Stan shuffet and cte pro one

hogie583 said:

I like this video https://youtu.be/AMmmhtZqA1U ! It helped with my manual pivots getting there... listen closely at the 3.09 mark but watch the whole video. Stan has been making these videos explaining how to get there manually. He's been constantly refining the vids. This one connected with me from pivot to ccb manual. Hope this one helps some. When you guys watch these videos really listen and pay attention to the content of the topic! Its not always about a manual pivot its not always about the sweep. Sometimes its a contrast between the two. But this video helped with manual sighting down the shaft then pivot to center and shaft perceived to aim point.
Some like to say but he said this and he said that. Well you just got to compare apples to apples. So what I do if I'm watching a video and I'm confused about something. I will go to the previous video and watch it. Or if the video I'm watching is in a series I will go to that first video in that series and watch the whole thing unfold and it's really helped. If your learning manual pivots stick to the manual pivoting information! Dont be sweeping! If your sweeping dont be manually pivoting! Stans provided tons of info. Try not to confuse the topic of the video with what your working on. This will really help if you want to learn. Its building blocks fundamentals. Its visual building blocks. Then taking your visuals building your manual pivot step by step. Understanding what you just built. Then move to sweeps. Learn what your eyes do and how to see. The info is different from manual to sweeping.. dont confuse the two! When you hear a contrast video its just what it says a Contrast.
From my understanding from what been said on the forum... This new Truth series will be more refined. So do yourselfs a favor manual pivots has its own set of rules. Sweeps has its own set of rules. If your beyond sweeps and manual pivot another set of rules! But its visuals and manual first! Hope this helps. Crawl before you walk walk before you run!

Click to expand...

hogie583 said:

I like this video https://youtu.be/AMmmhtZqA1U ! It helped with my manual pivots getting there... listen closely at the 3.09 mark but watch the whole video. Stan has been making these videos explaining how to get there manually. He's been constantly refining the vids. This one connected with me from pivot to ccb manual. Hope this one helps some. When you guys watch these videos really listen and pay attention to the content of the topic! Its not always about a manual pivot its not always about the sweep. Sometimes its a contrast between the two. But this video helped with manual sighting down the shaft then pivot to center and shaft perceived to aim point.
Some like to say but he said this and he said that. Well you just got to compare apples to apples. So what I do if I'm watching a video and I'm confused about something. I will go to the previous video and watch it. Or if the video I'm watching is in a series I will go to that first video in that series and watch the whole thing unfold and it's really helped. If your learning manual pivots stick to the manual pivoting information! Dont be sweeping! If your sweeping dont be manually pivoting! Stans provided tons of info. Try not to confuse the topic of the video with what your working on. This will really help if you want to learn. Its building blocks fundamentals. Its visual building blocks. Then taking your visuals building your manual pivot step by step. Understanding what you just built. Then move to sweeps. Learn what your eyes do and how to see. The info is different from manual to sweeping.. dont confuse the two! When you hear a contrast video its just what it says a Contrast.
From my understanding from what been said on the forum... This new Truth series will be more refined. So do yourselfs a favor manual pivots has its own set of rules. Sweeps has its own set of rules. If your beyond sweeps and manual pivot another set of rules! But its visuals and manual first! Hope this helps. Crawl before you walk walk before you run!

Click to expand...

nobcitypool said:

Watch Bustamante sometime. I don't think he ever lines up his shaft on center cue ball but appears to often hit center CB (or closer to it) when he actually strokes. Stan is so proficient with CTE, he can use an angled cue as well to mask that he's playing with CTE.

Click to expand...

8pack said:

Are you saying it's neither one?

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

Excellent post.
You're a wise man......and probably a skillful and dangerous player. (the kind I want to stay away from)
As for myself, I'm a 'bargain hunter'. :smile: I want the opponent to be drunk, depressed, desperate, loaded with money, and scared to death.......then I might think I've got the best of it.
Your positions are well stated and there's a lot to be said for all of it. If they work for you and you're booking mostly winners, then that's all that really matters over the long run.
Stay happy and healthy..............and always sweet talk 'em into raising the bet when they're on the ropes. :yeah:

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Not a good example. This is the exact shot that I pointed out before as not being a ,"half ball hit". So many here want to talk about actually taking it to the table, so let's do that with this exact shot. Position the balls exactly how Stan has them, both balls on the long center line, CB 1 diamond from head string and OB 1/2 a diamond beyond center table. Now shoot this shot very firm, a stun shot, as Stan does each time. The OB will always hit the end rail. This is because the shot is thinner than a half ball hit, more like a 3/8 hit, especially when stunning it. It's the same shot Dan White analyzed with the Coach's Eye app here: https://youtu.be/wpljeVvOqRs

It's obvious there's outside spin being applied to make the shot hit the pocket. Set it up and try it yourself, using a firm stun stroke like Stan demonstrates in the video.

I only point this out because it's discrepancies like this that make learning difficult. It's hard to imitate a guy that isn't doing exactly what he says he's doing. This is easily discovered by taking it to the table. The math proves it also. Based on the distance between CB and OB, and the 1/2 tip offset pivot to CCB from what looks like an 8 to 10 inch bridge, the CB is sent about 1.5° thinner into the OB. Stan says the inside pivot has his CCB lined straight to the edge of the OB for a 30° cut. This is enough info to calculate all three angles provided by his 15° Perception. The perception line itself (the initial CCB before thinning or thickening) would produce a cut angle near 16°. This won't work, so he thins it with an inside pivot than increases the cut angle to 30°. An outside pivot would thicken the cut angle to about 3.3°. To successfully pocket the ball (without spinning it in) the cut needs to be closer to 35°.

Click to expand...

cookie man said:

Alright just took it to the table. I drilled several shots as you wanted, center pocket, No problems.
Brian you are still barking up the wrong tree so to speak. I never worry about bridge length. I never think about angles. I just concentrate on perceptions. .

Click to expand...

BC21 said:

Please provide a video of you shooting the exact shot Stan shoots in that link above. Don't use CTE, aim straight at the edge of the OB, a half-ball hit, as Stan explains. There is no way the ball hits the pocket unless you spin it with outside or have 9" pockets. I should add that I can pocket the ball using CTE, with a 15-inside or a 30-outside....both work. But my final CCB is not pointing at the ob edge. It's pointing outside the edge. Trying to figure it out using this particular vid, where Stan specifically says his CCB solution is a dead 1/2 ball aim line, well, no wonder I couldn't get it to work. I thought my perception was wrong because my final CCB wasn't pointed at ob edge. That was my point to Hogie583.?

Click to expand...

paultex said:

Well, the fact is, I am setting up as to what I believe is the complete formula and aproach to tackle what is already there and I must admit I am well on my way and now it's just a matter of retaining what I call now as "alignment awareness" and as of last night, I retained it through knowing much better now as what to see.

I "see it" even in a efren video that I will post but I want to watch it again to make sure there is a difference between the two players and not just a camera illusion.

I will report back and if im correct, I will post the video and ask you specifically or anyone else if interested and I would like for you to say if you see the same thing as opposed to Efrens opponent.

What i am referring to will be clear if and when I report and post the video. It is quite strange and perhaps it's just me who "sees it" and if so, I will find this obviously interesting from my point of view and how it ties to my progressions. I am very close now to completing the first leg of my journey which is multiple attack angles of a given shotline and the necessary visuals and alignment to achieve it. It has been hell and still is and I have so much work still to do but I estimate 1 more month to complete execution of alignment awareness and the sequences required to execute basically any shot with any spin from 3 sides of the cueball, left, center and right. 3 attack angles per side.

100% cueball command or what I believe should be complete because it's there and seems obvious to me it must be attained to achieve a higher known level. It has nothing to do with my invention or wishes, I am simply stating what I clearly see as "there".

Off to the tables. Have a nice day. Thanks.

Click to expand...

hogie583 said:

Its hard to tell... watch the eyes and head of the shooter.. these guys are so good its hard to tell what they are doing for sure. They also keep there secrets secrets! Lol

Click to expand...

8pack said:

I've seen many players line up off center of the cb. Mostly from habbit..some actually think there center cb.
Why would Stan mask what he's doing?

Click to expand...

Low500 said:

That's a pretty good question.
If he actually told somebody what he was doing they wouldn't believe it anyway.
Example: My father was a pro close-up magician for cocktail parties and hospitality suites. He'd perform the classic cups and balls and end up with 3 irish potatoes under the cups.
The audience would go wild..."How did you do that" "How did you do that".
And he would merely say....."I stuck 'em under there when you weren't looking".
You guessed it.......nobody believed him.
I wonder also why Stan would mask the technique...none of the big shots think it works anyway. They call him names and snicker, etc. etc. :shrug:
:thumbup:

Click to expand...

BeiberLvr said:

I think it has to be one


Just saying you can’t prove which exactly

Click to expand...

cookie man said:

Ok so i'll admit it might not be an exact half ball hit. But what does that matter?
I haven't thought about a half ball hit since i started with CTE. It just does not matter. The perception matters, that's all.
You even said it, the 15 and 30 work. Move on. The video is still a great video that people reference.

Click to expand...

hogie583 said:

So much for prepivot looking straight 100 percet down the shaft then pivot to center and my cue perceived at the contact point!

Im only concerned with Stans Cte methods. If he is contrasting to make his point so be it. I dont look for half ball hits anymore. This ya but its not a half ball hit argument is just crazy and your just missing the whole point of all the videos. He's teaching cte visuals and manual pivots. Other videos he teaches the sweep. Other videos he teaches check your sweeps with a manual pivot to get your sweeps right. To try and argue CTE from a fractional standpoint is just downright crazy it's not Apples to Apples. CTE Stan can contrast with a fractional reference to make a point because he understands both systems 100% completely. Fractional guys can't make any contrast of cte because they only speak of a fractional knowledge. They don't know cte and its language. They just muddy the waters and disrupt every damn thread that anything to do with Cte. Here's the kicker the mods here let it happen! There is boatloads of information on CTE within this forum and it's all muddied up and it takes too long to decipher. You know it's really too bad because it really is a good/great system. AZ could have had all this information in one nice neat little place! It would be really nice to have CTE discussion where everybody speaking the same language.... Even learning the language so you can engage in CTE discussions. CTE has its own rules. Ghost ball has its own rules. Fractional aiming has its own rules its own language. Samba has its own rules its own language the list goes on. 9090 has its own rules has its own language. Shish kabob has its own language has its own rules! See my point! So what the hell are you doing in Cte discussions speaking from a Fractional standpoint. A bunch of us have tried to show you the CTE language the visual rules the damn steps. Its been explained several different ways many times. Cte aiming is JUST what it is CTE . A three-dimensional way of Aiming. Taught from a visual offset. Not a fractional offset not a ghost ball offset. A visual Cte offset. If you dont want to engage in the rules/visual/steps of cte find another class to disrupt. Thanks mods for letting this happen.

Click to expand...

hogie583 said:

So much for prepivot looking straight 100 percet down the shaft then pivot to center and my cue perceived at the contact point!

Im only concerned with Stans Cte methods. If he is contrasting to make his point so be it. I dont look for half ball hits anymore. This ya but its not a half ball hit argument is just crazy and your just missing the whole point of all the videos. He's teaching cte visuals and manual pivots. Other videos he teaches the sweep. Other videos he teaches check your sweeps with a manual pivot to get your sweeps right. To try and argue CTE from a fractional standpoint is just downright crazy it's not Apples to Apples. CTE Stan can contrast with a fractional reference to make a point because he understands both systems 100% completely. Fractional guys can't make any contrast of cte because they only speak of a fractional knowledge. They don't know cte and its language. They just muddy the waters and disrupt every damn thread that anything to do with Cte. Here's the kicker the mods here let it happen! There is boatloads of information on CTE within this forum and it's all muddied up and it takes too long to decipher. You know it's really too bad because it really is a good/great system. AZ could have had all this information in one nice neat little place! It would be really nice to have CTE discussion where everybody speaking the same language.... Even learning the language so you can engage in CTE discussions. CTE has its own rules. Ghost ball has its own rules. Fractional aiming has its own rules its own language. Samba has its own rules its own language the list goes on. 9090 has its own rules has its own language. Shish kabob has its own language has its own rules! See my point! So what the hell are you doing in Cte discussions speaking from a Fractional standpoint. A bunch of us have tried to show you the CTE language the visual rules the damn steps. Its been explained several different ways many times. Cte aiming is JUST what it is CTE . A three-dimensional way of Aiming. Taught from a visual offset. Not a fractional offset not a ghost ball offset. A visual Cte offset. If you dont want to engage in the rules/visual/steps of cte find another class to disrupt. Thanks mods for letting this happen.

Click to expand...