A CTE Video follow up from Stan

BC21 said:
Yep. No doubt that the perception gets you in the ball park, very close to the correct line. From there it's experience/judgement, and it's no surprise that better players have more experience and better judgement.

I'm discovering some very interesting mathematical occurrences with Hal's CTE manual pivots. It's fun, good brain exercise, like working sudoku puzzles. :D
Click to expand...

You keep saying that, like it's supposed to be true or something. And then you act all surprised when people get upset with you.
 
lfigueroa said:
And yet, despite already being great, Max Eberle fully embraced the idea that the Earth is flat... hmmm...

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Not the same thing and you know it. But you couldn't pass up a chance to call us crazy, could you?
 
BC21 said:
He was called a pool prodigy back when he was 7. He was on Ripley's believe it or not and the David Letterman show. By the time he was 10, about when Stan began to start working with Hal Houle's CTE, Landon was already considered one of the most talented child pool players in the country. He had already won numerous tournaments. Stan was also a pro-caliber player. They are both very talented, and their skills and talent supersede CTE. In other words, CTE is not the reason they play great pool. They were great before CTE. It must be in their genes. Lol
Click to expand...

I dont think it's a matter of talent, especially with Stan, because he himself said he was cinching balls in at the open tournament he won. CTE allowed him a method to not guess, therefore no more cinching.

Cinching = struggling

Hardly a sign of talent. Just trying to make a point and be objective as possible. Keith mcready to me, sounds like a case of talent. I think it's important to distinguish what true talent is for any endeavor.

Buddy Rich was talented, guys like neil pert are hard workers. Neil admitted he can never match the talent of buddy. That's why, and im sure you can distinguish this by ear, if you heard both play, but not see who was playing the same beat, you could tell which one was buddy vs neil.

Like I said, just trying to make a point, just like the word "hero", talent gets thrown around too much. Perhaps the better word for Stan is ability. Perhaps the ability to be obsessed and never burn out is a talent, so then Stan is in fact talented.

Then there's the next level and I been accused of this and that word is psychotic.

WHERE DAT ORCOLLO AT MANGGG?!!
 
BC21 said:
He was called a pool prodigy back when he was 7. He was on Ripley's believe it or not and the David Letterman show. By the time he was 10, about when Stan began to start working with Hal Houle's CTE, Landon was already considered one of the most talented child pool players in the country. He had already won numerous tournaments. Stan was also a pro-caliber player. They are both very talented, and their skills and talent supersede CTE. In other words, CTE is not the reason they play great pool. They were great before CTE. It must be in their genes. Lol
Click to expand...

Yet Stan in all his wisdom, decided to go ahead and teach Landon CTE. And Landon's game jumped a few notches because of it.After all the difference in being just a bit better can make all the difference in the world. It's a pretty good story how it all came about.
 
BC21 said:
Yep. No doubt that the perception gets you in the ball park, very close to the correct line. From there it's experience/judgement, and it's no surprise that better players have more experience and better judgement.

I'm discovering some very interesting mathematical occurrences with Hal's CTE manual pivots. It's fun, good brain exercise, like working sudoku puzzles. :D
Click to expand...

Not close, EXACT
 
cookie man said:
Yet Stan in all his wisdom, decided to go ahead and teach Landon CTE. And Landon's game jumped a few notches because of it.After all the difference in being just a bit better can make all the difference in the world. It's a pretty good story how it all came about.
Click to expand...

I agree.....a little better is always a good thing, regardless of prior skill level. Hitting several hundred balls a day for several years can boost any game into excellence, regardless of which method of pocketing balls is being practiced.
 
cookie man said:
Not close, EXACT
Click to expand...

The perception gives you a specific CCB perspective, or shot line. This isn't the solution for the shot. It's close.
From there you determine if this CCB line looks thin or thick. If it looks thick, you use an inside pivot to thin it up. Align inside this shot line from a 1/2 tip offset and then pivot to the final CCB solution. If it looks thin, you align your offset on the outside of the CCB shot line and pivot to the final CCB solution, thickening up the initial perception of the shot.
 
BC21 said:
The perception gives you a specific CCB perspective, or shot line. This isn't the solution for the shot. It's close.
From there you determine if this CCB line looks thin or thick. If it looks thick, you use an inside pivot to thin it up. Align inside this shot line from a 1/2 tip offset and then pivot to the final CCB solution. If it looks thin, you align your offset on the outside of the CCB shot line and pivot to the final CCB solution, thickening up the initial perception of the shot.
Click to expand...

... and if it looks just right then you did something wrong, according to the CTE experts in the forum.
 
Neil said:
Not the same thing and you know it. But you couldn't pass up a chance to call us crazy, could you?
Click to expand...


What I couldn’t pass up pointing out was that great players can believe all kinds of things and that being a great player does not automatically confer logic or scienctific substantiation to whatever it is they might believe. Great players have said there’s no such thing as throw, or that the way to make a ball frozen to the rail is to hit the ball and rail simultaneously, that they can make OBs curve, or that a particular grip can change the behavior of the CB.

A good player can poke a ball around a cloth covered surface with a wooden stick. That does not make them the next Nobel Prize winner.

Lou Figueroa
 
Dan White said:
... and if it looks just right then you did something wrong, according to the CTE experts in the forum.
Click to expand...

BC21 has mentioned this fake news also. I know it's fake news because he has been asked to post up the shot that looks just right and can't. Crickets
 
BC21 said:
The perception gives you a specific CCB perspective, or shot line. This isn't the solution for the shot. It's close.
From there you determine if this CCB line looks thin or thick. If it looks thick, you use an inside pivot to thin it up. Align inside this shot line from a 1/2 tip offset and then pivot to the final CCB solution. If it looks thin, you align your offset on the outside of the CCB shot line and pivot to the final CCB solution, thickening up the initial perception of the shot.
Click to expand...

The perception gives you a fixed CB. You can keep saying "it's close" all you want, doesn't make it true. I hear poolology gets you close, but then you have to figure out the rest.
 
BC21 said:
I agree.....a little better is always a good thing, regardless of prior skill level. Hitting several hundred balls a day for several years can boost any game into excellence, regardless of which method of pocketing balls is being practiced.
Click to expand...

Except Landon doesn't do that. He is a well rounded young man with a very busy life.
 
cookie man said:
The perception gives you a fixed CB. You can keep saying "it's close" all you want, doesn't make it true. I hear poolology gets you close, but then you have to figure out the rest.
Click to expand...

From this fixed cue ball perspective, looking straight through CCB, you must decide to thin or thicken the shot. This means the solution isn't the fixed CB line. According to Stan (and every CTE user except for you), the solution is either slighty left or right of that initial fixed CB line, which means it's close.

Poolology is not comparable to CTE -- apple to oranges, as Stan would say. However, knowing which fractional relationship is needed to pocket the ball can be a great tool for gaging that initial fixed CCB line in CTE, or for double-checking the final CCB solution before pulling the trigger. Using different systems together, like tools from a toolbox, is a good use of knowledge.
 
cookie man said:
Except Landon doesn't do that. He is a well rounded young man with a very busy life.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that. We're all very busy. I sometimes feel that no one can be as busy as I am when it comes to juggling time, but I know that's not true. Everyone, unless glued to the TV or computer or couch, could use a few more hours throughout the week. Landon seems to have a good head on his shoulders, like his dad, and is pursuing a college education. That's excellent.
 
cookie man said:
BC21 has mentioned this fake news also. I know it's fake news because he has been asked to post up the shot that looks just right and can't. Crickets
Click to expand...


With countless possibilities of CB to OB relationships, It stands to reason that occasionally the perception line (fixed CB perspective) will look good without needing thinned or thickened. It's far-fetched to believe that's never likely to happen.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top