players taking similar shots in ways that I can superimpose them to see if my thoughts on this have any merit.

The CTE steps can be done all in standing position in a matter of seconds and the player drops in on the shot line with no funky movements.

Think about this, what are you actually looking at when you aim? Like from the moment you are coming to the table and behind the cue ball? No one knows what is going on in your mind. They see you thinking and then they see you out your cue down to shoot.

You could have recited a poem, repeated a mantra, looked at the spot on the wall that you know it's a dead bank to the corner....

Unless you're doing clear manual pivoting no one would know you are using cte or any other system. I mean you could do the tip in the approximate gb center position and walk into the cue and that would be clear but almost nobody does that because it's tiring and people think that after a while they just see it anyway imo.

So really the concern about cte changing your psr isn't as big a deal as you might think it is.

I would give you the name of a pro whom I am positive would change any and all misgivings you have about cte but he has asked me not to as he is not at all into having these discussions online. He has a pretty good number of students and all questions and concerns are worked out on the table to the student's satisfaction.

Were I to spend a month under this pro I would look like a completely different player. Back in November I asked him to help me with my form because I was in constant pain when I played. He immediately got me ergonomically set and as a result I was nailing shots on a big table with tight pockets from a position of comfort rather than tension.

However without spending the time to really form a new habit and having spent little time playing since last November I tend to slip into the old form at times. Not nearly as bad but still not right.

Here is what cte means to me. I could aim for that pro and he knows that I can aim accurately using cute and he could shoot from the lines I give him and his pocketing percentage would be way higher than mine.

Conversely if I shot the lines he gave them my pocketing percentage would likely be somewhat higher than when I do it all myself but likely not much higher because I have execution issues due to a variety of factors. No one who doesn't have the same physical issues as me will truly understand how it feels when you're down on a shot and you are fighting muscle spasms, twitches, and knife/needle-like stabbing pain.

So I will never ever be a good enough player to be a perfect demonstration player. Beyond the physical issues it is not my goal to "prove" cte based on my play. And the reason for this is because those truly interested in learning it are not using me as a single source for cute information. If there is someone out there who is then I would say to them that they should look to those who are much more proficient.

My goal has always been to discuss objective and alternative aiming systems for their value. I tried to do this with civility and exuberance and in the first hour of doing it I was insulted and degraded and called a religious cult member, told I was hypnotized, deluded, bamboozled, and essentially that the results I experienced on the table were not true and could not be true. So being called a deluded lying cult member on day one kind of set the tone for me with certain people.

Conversely with you tube and forums where the prolific knockers are not present I have had hundreds of conversations, dozens of video chats where I helped or got help with various aiming system questions and had dozens of in-person sessions where I helped or got help.

So yeah, I am pretty freaking sensitive to the tone and it's not just a matter of me needing to adjust the soundboard but I will concede that I can certainly take some comments in a way that they weren't intended.

That said I will choose to believe that you are sincere and I will tell you that you are unlikely to learn anything useful about cte from this corrupted forum.

Mohrt is the only one left willing to try and instruct and I admire his demeanor and perseverance. My goal here is pretty much just to confront the knockers because whenever I try to just discuss cte inevitably one or more of them has to start with the snide comments and insults.

Ultimately I would like to see there be a cte forum where knockers are told to stay away or be banned. Ava there could be a forum for each aiming system that contains the most up to date information where the readers don't have to wade through a sea of shit to find the gold nuggets.

I don't understand why this can't be had.

And if knockers want to knock then they can create a post and state their objections and have those objections countered if possible.

That way the objections are all there for forum readers and civility is harshly enforced so that the readers are not subjected to flame wars and the aforementioned river of shit while looking for useful information.
 
Last edited:

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
You have objectively shown that you are dishonest by claiming a gambling bet loss as advertising when such really had nothing to do with your case business. I would guess that you will "rationalize" that you arranged the gambling match so that you "could" put out your advertising sign. I am not so sure that the IRS would agree with that rationalization.
You have also objectively shown VERY Many Times that you are as irrational as the day is long.
I was NOT personal in my posts, but you were in yours... so here is a counter punch jab or two.
Are you insane? No really because only an insane person or a truly unintelligent person can't see the marketing value of six months of logo impressions from many threads along with a "one pocket journey" road trip by "the jb case guy" and the impressions from the video of the match being freely accessible forever.

Look how you are talking about it years later in some lame-ass attempt to "punch" me rhetorically.

You must be super perturbed when companies put their logo on events that have nothing to do with their business. I can't imagine the amount of daily frustration you experience thinking about how these companies do their accounting.

I love the fact that you are now stalking me. For someone who claims that they lurked in the instructor and aiming forums you seem to be quite well versed in John Barton activities and comments. Almost like you might be someone who is no longer welcome at azb under another username.

Did I offend your anon sensibilities? Tell you what I will bet 100$ that you can't produce an official state driver's license that lists French Roots as your given name.

Can't personally insult some lame anon but I can certainly comment on the vibe that the "character" portrayed under this pseudonym gives off.
 
Top