A real CTE shot for you to try.

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Maybe Dan used the wrong eye to get his perception when the ball set was farther away. And I'm not trying to be funny.

The difference between your vision center perspective and your left or right eye perspective is only around 1 to 2 degrees. This change in perspective could easily provide enough angle difference to make both shots work using the same visual references. You would just have to know how to use those references along with your vision options.
Again you are making tooo much sense.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Based on my short experience in attempting to discuss CTE theory. Just using a '?' is more than enough to receive a nasty or hateful comment...lol

Yeah...I understand completely. It's due to years of conditioning.

It's no different than questioning a devout religious person about their religious beliefs, or questioning a far left liberal or far rightwinger about their political beliefs. If the questioning is seen as challenging or confrontational, then responses will be a little defensive at first. People like to believe what they want to believe. We make things true in our minds. And when someone challenges something we believe to be true, it's natural to be defensive, to stand up for the beliefs you've accepted as truth.

When the same questions and ridicule continue for years and years, responders become conditioned to be overly defensive and suspicious of anyone who questions their beliefs. They tend to view any opposition as an "agenda" at work against their ideals. This holds true for every "truth" we believe in, whether it's related to sports, religion, politics, music, or whatever.

Being able to step back far enough to see both sides is a skill everyone should develop.
 
Maybe Dan used the wrong eye to get his perception when the ball set was farther away. And I'm not trying to be funny.

The difference between your vision center perspective and your left or right eye perspective is only around 1 to 2 degrees. This change in perspective could easily provide enough angle difference to make both shots work using the same visual references. You would just have to know how to use those references along with your vision options.
Why do you care?

How does one get their other non-'short wired' dominant eye to see things without closing their 'short wired' dominant eye & losing depth perception along with the perspective of that closed eye?

I have a serious question for you of which I would like a completely honest answers.

Do you think that Stan Shuffett's CTE is a "system" that dictates the center pocket shot line for every cut shot on the table?

I think you will be honest, but please be "completely" honest?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Maybe Dan used the wrong eye to get his perception when the ball set was farther away. And I'm not trying to be funny.

The difference between your vision center perspective and your left or right eye perspective is only around 1 to 2 degrees. This change in perspective could easily provide enough angle difference to make both shots work using the same visual references. You would just have to know how to use those references along with your vision options.


Why do you care?

How does one get their other non-'short wired' dominant eye to see things without closing their 'short wired' dominant eye & losing depth perception along with the perspective of that closed eye?

I have a serious question for you of which I would like a completely honest answers.

Do you think that Stan Shuffett's CTE is a "system" that dictates the center pocket shot line for every cut shot on the table?

I think you will be honest, but please be "completely" honest?

I care only in regard for helping others play better pool. What I don't care about is the 20yr war on whether or not CTE is objective or whether or not it works exactly as Stan describes it. I believe people are capable of reaching their own conclusions. I don't think pool players as mindless idiots in need of internet wizards to guide them one way or another when it comes to what might be beneficial to their game. That is something each player must discover for themselves.

Concerning how to use which eye to obtain the perspective you want or need.... I don't know how to do it, not do I care about learning how to do it.

And no, I don't think Stan's CTE provides a center pocket shot line for each shot. This is just my opinion, based on the fact that there are several CTE perceptions used, and each one has its limits. In other words, a 15 outside works to pocket a straight in shot. If you move the ob a little to the left or right, the 15 outside still works. If you move the ob too far left or right, the 15 outside will no longer work and a 15 inside must be used. That tells me that when using the 15 outside for each angle farther and farther away from straight in, the ob is landing farther and farther away from center pocket. And when the limit of the 15 outside is reached, it's time to change to a 15 inside.

I realize Stan and other CTE players will disagree with this, but I don't care. They've conditioned to believe what they want, and I have been conditioned to believe what I want. It means nothing to me that we believe different things. It's not something I feel the need to argue about because it's irrelevant to me.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
How does one get their other non-'short wired' dominant eye to see things without closing their 'short wired' dominant eye & losing depth perception along with the perspective of that closed eye?

Oh.. .meant to correct this the day.. A dominate eye is not "short wired". It just relays visual data better and more accurately than the non-dominant eye. In fact, sometimes, depending on what you're looking at, and the angle of perspective, your non-dominate eye will work better than your usually dominate eye.

It has nothing to do with the optical connections of each eye. The dominant eye effect is solely related to the neurons in the visual cortex of the brain. For different visual tasks, the neurons typically prefer information from one eye or another, and this preferential treatment is what develops eye dominance.

When the same eye happens to be used more often, that eye creates more neural connections to the brain, and therefore becomes our dominate eye.
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And no, I don't think Stan's CTE provides a center pocket shot line for each shot. This is just my opinion, based on the fact that there are several CTE perceptions used, and each one has its limits. In other words, a 15 outside works to pocket a straight in shot. If you move the ob a little to the left or right, the 15 outside still works. If you move the ob too far left or right, the 15 outside will no longer work and a 15 inside must be used. That tells me that when using the 15 outside for each angle farther and farther away from straight in, the ob is landing farther and farther away from center pocket. And when the limit of the 15 outside is reached, it's time to change to a 15 inside.

I realize Stan and other CTE players will disagree with this, but I don't care. They've conditioned to believe what they want, and I have been conditioned to believe what I want. It means nothing to me that we believe different things. It's not something I feel the need to argue about because it's irrelevant to me.
Yea i would disagree. With your thinking shouldn't center center be the baseline for a center pocket shot. I get where you think what you posted is logically correct and i agree it seems like that. But the simple fact is all the perceptions lead to center pocket. When i first started i would have totally agreed with your post, experience has taught me otherwise.
 
I care only in regard for helping others play better pool. What I don't care about is the 20yr war on whether or not CTE is objective or whether or not it works exactly as Stan describes it. I believe people are capable of reaching their own conclusions. I don't think pool players as mindless idiots in need of internet wizards to guide them one way or another when it comes to what might be beneficial to their game. That is something each player must discover for themselves.

Concerning how to use which eye to obtain the perspective you want or need.... I don't know how to do it, not do I care about learning how to do it.

And no, I don't think Stan's CTE provides a center pocket shot line for each shot. This is just my opinion, based on the fact that there are several CTE perceptions used, and each one has its limits. In other words, a 15 outside works to pocket a straight in shot. If you move the ob a little to the left or right, the 15 outside still works. If you move the ob too far left or right, the 15 outside will no longer work and a 15 inside must be used. That tells me that when using the 15 outside for each angle farther and farther away from straight in, the ob is landing farther and farther away from center pocket. And when the limit of the 15 outside is reached, it's time to change to a 15 inside.

I realize Stan and other CTE players will disagree with this, but I don't care. They've conditioned to believe what they want, and I have been conditioned to believe what I want. It means nothing to me that we believe different things. It's not something I feel the need to argue about because it's irrelevant to me.
I am not going to like disagreeing with you. Sarcastically, do you only play on 6 ft. Valley Tables with 6 inch bucket pockets?

I think you focused too much on the "center pocket" aspect.

I understand what you are saying & why. However, I think you start out from a false premise.

If the pivot negates the slightly less then 15* line of the visual & pockets a straight in shot(I am not saying that it actually does for all straight in shots.), then how can it pocket a shot that is moved over even slightly more the 1/2 the width of the pocket?
 
Oh.. .meant to correct this the day.. A dominate eye is not "short wired". It just relays visual data better and more accurately than the non-dominant eye. In fact, sometimes, depending on what you're looking at, and the angle of perspective, your non-dominate eye will work better than your usually dominate eye.

It has nothing to do with the optical connections of each eye. The dominant eye effect is solely related to the neurons in the visual cortex of the brain. For different visual tasks, the neurons typically prefer information from one eye or another, and this preferential treatment is what develops eye dominance.

When the same eye happens to be used more often, that eye creates more neural connections to the brain, and therefore becomes our dominate eye.
I put 'short wired' in single quotation marks. If I missed doing that once, then it was an error. Saying 'short wired' is much shorter & expedient than what you posted here & Fran Crimi, who has studied the matter, might disagree with you... technically.

How long would it take me to change my eye dominance, if I were to wear an eye patch 24/7 over my dominant eye?
 
Last edited:

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
Yea i would disagree. With your thinking shouldn't center center be the baseline for a center pocket shot. I get where you think what you posted is logically correct and i agree it seems like that. But the simple fact is all the perceptions lead to center pocket. When i first started i would have totally agreed with your post, experience has taught me otherwise.

Do you think it's done by knowing exactly to use the visuals, as far as knowing which eye to use for which shot?
 

cookie man

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Do you think it's done by knowing exactly to use the visuals, as far as knowing which eye to use for which shot?
CTE is very visual yes, so you do need to know how to use the visuals. It's not which eye to use though. In CTE you always use the outermost edge of the OB, combined with the A B or C line. you pretty much have to do things visually from inside the A B or C line, poke your head out. So yes you need to have some experience in where you need to see things from.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
How long would it take me to change my eye dominance, if I were to wear an eye patch 24/7 over my dominant eye?

I don't know. But that would be an interesting study. Since eye dominance is not related to either eye's visual acuity or accuracy, I'm sure you could change your visual cortex's preference as to which eye it favors, especially if you block visual input from the already favored "dominate" eye.

When right-handed people are involved in an accident that temporarily or permanently disables their right hand or arm, they can start doings certain tasks with the left hand and thereby train the brain to not be so dependent on favoring the right hand for those particular tasks. And then, when their right hand becomes usable again, they'll be able to do those right-handed tasks with their left hand, simply due to creating the neural connections needed to make that happen. Instead of the brain relying on preferred neural networks, new connections/networks are created.

Eye dominance and hand dominance are not related, but both involve neural connections in the brain, and both can be manipulated or altered if needed.
 
I don't know. But that would be an interesting study. Since eye dominance is not related to either eye's visual acuity or accuracy, I'm sure you could change your visual cortex's preference as to which eye it favors, especially if you block visual input from the already favored "dominate" eye.

When right-handed people are involved in an accident that temporarily or permanently disables their right hand or arm, they can start doings certain tasks with the left hand and thereby train the brain to not be so dependent on favoring the right hand for those particular tasks. And then, when their right hand becomes usable again, they'll be able to do those right-handed tasks with their left hand, simply due to creating the neural connections needed to make that happen. Instead of the brain relying on preferred neural networks, new connections/networks are created.

Eye dominance and hand dominance are not related, but both involve neural connections in the brain, and both can be manipulated or altered if needed.
When you say "neural connections" as in connector pathways, could not some be "preferred" because the path is shorter & with a quicker transmission than via a longer pathway?

I am fairly sure that such is what Fran Crimi has said per her investigations.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
I am not going to like disagreeing with you. Sarcastically, do you only play on 6 ft. Valley Tables with 6 inch bucket pockets?

I think you focused too much on the "center pocket" aspect.

I understand what you are saying & why. However, I think you start out from a false premise.

If the pivot negates the slightly less then 15* line of the visual & pockets a straight in shot(I am not saying that it actually does for all straight in shots.), then how can it pocket a shot that is moved over even slightly more the 1/2 the width of the pocket?

I don't know. Most of all, I am not willing to waste any time trying to learn it or figure it out or prove it or disprove it. If CTE users say it works, great. If Joe Blow tries it and finds out it doesn't work as well for him, then he'll move onto to the next thing. It's that simple. People do it every single day -- try things that other people rave about, only to find that it doesn't suit them as well. And they move on. Some bitch and complain due to being disappointed, but eventually they move on.

I moved on. That's why I no longer get involved in old CTE flame war. I just graba bag of popcorn and sit back and watch the same old dead end arguments play out over and over again. Sometimes it's entertaining.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I just graba bag of popcorn and sit back and watch the same old dead end arguments play out over and over again. Sometimes it's entertaining.
I think I'm there... No point trying to get a handle on the methology if those touting it refuse to help and those retorting don't care who's lawn they're crapping in.

Should I bring a chair or do you have extras...?...lol
 

Boxcar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This tedium might have miniscule value if tables had 2 1/2" pockets. In reality, if a human being can't pick up a stick, use it to strike one ball into another ball thereby achieving a desired result, then that human being needs to start playing sandlot football, sans helmet.

One of the reasons that pool is so dimly viewed is that people who can't make it on the "outside" tend to gravitate toward it.

How many rich, well adjusted pool players do you know? How many millionaires?

Serious question: how many millionaire golfers are suckers enough to buy a 400 page book about a phantasm?

Another serious question: how many angels are there on the head of a pin?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
When you say "neural connections" as in connector pathways, could not some be "preferred" because the path is shorter & with a quicker transmission than via a longer pathway?

I am fairly sure that such is what Fran Crimi has said per her investigations.

With respect to Fran....no. That's not how the mind functions.

A prime example is how we store and recall memories. They aren't filed away in a neat or organized manner. That trip to the beach and all the memories created that week aren't stored in the mind in a folder titled "Beach Trip".

Instead, when the brain stores memories it's more like what happens if you were to throw a tomato into a fan. The tomato represents all the memories and sensory inputs we receive during an event or an experience. And when the brain consolidates this stuff, which it does every night as you sleep, it does so much like the scattered fragments of that tomato when it hits the fan. All those pieces of memory get stored randomly all over the place.

Memory recall, as well as neuron (synaptic) networks, are not time-oriented.
In other words, things don't occur faster or slower in the mind based on how far away certain neurons happen to be from the sources that provide our senses. With memory, good retention and recall require multiple sensory inputs during the time of the event or experience. With neural networks/pathways, the preferred networks are those we use the most, for whatever reason.
 
Last edited:
With respect to Fran....no. That's not how the mind functions.

A prime example is how we store and recall memories. They aren't filed away in a neat or organized manner. That trip to the beach and all the memories created that week aren't stored in the mind in a folder titled "Beach Trip".

Instead, when the brain stores memories it's more like what happens if you were to throw a tomato into a fan. The tomato represents all the memories and sensory inputs we receive during an event or an experience. And when the brain consolidates this stuff, which it does every night as you sleep, it does so much like the scattered fragments of that tomato when it hits the fan. All those pieces of memory get stored randomly all over the place.

Memory recall, as well as neuron (synaptic) networks, are not time-oriented.
In other words, things don't occur faster or slower in the mind based on how far away certain neurons happen to be from the sources that provide our senses. With memory, good retention and recall require multiple sensory inputs during the time of the event or experience. With neural networks/pathways, the preferred networks are those we use the most, for whatever reason.
Who asked about memory? You end with "for whatever reason".

The respect should not go to Ms. Crimi, but should go to from whatever source(s) she obtain her conclusion or theirs that she was relaying. I am rather she was not relying what some drunk on a street corner in NYC said.
The mind is more amazing than the brain.

Why is child like myself, who had a left handed Dad, so predominantly right handed, footed, eyed. etc. Well before doing tasks could ingrain any "most often preference"?
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Serious question: how many millionaire golfers are suckers enough to buy a 400 page book about a phantasm?
Answer: Millionaire golfers typically don't buy books to learn golf. Whether they are PRO players or wealthy amateur golf addicts, THEY GO STRAIGHT TO WELL KNOWN AND HIGHLY REGARDED PRO INSTRUCTORS TO GET THEIR LESSONS IN PERSON! Sometimes paying up to $20,000 for a full day. Here are some of their fees:

  1. Butch Harmon, $1,000 an hour
  2. Chuck Cook, $300 an hour
  3. Jim McLean, $750 an hour
  4. David Leadbetter, $3,500 for 3 hours
  5. Mike Bender, $300 an hour
  6. Mike Adams, $325 an hour
  7. Jim Hardy, $5,000 for a full day
  8. Martin Hall, $200 an hour
  9. Todd Anderson, $375 an hour
  10. Hank Haney, $15,000 for a day

And Haney isn't even the most-expensive teacher on the list—Dave Pelz's fee is listed at $20,000 per day.

Stan's in person lessons and charges are listed on his website under instruction: http://www.justcueit.com
He has given MANY in person lessons not just for CTE but all phases of pool starting 30 years ago. Comparatively speaking to golf, IT'S A BARGAIN!
But a typical low life incognito hack playing big mouth who dishes out nothing but negativity on a pool forum not only wouldn't spend $100 for an outstanding book but not even $100 bucks for a live lesson from anyone!
Why don't you link up with someone on here who uses CTE and see how you fare? Cookie has offered it to you many times. You run, hide, dodge and just keep running the mouth.
Have YOU ever finished in the top TEN in the US Amateur tournament with the best players in the country competing?
NO? Who would have guessed...
 
Top