You and a couple others. And i know several hundred that get the same results as Mohrt and myself.
I haven't been upset with Stan since probably a few days after he wanted to slap me in the face. lol. I'm not wired that way. I've said it many times and will say it again since you can't seem to comprehend it -- if Stan's system did what he says it does I would become a bigger cheerleader than JB. I'd buy a dozen books and hand them out at the pool hall. It would be really neat if it worked objectively like a system like Poolology pretty much does. Good example. I used Brian's system and saw he had the goods. When you think of the most vocal supporters of Poolology who comes to mind? Exactly!
Not everything has to be a perfect fit in order to make a useful point or maybe lead you down a path to seeing things in a way you hadn't before. Your new BFF Brian makes irrelevant and stupid analogies to gitars and such all the time but I don't see you arguing with him. (Disclosure: insulting Brian is meant as good-natured ribbing. If his analogies were actually stupid I probably wouldn't say so
).
If it were really that transparent and obvious a problem then it wouldn't be a problem in the first place. You always act as if the answer is right there in front of us. That is clearly not the case and so it seems this is some kind of defense mechanism allowing you to continue to believe what you believe. Fine by me but don't insult those of us who are interested in ideas you want no part of.
I'll do it. By 30 outside with the new method I will be focusing on the opposite edge of the cb compared to the 30 inside.
Yes, and get your head behind that opposite edge. You know the phrase "poke your head out" lol
This isn't true anymore with the new book. Only a 30 degree perception uses the ob edge anymore. C'mon cookie try to keep up! (Sure hope I got that right).
No you are right, there are refinements that Stan has put in. But I learned initially using the outermost edge all the time and now using the outermost edge of the reference line still. Just trying to get you to make balls at this point so I was using the simplest way.
Have you gotten any results with playing around with the lasers? I would disagree with one thing, though. They are not 2D laser lines. You are seeing the lines in 3D with your eyes just like anything else. It's almost like you are trying to discount anything you find with the lasers by calling them 2D in advance.I have two green laser lines ordered, I’m going to do some tests with how the correct perception alignment compares to the 2D laser lines at various orientations. Maybe I’ll uncover something interesting
I understand. Maybe my comment was heavy handed. I still say the lines are not 2D because they are in 3D space (not on a piece of paper) and are simply highlighting the imaginary lines you are seeing out of each eye, or out of both eyes, or however you are setting up the lasers. If you can demonstrate anything you did with the lasers it would be interesting to see. A mixed bag might be telling you something. All results can tell you something. Sometimes the unexpected or disappointing ones tell you the most.
Two that I know of, PJ and myself. It's not really a fair thing to insinuate that people refuse to simply try it and would rather argue about it. Many in this forum have tried it off and on over the years so an invitation to try CTE now is kind of late to the game. I decided to get more involved in the newest iteration of CTE so that I could try and understand what is really going on with the method along with mohrt. morht's effort to "figure it out" is really what this thread has turned into. I hope he continues to show results of his trials and entertain all possible explanations.
The brain is supposed to take over and make the proper corrections automatically. What they don't say is whose or what's brain or even if it's reliable - as in up to your eyeballs action.
Anybody who thinks it must be “tried” to give it fair consideration doesn’t understand it. The truth has been obvious from the beginning.
I was going to as well, but wanted to give the theory a once over via Stan's vids beforehand. I quickly grew tried of the crap being handed to me for trying to understand the system, so stopped burning my time.
My only possible contention with your position on CTE is exactly what you or I mean when we say "it works" for someone. In my definition, CTE does not work but someone can still improve using CTE because it may be solving other issues that are impairing the player's ability to succeed. Those problems might also be solved in any other number of ways having nothing to do with CTE. Or, another way to look at it is my left pocket jelly bean aiming system. If a guy uses that system and works hard at it for a few months he will play better -- money back guarantee. Now, of course the jelly bean system doesn't work, but people can still improve doing it. The common thread is that it is the player making it work, not some magic perception or magic jelly bean thing... unless mohrt finds it, of course.
I think the investment required to try it out is near zero so I prefer to give it some practice simply to understand what the perceptions look like and get a feel for it. I think that allows me to ask more detailed questions in an effort to learn what is actually going on. Perceptions are tricky things so you never know... until you try it and then you really know. Another thought is that the reasons given for why it works are nonsensical but maybe something else interesting is happening. Trying it out might shed light on that. Well, like I said, the investment to try it is about zero, so why not?
I admire your willingness and patience to do that - you're having more productive conversation with a CTE user than I've ever had. I'm sure it won't uncover anything new, but good on you anyway.
