The Hal Houle Post

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tate posted the HH discussion of his CTE system in the main forum. I've reproduced it here with a different purpose from his, and it does have to do with aiming. I've put some of the text in bold and red, to be explained below:

There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks, and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45°. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30°. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15°. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90°, which is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45°. The solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball, and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets. Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45° angle. Recognizing those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top professional players in the game have always known about this professional aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy. Interested in where those spots are located?

The 2 places on the cue ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters, and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words, if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object ball. When you cut to the left for 15°, aim the left cue ball edge at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30°, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the left for 45°, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 15°, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 30°, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you cut to the right for 45°, you aim the right cue ball edge to the object ball left quarter. If you’ll just get down and aim your old way, you’ll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You’ll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth. The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45°. Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of the quarter). Don’t let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the pocket, and you’ll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything. Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45° angle before your friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting if you don’t tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me.

Regards,

Hal Houle


It's been a long time since I've seen this HH post and something caught my attention that I don't recall thinking about. To me, the bold and red highlighted parts seem to indicate that Hal did not believe that the system described was able to directly pocket all balls on the table. He seems to be saying that once you've lined up the ball per his instructions, the ball might or might not go to the pocket you want it to go to. If it doesn't then that means that it will be banked to one of the other 5 pockets.

I never understood why, if HH's system was so revolutionary and all the pro's used it in secrecy, why Stan had to improve on it by introducing another line and rigorous rules on pivoting, which I don't recall HH having.

Stan claims his version of HH's system pockets ALL balls directly into a pocket. Did Hal even make that claim? Did HH ever clarify what is in bold because (and maybe it's just me) it doesn't look like he thought that every shot would go directly. The Stan followers in this forum always said that a ball would be sent to one of the other 5 pockets if you chose the WRONG perception to use. That does not appear to be what HH was saying.

Just something that made me curious today.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Tate posted the HH discussion of his CTE system in the main forum. I've reproduced it here with a different purpose from his, and it does have to do with aiming. I've put some of the text in bold and red, to be explained below:

There are only 3 angles for any shot, on any size table. This includes; caroms, single rail banks, double rail banks, 1, 2, 3, and 4 rail banks, and double kiss banks. Any table has a 2 to 1 ratio; 3 1/2 x 7, 4 x 8, 4 x 9, 5 x 10, 6 x 12. It is always twice as long as it is wide. The table corners are 90 degree angles. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the corner pocket, you are forming an angle of 45°. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the middle diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 30°. When you lay a cue from the side pocket to the first diamond on the same end rail, you are forming an angle of 15°. When you add up these 3 angles, they total 90°, which is the same angle formed by the table corners. The cue ball relation to object ball relation shot angle is always 15, 30, or 45°. The solution is very simple. There are only 2 edges on the cue ball to aim with, and they are always exactly in the same place on the cue ball. There are only 3 exact spots on the object ball to aim to, and they are always exactly in the same place on the object ball. So, 2 edges on the cue ball, and 3 spots on the object ball; 2 x 3 = 6 which is the total number of table pockets. This means that, depending upon how the cue ball and object ball lie in relation to one another, you may either pocket the object ball directly into a pocket or bank it into any one of the remaining 5 pockets. Of course, the reverse is true. If the relationship of cue ball to object ball can only be a bank, so be it. There is never a need to look at a pocket or cushion while lining up the edge on the cue ball to the spot on the object ball. You have only those 3 angles Your only requirement is to recognize whether your shot is a 15, 30, or 45° angle. Recognizing those 3 angles can be accomplished in an instant by aiming the edge of the cue ball to one of the spots on the object ball. It will be obvious which object ball spot is correct. There will be no doubt. Any time either one of the 2 edges on the cue ball is aimed at any one of the 3 spots on the object ball, that object ball must go to a pocket. Choose the correct spot and the object ball will most certainly go to the chosen pocket. The top professional players in the game have always known about this professional aiming system, but they are a closed fraternity, and you are the enemy. Interested in where those spots are located?

The 2 places on the cue ball are the left edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the left; and the right edge of the cue ball when you are cutting the object ball to the right. The 3 spots on the object ball are the quarters, and the center. The quarters and center of the object ball face straight at the edges of your cue ball, not facing toward the pocket. In other words, if you were on a work-bench at home, there would be no pocket, so you would just line up the edge of the cue ball straight to your target on the object ball. When you cut to the left for 15°, aim the left cue ball edge at the object ball left quarter. When you cut to the left for 30°, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball center. When you cut to the left for 45°, aim the cue ball left edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 15°, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object ball right quarter. When you cut to the right for 30°, you aim the cue ball right edge at the object center. When you cut to the right for 45°, you aim the right cue ball edge to the object ball left quarter. If you’ll just get down and aim your old way, you’ll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You’ll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball. Remember, this system is for any shot on the table; banks, caroms, combinations, and so forth. The only shot remaining is the extreme cut for any shot over 45°. Aim the cue ball edge to the eighth of the object ball (which is half of the quarter). Don’t let the pocket influence you. Have a friend hold the ball tray between the object ball and the pocket, so you cannot see the pocket, and you’ll see that those 3 angles will handle just about anything. Of course, you would have chosen the 15, 30, or 45° angle before your friend put the ball tray in place. It also makes it much more interesting if you don’t tell your friend how you are pocketing the ball without seeing the pocket. Have some fun. For any questions, call me.

Regards,

Hal Houle


It's been a long time since I've seen this HH post and something caught my attention that I don't recall thinking about. To me, the bold and red highlighted parts seem to indicate that Hal did not believe that the system described was able to directly pocket all balls on the table. He seems to be saying that once you've lined up the ball per his instructions, the ball might or might not go to the pocket you want it to go to. If it doesn't then that means that it will be banked to one of the other 5 pockets.

I never understood why, if HH's system was so revolutionary and all the pro's used it in secrecy, why Stan had to improve on it by introducing another line and rigorous rules on pivoting, which I don't recall HH having.

Stan claims his version of HH's system pockets ALL balls directly into a pocket. Did Hal even make that claim? Did HH ever clarify what is in bold because (and maybe it's just me) it doesn't look like he thought that every shot would go directly. The Stan followers in this forum always said that a ball would be sent to one of the other 5 pockets if you chose the WRONG perception to use. That does not appear to be what HH was saying.

Just something that made me curious today.


All of your concerns will be addressed. Some of what you say is incorrect and there’s nothing in what you say to hang your hat on.

One thing, though, Stan has never stated that all balls can be pocketed directly with CTE. That looney tunes.

Hal’s document is so very misunderstood and the major reason why is that most everyone tries to comprehend it from a conventional aiming perspective.Stan has spent years studying that material while some brilliant minds have read it no more than a handful of times, coming away with it’s not reality. They didn’t do their homework. Stan did.

Connie Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Here is the part that turned me off immediately....

"If you just get down and aim your old way, you’ll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You’ll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball."

I remember trying this, exactly as described, and the cb edge did not always line up to one of the quarters. Now, after reading Hal's instructions again, I went to my table and shot about a dozen shots at random, lining up exactly where I know to aim. Then, without moving my head or eye position, as instructed, I looked to see where the cb edge appeared to be lined up with the ob. Sometimes it looked like it was lined for one of the quarters, sometimes it looked like it wasn't. It certainly wasn't always lined up as Hal said it would be, only on certain cut angles was that true.

The whole numerology bit (3×2=6 and there are 6 pockets, and 15+30+45=90, etc..) was always a big turnoff also. The angles Hal describes are actually 14°, 26.6° and 45°, not 15, 30, 45. You can lay your cue anyway you want, but as described you get 14, 26.6, and 45. And even if they were 15, 30, and 45, adding them up to 90 and insinuating this means they always connect to a pocket because the pockets are at the 90's.....well, let me just say this: For non-math oriented people, that sounds amazing, like magic, or super genius stuff. But for people who understand math and numbers, it's ridiculous, about as meaningful as astrology.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Here is the part that turned me off immediately....

"If you just get down and aim your old way, you’ll be close to where you should be aiming. Look to see (without changing your head or eye position) just where the cue ball edge is aiming at the object ball. You’ll see that on every shot that the cue ball edge is always aiming at the same targets on the object ball."

I remember trying this, exactly as described, and the cb edge did not always line up to one of the quarters. Now, after reading Hal's instructions again, I went to my table and shot about a dozen shots at random, lining up exactly where I know to aim. Then, without moving my head or eye position, as instructed, I looked to see where the cb edge appeared to be lined up with the ob. Sometimes it looked like it was lined for one of the quarters, sometimes it looked like it wasn't. It certainly wasn't always lined up as Hal said it would be, only on certain cut angles was that true.

The whole numerology bit (3×2=6 and there are 6 pockets, and 15+30+45=90, etc..) was always a big turnoff also. The angles Hal describes are actually 14°, 26.6° and 45°, not 15, 30, 45. You can lay your cue anyway you want, but as described you get 14, 26.6, and 45. And even if they were 15, 30, and 45, adding them up to 90 and insinuating this means they always connect to a pocket because the pockets are at the 90's.....well, let me just say this: For non-math oriented people, that sounds amazing, like magic, or super genius stuff. But for people who understand math and numbers, it's ridiculous, about as meaningful as astrology.

LOL Your understanding of Hal’s document is super weak. Very laughable, but then again, you’re all over it as if it’s a document for conventional aiming. You don’t know what you don’t know. Remind me to tell Stan to go through the paragraph that turned you off and he’ll explain to you the viewers why Hal was right and you are dead wrong.

Connie Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
LOL Your understanding of Hal’s document is super weak. Very laughable, but then again, you’re all over it as if it’s a document for conventional aiming. You don’t know what you don’t know. Remind me to tell Stan to go through the paragraph that turned you off and he’ll explain to you the viewers why Hal was right and you are dead wrong.

Connie Shuffett

Lol. When I follow the instructions in the paragraph exactly as described, I DO NOT see the cb edge lining up to one of the ob quarters on EVERY shot. That is a fact, based on what I see from the perspective Hal describes.
Nothing Stan says or does or interprets from these basic instructions will change that.

What Stan has done with Hal's theory is different, using 2 lines to get a specific perspective of a "fixed" cb, and it might one day prove to work as described, like with the truth series, I hope. But I guarantee it won't be because 15+30+45=90 and there are 8 90° angles on a 1×2 surface, etc...

It reminds of all the stories that people have made up over the years to "explain" things like a rainbow or an earthquake, attributing it to some supernatural occurrence orchestrated by one god or another. Those people were ignorant, lacking the knowledge that later generations would eventually obtain. The Vikings believed a rainbow was a stairway for gods. Christians believed it was a sign that God wouldn't destroy the world with another flood, "God laying down his bow". And millions of people believed these fabricated "explanations" because they didn't know any better. Today, most people know better. And most people recognize the silliness of numerology, astrology and other pseudosciences that try to make sense of, and draw conclusions from, pure coincidental things that really mean nothing.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lol. When I follow the instructions in the paragraph exactly as described, I DO NOT see the cb edge lining up to one of the ob quarters on EVERY shot. That is a fact, based on what I see from the perspective Hal describes.
Nothing Stan says or does or interprets from these basic instructions will change that.

What Stan has done with Hal's theory is different, using 2 lines to get a specific perspective of a "fixed" cb, and it might one day prove to work as described, like with the truth series, I hope. But I guarantee it won't be because 15+30+45=90 and there are 8 90° angles on a 1×2 surface, etc...

It reminds of all the stories that people have made up over the years to "explain" things like a rainbow or an earthquake, attributing it to some supernatural occurrence orchestrated by one god or another. Those people were ignorant, lacking the knowledge that later generations would eventually obtain. The Vikings believed a rainbow was a stairway for gods. Christians believed it was a sign that God wouldn't destroy the world with another flood, "God laying down his bow". And millions of people believed these fabricated "explanations" because they didn't know any better. Today, most people know better. And most people recognize the silliness of numerology, astrology and other pseudosciences that try to make sense of, and draw conclusions from, pure coincidental things that really mean nothing.[/QUOTE



It’s your prerogative to speak as you desire, but you are DEAD WRONG about your assessment
of Hal’s document. You’re not alone. You’re in good company with folks like PJ. Dan, and Lou.
No one in a hundred years would ever think that you’d fall in line with the truth behind Hal’s three angle work.
There were purposeful omissions in that document. Stan identified them. Dave Segal questioned Hal about Stan’s work and Hal told Dave that Stan had correctly figured out the document.

There will be millions that will take a brand new look at Hal’s work thanks to Stan. One thing is for certain, you couldn’t figure it out in 500 years. The difference between you and Stan is that he thought that there was something to figure out and you think it’s something to ridicule. Stan went in glass nearly full and you look at it as glass empty. No one here is surprised at your findings. Your stance will NEVER change.

Connie Shuffett
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
It’s your prerogative to speak as you desire, but you are DEAD WRONG about your assessment
of Hal’s document. You’re not alone. You’re in good company with folks like PJ. Dan, and Lou.
No one in a hundred years would ever think that you’d fall in line with the truth behind Hal’s three angle work.
There were omissions in that document. Stan identified them. Dave Segal questioned Hal about Stan’s work and Hal told Dave that Stan had correctly figured out the document.

There will be millions that will take a brand new look at Hal’s work thanks to Stan. One thing is for certain, you couldn’t figure it in 500 years.

Connie Shuffett

My assessment is based on the document as is. I and many others followed the instructions as written. If there were "omissions" then you certainly can't expect that anyone in the world could make it work based on the document as written, regardless of the fact that Hal posted it "as is" and told people to have fun with it.
That certainly doesn't sound like a guy who purposely left things out to trick people into wasting time trying to see something that isn't there.

None of this really matters anyway. I mean, CTE could very well be proven to be the real deal, but the numerology style reasoning for it is still laughable. Rainbows amd earthquakes are real, but science can now explain them without the need for people to have to fabricate some wild explanation for their occurrence.

Ref the bold above... I have already figured it out. But much like Copernicus, and Galileo years later, proving that the earth is not the center of the universe, some people will always cling to their false beliefs, condemning and ridiculing those who know better.

Like I said, Stan's CTE could very well be excellent. And he might finally be able to show it in a much more understandable manner with the truth series and book. I hope so. The "how" is no doubt within his knowledge, but the "why" is over his head. He is simply repeating the same numerology garble that Hal first started, and that explanation is what I know for certain is wrong. For those who believe it, good for them. The beautiful part about life is that you don't have to understand everything in order to live and to be happy doing it. But sometimes I wonder where we'd all be if Noah and his bunch would've missed that boat. Lol
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
All of your concerns will be addressed. Some of what you say is incorrect and there’s nothing in what you say to hang your hat on.

One thing, though, Stan has never stated that all balls can be pocketed directly with CTE. That looney tunes.

Hal’s document is so very misunderstood and the major reason why is that most everyone tries to comprehend it from a conventional aiming perspective.Stan has spent years studying that material while some brilliant minds have read it no more than a handful of times, coming away with it’s not reality. They didn’t do their homework. Stan did.

Connie Shuffett

You and Stan have some eerily similar mannerisms. You both like to say we can't understand in 500 years and you both say we are wrong but you never explain how. You then go on to agree that the document being discussed has errors or vagueries, just not the ones we point out. lol. Maybe it's a Kentucky thing.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My assessment is based on the document as is. I and many others followed the instructions as written. If there were "omissions" then you certainly can't expect that anyone in the world could make it work based on the document as written, regardless of the fact that Hal posted it "as is" and told people to have fun with it.
That certainly doesn't sound like a guy who purposely left things out to trick people into wasting time trying to see something that isn't there.

None of this really matters anyway. I mean, CTE could very well be proven to be the real deal, but the numerology style reasoning for it is still laughable. Rainbows amd earthquakes are real, but science can now explain them without the need for people to have to fabricate some wild explanation for their occurrence.

Ref the bold above... I have already figured it out. But much like Copernicus, and Galileo years later, proving that the earth is not the center of the universe, some people will always cling to their false beliefs, condemning and ridiculing those who know better.

Like I said, Stan's CTE could very well be excellent. And he might finally be able to show it in a much more understandable manner with the truth series and book. I hope so. The "how" is no doubt within his knowledge, but the "why" is over his head. He is simply repeating the same numerology garble that Hal first started, and that explanation is what I know for certain is wrong. For those who believe it, good for them. The beautiful part about life is that you don't have to understand everything in order to live and to be happy doing it. But sometimes I wonder where we'd all be if Noah and his bunch would've missed that boat. Lol

Actually, you missed the boat. You didn’t figure anything out.

THREE ANGLES MAKE ALL SHOTS ON ANY SIZE TABLE.

Stan was intrigued that Hal could make a statement such as that and there not be something to it. Stan knew there was something there to figure out. Stan spent nearly 15 years of his life working with that document. It’s a fair bet that you haven’t logged 15 minutes with it.

Connie Shuffett
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
My assessment is based on the document as is.

You gonna believe your lyin' eyes or Stan?

You and I really aren't interpreting anything. We're simply reading what Hal wrote. He as much said that CTE will not pocket all balls into the intended pocket (but will in one of the other 5) and he said other things clearly as you've stated.

Stan and the others question Hal about it and he says, "Yeahhhh, that's the ticket. You got it, that's exactly what I meant and I'm glad you figured it out!" OK.

When I spoke to Hal he never, to my recollection, cared about how I held the cue or in what angle or anything. Just line up edge to one of the lines and hit it. Don't over think it. I really wonder if he knew that the alignments got you close and the player simply had to learn to fill in the gaps, which is why he didn't care what you did with the cue. It would sort itself out with practice.

You either have to HAMB pivoting until you get it down or you have to HAMB with a straight cue and finding the correct aim line.

I had another thought about what I'll call the CTE pre shot routine. In golf, they say if most players took only the 7 iron and a putter and left the other clubs at home they'd lower their score. Maybe for struggling pool players the predefined aim points limit the choices to those that WILL put the ball in the vicinity of the pocket.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You and Stan have some eerily similar mannerisms. You both like to say we can't understand in 500 years and you both say we are wrong but you never explain how. You then go on to agree that the document being discussed has errors or vagueries, just not the ones we point out. lol. Maybe it's a Kentucky thing.

Maybe it’s because I have been joined at the hip with Stan for the past five years during the writing of his book. I know the CTE process in and out and would take you to the woodshed with it, Sonnyboy.

Connie Shuffett
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Actually, you missed the boat. You didn’t figure anything out.

THREE ANGLES MAKE ALL SHOTS ON ANY SIZE TABLE.

Stan was intrigued that Hal could make a statement such as that and there not be something to it. Stan knew there was something there to figure out. Stan spent nearly 15 years of his life working with that document. It’s a fair bet that you haven’t logged 15 minutes with it.

Connie Shuffett

Can you tell us which shots cannot be made with Stan's CTE. Super thin cuts, or something else?
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe it’s because I have been joined at the hip with Stan for the past five years during the writing of his book. I know the CTE process in and out and would take you to the woodshed with it, Sonnyboy.

Connie Shuffett

Maybe so. Which part of that post was the "classy" stuff you are so well known for? :smile:
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Actually, you missed the boat. You didn’t figure anything out.

THREE ANGLES MAKE ALL SHOTS ON ANY SIZE TABLE.

Stan was intrigued that Hal could make a statement such as that and there not be something to it. Stan knew there was something there to figure out. Stan spent nearly 15 years of his life working with that document. It’s a fair bet that you haven’t logged 15 minutes with it.

Connie Shuffett

Lol.....that's one boat I'm glad I missed.

Anyhoo, I surely haven't logged anymore than a few hours over the years trying to make Hal's theory work. I found it intriguing that it works on some shots, so I spent about 15min figuring out why, which also explained why I couldn't get it working on other shots without tweaking the parameters/instructions.

If I had spent 15 years working with it, or even a few dedicated weeks with it, I'm 100% sure I would be right here with Stan and Cookie and other CTE users preaching that it works axactly as instructed. I know this because I understand how the brain functions, how it has the ability to program itself in order to make something work as if we are actually consciously making it work, when in reality our subconcious mind is making it work, having been programmed through trial and error and good ol fashioned rote.
 
Last edited:

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Can you tell us which shots cannot be made with Stan's CTE. Super thin cuts, or something else?

A super thin cut can’t be made with strict 100% CTE, but that same thin cut can be made as a bank and probably in more than one pocket.

Back to the super thin cut. One’s CTE vision is used for any super thin cut making the shot easier than it would be with conventional approaches.

Connie Shuffett
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Lol.....that's one boat I'm glad I missed.

Anyhoo, I surely haven't logged anymore than a few hours over the years trying to make Hal's theory work. I found it intriguing that it works on some shots, so I spent about 15min figuring out why, which also explained why I couldn't get it working on other shots without tweaking the parameters/instructions.

If I had spent 15 years working with it, or even a few dedicated weeks with it, I'm 100% sure I would be right here with Stan and Cookie and other CTE users preaching that it works axactly as instructed. I know this because I understand how the brain functions, how it has the ability to program itself in order to make something work as if we are actually consciously making it work, when in reality our subconcious mind is making it work, having been programmed through trial and error and good ol fashioned rote.


LOL You and Lou and PJ and Dan caught the short boat.

LOL Not buying it that you have spent a few hours trying to make Hal’s document work.

Connie Shuffett
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
LOL You and Lou and PJ and Dan caught the short boat.

LOL Not buying it that you have spent a few hours trying to make Hal’s document work.

Connie Shuffett

Really? How is it so unbelievable that the 4 of us, and countless others, actually wasted our time with Hal's ideas? Afterall, we weren't privy to any purposely omitted secrets. Simply adhering to the instructions provided in Hal's document, not assuming he meant anymore than he wrote, it takes about 5 minutes tk discover that it sometimes works, and other times doesn't work.

Stan likes to think that his passion for pool and for learning and teaching is surpassed by no one, as if no one in the world has spent anymore than a few minutes experimenting with theories and figuring things out. It's a bit narcissistic.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe so. Which part of that post was the "classy" stuff you are so well known for? :smile:

Special words are sometimes needed as weapons when encountering unsavory characters. I carry a switchblade and pack a pistol as well.

Connie Shuffett
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Special words are sometimes needed as weapons when encountering unsavory characters. I carry a switchblade and pack a pistol as well.

Connie Shuffett

Like any good smart Kentucky girl! I love this! Lol.
 

justcueit

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Really? How is it so unbelievable that the 4 of us, and countless others, actually wasted our time with Hal's ideas? Afterall, we weren't privy to any purposely omitted secrets. Simply adhering to the instructions provided in Hal's document, not assuming he meant anymore than he wrote, it takes about 5 minutes tk discover that it sometimes works, and other times doesn't work.

Stan likes to think that his passion for pool and for learning and teaching is surpassed by no one, as if no one in the world has spent anymore than a few minutes experimenting with theories and figuring things out. It's a bit narcissistic.

You make a couple of fair points, but nonetheless you threw in the towel.

One of Stan’s great qualities is sticktuitiveness.

Connie Shuffett
 
Top