the basis of

cookie man · Jan 10, 2013

why Pj and probably others don't understand CTE.

Quote:
JB Cases:
...every single time you move either the object ball or the cue ball you must move your entire body to a new line. You have a new CTE line to start from. Using that new CTE line you orient yourself according to the system and you find that indeed there is a wide range of INDIVIDUAL shots for which the same set of visual perception works to acquire the shot line. There is no way around it, move the ball=new shot=new body position."
From JB.
And PJ's answer-
This is so obviously untrue that believing it means you're probably incapable of ever understanding why. I don't mean that as an insult, just a pertinent fact that's true of many. There's really no question about this.

pj
chgo

PJ, if you move the ob and cb to achieve a new shot line why do you think the cte line would not then be a new line ?

Patrick Johnson · Jan 10, 2013

Adding context to cookie man's question:

satori:
If all cuts to the right executed with pro one only have 5 visuals X 2 ways to pivot to take you exactly to "center ball," (as if center ball is one position), then there would be exactly 10 contact points capable between the cue ball and object ball. 5 x 2 equals 10 and 10 lines of aim are hardly enough to make every cut to the right.

Click to expand...

JB Cases:
The answer is that every single time you move either the object ball or the cue ball you must move your entire body to a new line. You have a new CTE line to start from. Using that new CTE line you orient yourself according to the system and you find that indeed there is a wide range of INDIVIDUAL shots for which the same set of visual perception works to acquire the shot line. There is no way around it, move the ball=new shot=new body position.

Click to expand...

cookie man:
PJ, if you move the ob and cb to achieve a new shot line why do you think the cte line would not then be a new line ?

The center-to-edge line is the line from the CB's center to the OB's edge. Moving the balls around on the table doesn't change that line or the way the CB and OB appear to the player when he sights along that line. The only thing that changes is the "background" picture (the position of the pockets). So exactly how is there a "new CTE line to start from"?

The answer, of course, is that there is no difference, so CTE only defines a handful of cut angles - the vast majority of cut angles fall between CTE's "system cut angles" and must be found by feel, as satori (and many others before him) said above.

I don't expect a coherent answer from you, JB Cases or Stan - none of you even understands the question. I'm only going to the trouble to ask it again for the benefit of other readers who are relatively new to the "discussion" and might actually understand the question and what it means about CTE.

pj
chgo

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

Patrick Johnson said:
Adding context to cookie man's question:

The center-to-edge line is the line from the CB's center to the OB's edge. Moving the balls around on the table doesn't change that line or the way the CB and OB appear to the player when he sights along that line. The only thing that changes is the "background" picture (the position of the pockets). So exactly how is there a "new CTE line to start from"?

The answer, of course, is that there is no difference, so CTE only defines a handful of cut angles - the vast majority of cut angles fall between CTE's "system cut angles" and must be found by feel, as satori (and many others before him) said above.

I don't expect a coherent answer from you, JB Cases or Stan - none of you even understands the question. I'm only going to the trouble to ask it again for the benefit of other readers who are relatively new to the "discussion" and might actually understand the question and what it means about CTE.

pj
chgo

Pj, surely you do not think the CTE line in CTE PRO ONE is a true 30 degree visual.

This is where you are not up to speed.

Stan Shuffett

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

Patrick Johnson said:
Adding context to cookie man's question:

The center-to-edge line is the line from the CB's center to the OB's edge. Moving the balls around on the table doesn't change that line or the way the CB and OB appear to the player when he sights along that line. The only thing that changes is the "background" picture (the position of the pockets). So exactly how is there a "new CTE line to start from"?

The answer, of course, is that there is no difference, so CTE only defines a handful of cut angles - the vast majority of cut angles fall between CTE's "system cut angles" and must be found by feel, as satori (and many others before him) said above.

I don't expect a coherent answer from you, JB Cases or Stan - none of you even understands the question. I'm only going to the trouble to ask it again for the benefit of other readers who are relatively new to the "discussion" and might actually understand the question and what it means about CTE.

pj
chgo

You know what's funny? Both of you -- Dave Stem (cookie man) and you, Patrick -- are talking about the SAME THING. Just different perspectives.

You, Patrick, are correct that the CTEL is a mathematical constant -- the line that forms between the edge of the object ball intersecting the center of the cue ball is always the same, never changes, and will never change.

However, what Dave is talking about is your relation to that CTEL -- if you move even just the cue ball or just the object ball a smidgen left or right -- with your body remaining constant -- your relationship to that CTEL just changed. (Obviously, if you move either the cue ball or the object ball in a way that the CTEL itself is not changed -- i.e. the object ball's edge remains on the same tangent line formed by the original CTEL, nothing has actually changed except distance.)

I think we're getting too mired in pedantic details like this. What I think we're skirting around, is how to get from the CTEL to the actual point of aim -- namely, the concrete, hard-fact, no-bones-about-it details of to precisely describe the origination point of the pivot.

That, I think, is the missing golden nugget out of all these discussions. Noone, yet to date -- including Stan's original DVD (which I have) -- have been able to mathematically or visually describe where that origination point is. EDIT: the "pivot to cue ball's center" part we get; it's the starting point that is ambiguous enough to cause all of the confusion, I think.

-Sean

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
You know what's funny? Both of you -- Dave Stem (cookie man) and you, Patrick -- are talking about the SAME THING. Just different perspectives.

You, Patrick, are correct that the CTEL is a mathematical constant -- the line that forms between the edge of the object ball intersecting the center of the cue ball is always the same, never changes, and will never change.

However, what Dave is talking about is your relation to that CTEL -- if you move even just the cue ball or just the object ball a smidgen left or right -- with your body remaining constant -- your relationship to that CTEL just changed. (Obviously, if you move either the cue ball or the object ball in a way that the CTEL itself is not changed -- i.e. the object ball's edge remains on the same tangent line formed by the original CTEL, nothing has actually changed except distance.)

I think we're getting too mired in pedantic details like this. What I think we're skirting around, is how to get from the CTEL to the actual point of aim -- namely, the concrete, hard-fact, no-bones-about-it details of to precisely describe the origination point of the pivot.

That, I think, is the missing golden nugget out of all these discussions. Noone, yet to date -- including Stan's original DVD (which I have) -- have been able to mathematically or visually describe where that origination point is. EDIT: the "pivot to cue ball's center" part we get; it's the starting point that is ambiguous enough to cause all of the confusion, I think.

-Sean

Sean,

You are correct in that math needs a starting point and that is precisely where math first breaks down.

My CTE PRO ONE visuals are objective and have been conveyed by language and those visuals when used with a rotation connect to the pockets.

My new work will further elaborate on this and provide the geometric ties.

Stan Shuffett

Patrick Johnson · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
...what [cookie man] is talking about is your relation to that CTEL -- if you move even just the cue ball or just the object ball a smidgen left or right -- with your body remaining constant -- your relationship to that CTEL just changed.

This is obvious - and it's obvious that it's irrelevant because it never happens. The balls being at different locations on the table does not change the player's position in relation to the CTE line because the player initially aligns with the CTE line the same way for each shot.

What I think we're skirting around, is how to get from the CTEL to the actual point of aim

That's exactly the issue at hand here. JB Cases and cookie man claim that CTE's "robotic" system angles aren't limited to a handful of aim points (times 2 pivot directions each) because "the CTE line changes". But it only changes in relation to the table, not in relation to the player - and it must change in relation to the player in order to change the final shot solution.

pj
chgo

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

stan shuffett said:
Sean,

You are correct in that math needs a starting point and that is precisely where math first breaks down.

My CTE PRO ONE visuals are objective and have been conveyed by language and those visuals when used with a rotation connect to the pockets.

My new work will further elaborate on this and provide the geometric ties.

Stan Shuffett

Stan:

I, for one, would be VERY INTERESTED in your follow-up work. Some folks have been asking me to post a review on your DVD product, but I hesitated, because I have incomplete information (information needed that the DVD does not provide). The demonstrations "go around" that missing piece, and while the product itself is fantastic (I mean that!), for someone that has NEVER implemented pivot-based aiming, I find myself viewing the DVD over and over and over again -- taking it to the table -- and finding out I'm relying more upon "feel" to make the pivots "work" than anything.

It's that origination point of the pivot that is not adequately described.

And btw, you need to stop discounting "math" and trying to erect a "visual-only" wall when describing this origination point. Different people think and view in different ways. You need to wrap your arms around your entire audience, and stop pointing at one or two individuals in that audience who "view things the same way you do." When putting your presentation together, think this way: "somebody may not be able to 'see' that visual relationship, so how do I describe it in a 'tangible' way?" Keep that question in mind throughout the entire presentation, all the way to the end.

I hope that makes sense. I come from a professional presentation background, so believe me, I've seen the gamut of people that see and react different ways when new information is put forth. They'll come at it from every different angle you can think of (and some you can't think of), because people are different.

I hope this is helpful.

BTW, if you ever need a confidential review of an "alpha" or "beta" version of your product before it hits the DVD presses -- feel free to give me a holler. I'll even sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) -- which I do in my line of work all the time.

Best,
-Sean

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

Also, the starting point at the cue ball is clear: 1/2 tip right or left of the cue ball core. The visuals in CTE PRO ONE give 2 fixed edges on a cue ball.
Thus the pivot starting point is exactly defined as 1/2 tip from the cue ball center.

Stan Shuffett

rhatten · Jan 10, 2013

Maybe the term "pivot" should simply be re-characterized to the word "reset" (readdress-realign) to account for everyone's unique differences (ie body heights, arm length differences, visual perspectives etc).

The word "Pivot" implies a rigid point of reference which is imo non sacrosanct to different human body form types (not to mention the intellectual differences and limitations between us all). Referencing a 'center body pivot point' as it relates to an imagined arc while remaining in a stooped posture truly can be a difficult reference for any author communicating to the masses.

Just "Reset".... not really that much clearer either on paper...

Randy

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

Patrick Johnson said:
This is obvious - and it's obvious that it's irrelevant because it never happens. The balls being at different locations on the table does not change the player's position in relation to the CTE line because the player initially aligns with the CTE line the same way for each shot.

And this is why I think you're *BOTH* being pedantic. Dave is describing a correct relationship aspect, and so are you. The difference is that Dave is discounting the fact that you initially step into the point of aim having already done your pivots, etc.; while you are "concreting" (if that's a word?) the fact that once you once you do your pivots and step into the line of aim, the balls DON'T MOVE and shouldn't move -- the point of "no return" has been reached.

Patrick Johnson said:
That's exactly the issue at hand here. JB Cases and cookie man claim that CTE's "robotic" system angles aren't limited to a handful of aim points (times 2 pivot directions each) because "the CTE line changes". But it only changes in relation to the table, not in relation to the player - and it must change in relation to the player in order to change the final shot solution.

pj
chgo

I do agree that if that exact verbiage -- the CTEL "changes" -- that it is a smoke-and-mirrors explanation for something else changing that they can't adequately describe. You are correct -- the CTEL is a mathematical constant, even as it rotates around the object ball in three dimensional fashion. The "edge of something aligned to the center of something else" is an algebraic constant.

I hope that Stan is able to "concretely" (there's that Sean-ism again?) describe these relationships in several different ways, so that the key concepts of how to perform the pivot are DEFINED and easily understood by multitudes of people -- and not just those who've already embraced pivot aiming.

-Sean

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
Stan:

I, for one, would be VERY INTERESTED in your follow-up work. Some folks have been asking me to post a review on your DVD product, but I hesitated, because I have incomplete information (information needed that the DVD does not provide). The demonstrations "go around" that missing piece, and while the product itself is fantastic (I mean that!), for someone that has NEVER implemented pivot-based aiming, I find myself viewing the DVD over and over and over again -- taking it to the table -- and finding out I'm relying more upon "feel" to make the pivots "work" than anything.

It's that origination point of the pivot that is not adequately described.

And btw, you need to stop discounting "math" and trying to erect a "visual-only" wall when describing this origination point. Different people think and view in different ways. You need to wrap your arms around your entire audience, and stop pointing at one or two individuals in that audience who "view things the same way you do." When putting your presentation together, think this way: "somebody may not be able to 'see' that visual relationship, so how do I describe it in a 'tangible' way?" Keep that question in mind throughout the entire presentation, all the way to the end.

I hope that makes sense. I come from a professional presentation background, so believe me, I've seen the gamut of people that see and react different ways when new information is put forth. They'll come at it from every different angle you can think of (and some you can't think of), because people are different.

I hope this is helpful.

BTW, if you ever need a confidential review of an "alpha" or "beta" version of your product before it hits the DVD presses -- feel free to give me a holler. I'll even sign an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) -- which I do in my line of work all the time.

Best,
-Sean

Sean,

I appreciate your work. I know that you are sincere in what you do and say.
Thank you for your review offer but I think I would need to be in your presence for the proper give and take.
I wish that I could get to you or you could make it my way. I would not hesitate to share my new understandings and to let you view my rough DVD work as to whatever phase I might be in.

For sure, CTE is not about language and math when it comes to the real CTE and the use of those strategies to explain It is a toughie at best.

Real CTE has object visuals that put the shooter a slight rotation away from the pocket/s. it is very simple. Jimmy Caras does this quite well in his 28 ball run that I referenced.

Stan Shuffett

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

stan shuffett said:
Also, the starting point at the cue ball is clear: 1/2 tip right or left of the cue ball core. The visuals in CTE PRO ONE give 2 fixed edges on a cue ball.
Thus the pivot starting point is exactly defined as 1/2 tip from the cue ball center.

Stan Shuffett

Ok Stan, it's not normal for me to get involved in these discussions, but I'll bite.

The description above is not sufficient. While the "half-tip from the cue ball center" is easy to understand, where -- around the entire circumference of the cue ball -- are you standing? I know about the "A/B/C" relationship -- but that is not enough. How does "A/B/C" translate to, say, a 65-degree cut angle on the object ball to the pocket" How about a 20-degree angle?

(Yes, this is what I mean by the "math" stuff -- some of us *DO* see those typos of mathematical relationships. You can't discount those people.)

-Sean

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

stan shuffett said:
Sean,

I appreciate your work. I know that you are sincere in what you do and say.
Thank you for your review offer but I think I would need to be in your presence for the proper give and take.
I wish that I could get to you or you could make it my way. I would not hesitate to share my new understandings and to let you view my rough DVD work as to whatever phase I might be in.

For sure, pool is not about language and math when it comes to real CTE and the use of those strategies to explain CTE is a toughie at best.

Real CTE has object visuals that put the shooter a slight rotation away from the pocket/s. it is very simple. Jimmy Caras does this quite well in his 28 ball run that I referenced.

Stan Shuffett

Sorry, Stan, but this is where you're going to FAIL AGAIN in the subsequent DVD release. You can't relegate those details to a "I have to show you in person" stance. You have to find a way to describe those, in terms, and with graphics on the DVD, to be able to fully offer a complete product.

I understand you offer lessons, and you don't want your DVD to undermine your lesson sales. But I'm just warning you what will happen if you release the DVD without those necessary details.

FYI, I would be DELIGHTED to take a lesson with you anyway -- irrespective of and completely in lieu of -- the DVD. In other words, for my own progression as a pool player. But not to "fill in the blanks" for the DVD. The DVD has to be a self-standing product, and not a "lead-in" for in-person lessons.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you have to "give up the farm" on the DVD. But it has to be complete enough, that a person with any background -- mathematical or otherwise -- to understand, and more advanced concepts -- e.g. how to use english with CTE -- offered as part of in-person lessons.

I hope you understand. I'm just being as sincerely constructive as I can.
-Sean

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
And this is why I think you're *BOTH* being pedantic. Dave is describing a correct relationship aspect, and so are you. The difference is that Dave is discounting the fact that you initially step into the point of aim having already done your pivots, etc.; while you are "concreting" (if that's a word?) the fact that once you once you do your pivots and step into the line of aim, the balls DON'T MOVE and shouldn't move -- the point of "no return" has been reached.

I do agree that if that exact verbiage -- the CTEL "changes" -- that it is a smoke-and-mirrors explanation for something else changing that they can't adequately describe. You are correct -- the CTEL is a mathematical constant, even as it rotates around the object ball in three dimensional fashion. The "edge of something aligned to the center of something else" is an algebraic constant.

I hope that Stan is able to "concretely" (there's that Sean-ism again?) describe these relationships in several different ways, so that the key concepts of how to perform the pivot are DEFINED and easily understood by multitudes of people -- and not just those who've already embraced pivot aiming.

-Sean[/QUOTE

Sean,

What will be clear on my DVD2 is that real CTE is of another dimension of aiming.

One to one work will always be superior to a DVD presentation but this new work will allow more and more to successfully engage.

I have said many times, TRUE KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM EXPERIENCE. I have no doubt that you will grasp this in time.

Stan Shuffett

Patrick Johnson · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
Dave is describing a correct relationship aspect

Correct for what? For an imaginary activity where the balls are moved while the player stands still? It doesn't happen.

...Dave is discounting the fact that you initially step into the point of aim having already done your pivots

Whenever you "do your pivots", there is no "new CTE line" that changes the shot alignment.

pj
chgo

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
Sorry, Stan, but this is where you're going to FAIL AGAIN in the subsequent DVD release. You can't relegate those details to a "I have to show you in person" stance. You have to find a way to describe those, in terms, and with graphics on the DVD, to be able to fully offer a complete product.

I understand you offer lessons, and you don't want your DVD to undermine your lesson sales. But I'm just warning you what will happen if you release the DVD without those necessary details.

FYI, I would be DELIGHTED to take a lesson with you anyway -- irrespective of and completely in lieu of -- the DVD. In other words, for my own progression as a pool player. But not to "fill in the blanks" for the DVD. The DVD has to be a self-standing product, and not a "lead-in" for in-person lessons.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you have to "give up the farm" on the DVD. But it has to be complete enough, that a person with any background -- mathematical or otherwise -- to understand, and more advanced concepts -- e.g. how to use english with CTE -- offered as part of in-person lessons.

I hope you understand. I'm just being as sincerely constructive as I can.
-Sean

Sean,

I understand what you are saying. My DVD2 will stand on its own. The necessary instructions and demos are there. CTE PRO ONE is what it is.
It requires some work and study at the table.

I have nothing to hide and will back up what is on the DVD. I will explain and demo for no charge to those that may be skeptical concerning this very controversial subject. That's my reason for offering home demos.

There is no one perfect cookie cutter set of instructions that is going to suit every one. This is not the quarters system.

This is using your eyes in a very different manner than typical aiming. My instructions for that are Included. CTE is different, particularly at first.
For sure, it's places one on a different plane for aiming.

DVD#2 should put any one on the right path if they want it.
All of the pieces of the puzzle will be present for the first time.

The biggest hurdle is that students of CTE can't let go of how they want it to work. It is not GB or CP or the quarters system.

Stan Shuffett

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

Patrick Johnson said:
Correct for what? For an imaginary activity where the balls are moved while the player stands still? It doesn't happen.

Whenever you "do your pivots", there is no "new CTE line" that changes the shot alignment.

pj
chgo

In the process of proving your point, Pat, you're also proving mine.

Yes, the CTEL NEVER changes -- as long as the balls don't move, the center of one aligned to the edge of the other never changes -- we get that. And yes, if your body moves, as long as the balls don't move, the CTEL has not changed relative to the surface of the table. Obviously, if you throw the table way -- but keep the balls suspended in air (in space) -- you can rotate that CTEL around the entire circumference of the object ball.

I think the issue is that some folks may be thinking complete unrestricted 3D space, while others are affixing 3D onto a 2D plane. I.e. if you move your head left or right over the shot line, the "observed" CTEL has just rotated a bit "under" the object ball slightly -- slightly under the left if you move your head to the left, and slightly under the right if you move your head to the right. In relation to the surface of the table, yes, by moving your head left or right, the "observed" CTEL *has* moved -- but it's only a visual movement, not a mathematical one.

The key word here, I think, is "observed" CTEL.

Thoughts?
-Sean

stan shuffett · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
Sorry, Stan, but this is where you're going to FAIL AGAIN in the subsequent DVD release. You can't relegate those details to a "I have to show you in person" stance. You have to find a way to describe those, in terms, and with graphics on the DVD, to be able to fully offer a complete product.

I understand you offer lessons, and you don't want your DVD to undermine your lesson sales. But I'm just warning you what will happen if you release the DVD without those necessary details.

FYI, I would be DELIGHTED to take a lesson with you anyway -- irrespective of and completely in lieu of -- the DVD. In other words, for my own progression as a pool player. But not to "fill in the blanks" for the DVD. The DVD has to be a self-standing product, and not a "lead-in" for in-person lessons.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying you have to "give up the farm" on the DVD. But it has to be complete enough, that a person with any background -- mathematical or otherwise -- to understand, and more advanced concepts -- e.g. how to use english with CTE -- offered as part of in-person lessons.

I hope you understand. I'm just being as sincerely constructive as I can.
-Sean

Sean,

My offer for a visit was for your editing input, not to convince you it can work by my personal demo. I would appreciate having an extra head such as yours for editing.
But if we were together, it would only be logical to do some table demos to bring you up to speed for editing purposes.

I have lots of evidence in many, many ways that DVD1 was successful.

Stan Shuffett

sfleinen · Jan 10, 2013

stan shuffett said:
Sean,

My offer for a visit was for your editing input, not to convince you it can work by my personal demo. I would appreciate having an extra head such as yours for editing.
But if we were together, it would only be logical to do some table demos to bring you up to speed for editing purposes.

I have lots of evidence in many, many ways that DVD1 was successful.

Stan Shuffett

Stan:

Ahhh, concerning the bolded above, now that's a different story. All too often, "invites" such as this are really "see? I did describe it on the DVD correctly -- you're just a bonehead for not understanding it out of the chute. DVD will be unchanged." Yes, believe it or not, I was asked to "review" a large networking company's documentation, and when I suggested my edits, they were shot down, "showing me" why I didn't understand the original text out of the chute. In other words, a defensive "knee jerk" reaction.

I would be honored to do something this for you. The issue is travel, and my personal situation (I'll fill you in offline).

-Sean

Patrick Johnson · Jan 10, 2013

sfleinen said:
In the process of proving your point, Pat, you're also proving mine.

Glad to help, but I still don't know what your point is.

...if you move your head left or right over the shot line, the "observed" CTEL has just rotated a bit "under" the object ball slightly

The CTE line doesn't prompt you to move your head - other visual clues about the shot do that. The "observed CTE line" is only different because you've already changed your alignment for the shot. It's a side effect, not a cause.

pj
chgo

the basis of

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

AzB Silver Member

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

AzB Silver Member

Fish of the Day

AzB Silver Member

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

AzB Silver Member

14.1 & One Pocket Addict

Fish of the Day