The Hal Houle Post

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Einstein had nothing on you when it comes to math. I could care less. The math wizards here have also claimed and shown with their 2D drawings how various shots with CTE couldn't possibly be made and impossible because the math didn't show it.

Like I said earlier...put your math to 90/90 and tell me how it works as well as why 90/90 DOESN'T work because the math says so. Or tell me how the math works on an angled cue.

Btw, I forgot about this. One of the top women pro players of all time ordered a CTE DVD set to learn from and try to incorporate into her play. So it does happen.

Any pro players order Poolology? Oh, that's right. Only Amazon knows so there must have been hundreds. LMAO.

I'm not talking about CTE and math. I'm talking about how the balls can be shifted a little from any particular shot and yet the same aim can still send the ob into the pocket. The fact that you don't know how to calculate this means nothing. The fact that I do know how to calculate it and show it on paper means nothing. All that matters is physically doing it. That's all the proof anyone needs.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
They do have to be making sure they're using the EXACT dead center of the FAT CB to line it up to whatever fraction they're aiming at. No easy task at all. That could be off by 1/8" from eye position, tip placement, or distortion.

Every cb is "fixed", as Stan would say. But you don't have to use CTE perceptions to get a "fixed" ccb. There is always a fixed left edge and a fixed right edge, and the center is right in the middle. From any perspective this is true, with or without an ob or a distant target. So it's really not a complicated task, finding ccb, and certainly not a great mystery that needs solved.

What a player needs is a consistent and accurate stroke delivery. Aligning that stroke through ccb to any point in the distance is a very easy task, whether it's toward a spot on the rail, a fractional aim point, or a ghostball. With CTE there is no distant point that you aim ccb toward, but you still have to have a consistent and accurate stroke delivery.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
Isn’t interesting that there is description of how the balls are located on the table and what pocket is to be used. Simple to draw.

Next comes the answer line up a and b. Another line could be used to represent the stick and its pivot.

Seems simple to put those points on the drawing with the ball table locations.

So why isn’t it done?

I’d like to see pocket reducers to make the opening just enough for a ball to enter. Then do this same visual for two cut shots in same pocket.

Margin error is the only reason CTE works and allows for the same visual to be used on two shots.

Until you can draw the steps that are used to described to CTE, it’s all bullshit.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I'm not talking about CTE and math. I'm talking about how the balls can be shifted a little from any particular shot and yet the same aim can still send the ob into the pocket. The fact that you don't know how to calculate this means nothing. The fact that I do know how to calculate it and show it on paper means nothing. All that matters is physically doing it. That's all the proof anyone needs.

We've been saying this for two decades and got attacked without mercy. Now it's OK since you're saying it?

There's more to it than just pocket size and fudge factor. It's based on the eyes and initial body alignment between the two. Completely different visuals.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Every cb is "fixed", as Stan would say. But you don't have to use CTE perceptions to get a "fixed" ccb. There is always a fixed left edge and a fixed right edge, and the center is right in the middle. From any perspective this is true, with or without an ob or a distant target. So it's really not a complicated task, finding ccb, and certainly not a great mystery that needs solved.

The player fixes the CB with judgement for all feel systems like fractions.
The CTE process fixes the CB for the player all the way down to one CCB tick minus any judgement.


What a player needs is a consistent and accurate stroke delivery. Aligning that stroke through ccb to any point in the distance is a very easy task, whether it's toward a spot on the rail, a fractional aim point, or a ghostball. With CTE there is no distant point that you aim ccb toward, but you still have to have a consistent and accurate stroke delivery.


I guess you're switching gears here but a consistent accurate stroke delivery goes without saying. Stroke is a whole other animal.

But there are a lot of variations with the stroke that I don't want to get into.

How does one copy and explain Bustamante's stroke and emulate it?

How is it incorporated into the initial aim and alignment?

How is Buddy Hall's and other great players strokes explained with tuck and roll?

Nope, not going there.
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Isn’t interesting that there is description of how the balls are located on the table and what pocket is to be used. Simple to draw.

Next comes the answer line up a and b. Another line could be used to represent the stick and its pivot.

Seems simple to put those points on the drawing with the ball table locations.

So why isn’t it done?

I’d like to see pocket reducers to make the opening just enough for a ball to enter. Then do this same visual for two cut shots in same pocket.

Margin error is the only reason CTE works and allows for the same visual to be used on two shots.

Until you can draw the steps that are used to described to CTE, it’s all bullshit.

Stan says every perception and sweep/pivot sends the ob toward center pocket, and the same perception and pivot can make multiple shot angles. So, according to his theory, you can make so many angled shots with a 15-inside, each going center pocket, but eventually you reach an angle that misses the pocket entirely, and so a thinner perception must be used in order to connect to that center pocket again. This theory suggests that even at the limits of a particular perception, the ob goes center pocket, but then move the ball over another fraction of inch and it'll miss the pocket entirely. But the next perception will hit center pocket from there.

This is not reality, but many believe it nonetheless. It's also why I am no longer arguing with Stan/Connie or any CTE user about the actual workings of the system. They believe what they believe, and I know what I know. It's like trying to yell a tone deaf person that their guitar is out of tune, and they keep telling you it's not. It's a waste of time to keep arguing about it.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
Stan says every perception and sweep/pivot sends the ob toward center pocket, and the same perception and pivot can make multiple shot angles. So, according to his theory, you can make so many angled shots with a 15-inside, each going center pocket, but eventually you reach an angle that misses the pocket entirely, and so a thinner perception must be used in order to connect to that center pocket again. This theory suggests that even at the limits of a particular perception, the ob goes center pocket, but then move the ball over another fraction of inch and it'll miss the pocket entirely. But the next perception will hit center pocket from there.

This is not reality, but many believe it nonetheless. It's also why I am no longer arguing with Stan/Connie or any CTE user about the actual workings of the system. They believe what they believe, and I know what I know. It's like trying to yell a tone deaf person that their guitar is out of tune, and they keep telling you it's not. It's a waste of time to keep arguing about it.

No, you're not arguing directly with Stan or Connie but there you are arguing your distorted views openly with duckie based on what Stan has said in the past and now in his absence. NICE! You're a real Prince and man of your word.

I thought you said you have a lot on your plate right now. I would never have guessed it based on you time here this morning. Must be a tiny tea cup plate.
 
Last edited:

duckie

GregH
Silver Member
I’ve been running through a list of aiming methods to see which ones do not have any kind of drawing to help describe the method.

Fractional........drawing

Double Distance.......drawing

Contact Point .....drawing

Ghostball.......drawing

Poolology ........drawing

Parallel...........drawing.

So it appears CTE is so unique that only words can describe it , but drawings can’t.


Interesting.......
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
It actually has more to do with the results than drawings. Like these:

Current Pro Players and top US Amateur Players in the US using CTE:

Tyler Styer (2 time Mosconi Cup)
Stevie Moore
Hunter Lombardo
Brandon Shuff
Matt Krah
Phil Buford
Gerry Williams https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=321301 (Check his videos and scores for the Billiard University Exam by Dr. Dave)
Duke Laha
Stan Shuffett


US AMATEUR PLAYERS: (winners and top 10)
Brian Parks (He is a three time APA 9-ball singles champion, five time U.S. Amateur Champion (only person ever to win five)
Robert Frost
James Roberts
Dave Stem (one of the favorite posters and top amateur on this forum)
Landon Shuffett

Any list of current names for the ARROW?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
We've been saying this for two decades and got attacked without mercy. Now it's OK since you're saying it?

There's more to it than just pocket size and fudge factor. It's based on the eyes and initial body alignment between the two. Completely different visuals.

I understand. But I was talking about fractional aiming. You say a particular fractional aim only works for one shot angle, and I'm saying you can move the cb or ob an inch or so one way or another and use the same fractional aim to pocket the ball cleanly. An inch difference on ob placement results in less than 1° change in shot angle from half table.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
No, you're not arguing directly with Stan or Connie but there you are arguing your distorted views openly with duckie based on what Stan has said in the past and now in his absence. NICE! You're a real Prince and man of your word.

I thought you said you have a lot on your plate right now. I would never have guessed it based on you time here this morning. Must be a tiny tea cup plate.

It's snowing. Lol. I'm bored. And besides, you bring out the best in me.:thumbup:

Seriously though, I'll stop. I know you're just yanking my chain. Peace out.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I understand. But I was talking about fractional aiming. You say a particular fractional aim only works for one shot angle, and I'm saying you can move the cb or ob an inch or so one way or another and use the same fractional aim to pocket the ball cleanly. An inch difference on ob placement results in less than 1° change in shot angle from half table.

That's fine. But those NOT in the know (aka naysayers) don't believe ANYTHING will work with the simple let alone with the wide variances of CTE. We know better though.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
It's snowing. Lol. I'm bored. And besides, you bring out the best in me.:thumbup:

Seriously though, I'll stop. I know you're just yanking my chain. Peace out.

Glad you said that. If DW was here he'd be screaming bloody murder behind the scenes for my forever ouster.:rolleyes:
 

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How many pros bought Stan's DVDs? Lol. I bet zero.

Stan has been an instructor for many many years, and was also a pro player, so it's no surprise that he has pros that come to him for lessons. Pros are just like the rest of us, always looking for anything to get an edge on their competition.

I'm not an instructor, and don't claim to be, so there is no one lining up to take lessons. Poolology is a book to help players develop a good eye for pocketing balls. It's that simple. Pros don't need it. Just as pros don't need halftip pivots or sweeps. They do, however, benefit from reinforcing their PSR, which I believe is what they get out of CTE. I could be wrong of course. It makes no difference to me.

And I have never played in the US Amateur tournament. Never wanted to spend the money or waste vacation time that could be used with my family.

Aranas is a worldclass player. I got out the first rack. Then later in the set played a poorly executed saftety on a one ball, then in another game missed a one ball. He ran out every time. Great guy, great player.

And yes, you are being more civil, now that you've had a long vacation from here. No feelings hurt one bit.


Point of Information: what kind of tables do they use at the US Amateur?

Lou Figueroa
carry on
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do we know what brand is used at the main event?

Lou Figueroa

Tables i'm assuming you are asking about. Strokers has 2 diamond tables, 3 gold crowns, and 9 others. Not sure of the brand but can easily find out. Thinking older Robertson's but not sure.
 
Top