A video on pivoting systems

[Dan White]

I know for 20 years cte has not been objective for a select few, that think their opinions matter. They don't. it still just works.

The reference was to the Mystery of why which fractional visual to use, one is done with some made up mathematical equation and the other is made up of actually training ones self to recognize angular positions to the pockets. Still no mystery there.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but the bold part confirms that you have no idea what Stan's CTE is. What you are describing is HAMB, or "hit a million balls." By doing rote drills eventually you just "know" when the shot is on. Stan says that the pocket is irrelevant when using CTE and to prove it he makes shots with a curtain covering the pockets. I'll go over the rest of it but only if you are here to understand what Stan is actually saying, rather than trying to score points in an argument.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but the bold part confirms that you have no idea what Stan's CTE is. What you are describing is HAMB, or "hit a million balls." By doing rote drills eventually you just "know" when the shot is on. Stan says that the pocket is irrelevant when using CTE and to prove it he makes shots with a curtain covering the pockets. I'll go over the rest of it but only if you are here to understand what Stan is actually saying, rather than trying to score points in an argument.

What happens when you're down and it doesn't look right?
Wait, it can't not look right because all association between the two balls are referenced while stood up.
What if you want to shoot a combo? You can't use contact point because it doesn't exist?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Stan says that the pocket is irrelevant when using CTE and to prove it he makes shots with a curtain covering the pockets.

A pretty clear indication that he doesn't fully understand his own system - or aiming in general (I know... I'm going to Aiming Hell). The most interesting thing to me is that he aims and plays so well in spite of that.

I have nothing against him - I'm sure he believes everything he teaches, and his customers seem satisfied, so nothing against the system either. My only issue is when the technical aiming misinformation is spread publicly (by others) as part of their promotion of the system.

pj
chgo

 

[BC21]

Well you are confusing 2 distinctly different methods, one that pivots and one that sweeps.

The manual pivot method is the foundation of the sweep method. They are different, and that's the mystery for me. But for those who find no mystery in it, go for it and become the best player you can be.

 

[JoeyInCali]

The manual pivot method is the foundation of the sweep method. They are different, and that's the mystery for me. But for those who find no mystery in it, go for it and become the best player you can be.

The manual pivot to center is a gimmick.

 

[Dan White]

A pretty clear indication that he doesn't fully understand his own system - or aiming in general (I know... I'm going to Aiming Hell). The most interesting thing to me is that he aims and plays so well in spite of that.

I have nothing against him - I'm sure he believes everything he teaches, and his customers seem satisfied, so nothing against the system either. My only issue is when the technical aiming misinformation is spread publicly (by others) as part of their promotion of the system.

pj
chgo

Even funnier is that there is an elegant double negative in this situation. Stan doesn't understand what he is teaching and Renegade doesn't understand Stan. In the end, Renegade is right about CTE and uses it successfully. Well done, Stan!

 

[Renegade_56]

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but the bold part confirms that you have no idea what Stan's CTE is. What you are describing is HAMB, or "hit a million balls." By doing rote drills eventually you just "know" when the shot is on. Stan says that the pocket is irrelevant when using CTE and to prove it he makes shots with a curtain covering the pockets. I'll go over the rest of it but only if you are here to understand what Stan is actually saying, rather than trying to score points in an argument.

Stan is correct, Cte users rarely give the pocket more than an initial glance. I/m famiiliar with HAMB, maybe that confuses you in relation to CTE but I know the difference. I have personally done the curtain exercise myself, on a 5 x 10 snooker table with 3 3/16" corners and 2 1/4" Centennial balls, it's not that hard.

 

[Dan White]

Stan is correct, Cte users rarely give the pocket more than an initial glance. I/m famiiliar with HAMB, maybe that confuses you in relation to CTE but I know the difference. I have personally done the curtain exercise myself, on a 5 x 10 snooker table with 3 3/16" corners and 2 1/4" Centennial balls, it's not that hard.

I'm not confused about anything. You said that CTE works because it tells you to train the cb/ob/pocket relationship until the different fractions look "on." This has nothing to do with CTE.

You are also right about the curtain drill. It's not that hard for anybody who already knows how to play. You show me a class of novice players who are learning CTE and pocketing curtain shots and then you might have something.

 

[boogieman]

I'm not confused about anything. You said that CTE works because it tells you to train the cb/ob/pocket relationship until the different fractions look "on." This has nothing to do with CTE.

You are also right about the curtain drill. It's not that hard for anybody who already knows how to play. You show me a class of novice players who are learning CTE and pocketing curtain shots and then you might have something.

Wait until folks learn you can bank by imagining a pocket out in space!

 

[Renegade_56]

I'm not confused about anything. You said that CTE works because it tells you to train the cb/ob/pocket relationship until the different fractions look "on." This has nothing to do with CTE.

Tea no, I never said that, not part of my belief or even relevent to how and why CTE works. You are correct in that it has nothing to do with CTE. You keep trying to make some kind of mathematical point about fractions and angles when CTE relies on visuals, heavily.

You are also right about the curtain drill. It's not that hard for anybody who already knows how to play. You show me a class of novice players who are learning CTE and pocketing curtain shots and then you might have something.

It wouldn't be that hard at all.

 

[boogieman]

Tea no, I never said that, not part of my belief or even relevent to how and why CTE works. You are correct in that it has nothing to do with CTE. You keep trying to make some kind of mathematical point about fractions and angles when CTE relies on visuals, heavily.

IMO math means very little. You make a ball when you see the shot, then execute it. CTE and most other systems train you to see the shot. They use different methods to do so. Anyone who thinks they make a shot with math or fractions are probably slightly delusional, or at least as delusional as they accuse other system users of being.

Making the shot simply comes from:
1. Recognizing the shot.
2. Executing the shot.

All systems (no matter how mathematically correct or incorrect) cover number 1. No system does number 2. Number 2 is trained through repetition and observation while shooting a shot.

It seems system bashers don't understand this. It literally doesn't matter how the math works, it's about properly visualizing the shot. One could grow up in a society without a concept of math or geometry and still be great at pool. I'd bet anyone on earth they can't accurately evaluate 1 degree angle by eyeballing it. It doesn't happen. I'm an inspector at work and thinking you can tell 1 degree by eye is delusional. Stated another way, if you think you can eyeball 1 degree difference in angle, you're fooling yourself.

A 9' shot that is just 1 degree off is off by 1.88" It's not the math that is making shots. It's recognition/visualization and execution.

Dang it... why can't I stay away from aiming discussion? Well heck, I might as well head over to NPR and talk politics and religion...

 

[Dan White]

Tea no, I never said that, not part of my belief or even relevent to how and why CTE works. You are correct in that it has nothing to do with CTEli.

Well actually you did say that. You said the CTE book shows you fractional hits that line up with the pocket. You hit those until you can recognize them. You are back peddling now.

You keep trying to make some kind of mathematical point about fractions and angles when CTE relies on visuals, heavily.

I've been trying to explain why fractional aiming isn't the issue, which you thought was and caused you to make a post. Several of us have been trying to explain to you what Stan really means by "objective" but I don't think you want to hear it.

 

[JB Cases]

Yet the only time we've ever played I won.

pj <- maybe the coma made you forget
chgo

Correct, you are living proof that one can fidget aim and still be a slightly above average player and beat another slightly above average player in a short race. But I would absolutely be willing to bet incredibly high that taking two random people off the street and one get to learn aiming from you and the other gets to learn aiming from Stan - with both otherwise just learning how to stroke straight, that Stan's student will considerably outscore your student in a shotmaking contest after just 30 days of instruction.

I used to offer to bet $1000 on such contests but now I prefer to bet $10,000 or more plus expenses. Any time you want to allow a crew to film a month of you teaching your fidget-aiming method in the lead up to the contest we can get it on.

 

[JB Cases]

About whom was this written (“from Facebook”)? What tournament and when? And what was that person’s accomplishment in the tournament?

"Im a 500 fargo rated player and I just won't over $20,000!! Yeah!

Stan Shuffett you are the person who opened the door for me. It was your life's work and your willingness to share it with the world that made this all possible. Your book Center Pocket Music using CTE Pro One to improve your pool game is a game changer! Your work is legendary. You don't get the credit you deserve my friend but it is coming! They can't deny it forever!"

IDK, they won $20,000 in the tournament and they gave Stan a lot of credit. I guess you could copy and paste the text into google and find the actual thread. Or, maybe I made it all up.........

 

[JB Cases]

All of the CTE skeptics would say that aiming at fractions on the ball is more or less objective because that is not what the issue is about, and it has nothing to do with personalities.

Let me explain with the Poolology analogy. There is a mathematical relationship between the diamonds on the rails and the position of the balls on the table. You look at the rails and you look at the cue ball and object ball and do some math. This produces a cut angle like for instance a 1/2 ball hit. So Poology has instructed you to use a half ball hit purely through the geometry of the table and mathematics. No guesswork. That's what we mean when we say a system is objective.

On the other hand, when CTE tells you to use a half ball hit nobody is able to explain why. Poolology makes use of the inscribed angle theorem and if you apply that to a pool table you can see for yourself how it works. There is no mystery.

Can you explain to us what it is that tells you to use a half ball hit when using CTE? I am talking about proof that it actually works not just to say "Well if I follow steps A, B and C it works." Please don't say 3D perception or round barns.

There is no such thing as a half-ball HIT in CTE. There is no such thing as a half-ball AIM in CTE. There are perceptions that use the edges, the center and the quarter-division lines. In order to see these perceptions correctly the eyes must be in line with the connected points which in turn forces the body to adopt the correct position relative to the cue ball. This where the concept of "the eyes move and the body follows" comes from as Stan puts it. Using the edges and center and the quarter lines allows the shooter to OBJECTIVELY align to the cueball and the body will be in the right position to "step" with their eyes from the OBJECTIVE edge to the center of the cueball and then bend into the shot with the cue addressing the cue ball on a center cue ball line heading towards the object ball. The ACTUAL FRACTION of the hit is absolutely irrelevant and unknown because it isn't needed nor looked for in CTE. The CTE perceptions of 15, 30, 45, 60 degrees are not synonymous with the FRACTIONAL OVERLAPS that produce a known fractional HIT.

This is explained here.

 

[Dan White]

There is no such thing as a half-ball HIT in CTE. There is no such thing as a half-ball AIM in CTE. There are perceptions that use the edges, the center and the quarter-division lines. In order to see these perceptions correctly the eyes must be in line with the connected points which in turn forces the body to adopt the correct position relative to the cue ball. This where the concept of "the eyes move and the body follows" comes from as Stan puts it. Using the edges and center and the quarter lines allows the shooter to OBJECTIVELY align to the cueball and the body will be in the right position to "step" with their eyes from the OBJECTIVE edge to the center of the cueball and then bend into the shot with the cue addressing the cue ball on a center cue ball line heading towards the object ball. The ACTUAL FRACTION of the hit is absolutely irrelevant and unknown because it isn't needed nor looked for in CTE. The CTE perceptions of 15, 30, 45, 60 degrees are not synonymous with the FRACTIONAL OVERLAPS that produce a known fractional HIT.

This is explained here.

You are missing the key point. What does all of this fanageling have to do with the pocket?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I used to offer to bet $1000 on such contests but now I prefer to bet $10,000 or more plus expenses.

lol

I'm sure they're lining up to spend time with you, no matter the cost.

pj
chgo

 

[Oikawa]

Tea no, I never said that, not part of my belief or even relevent to how and why CTE works. You are correct in that it has nothing to do with CTE. You keep trying to make some kind of mathematical point about fractions and angles when CTE relies on visuals, heavily.

It wouldn't be that hard at all.

What are "visuals" in this context? Mathematics are one way of explaining how things work under the hood. I don't get the claim that an aiming system could have "nothing to do" with math or can't be explained using math.

Whatever you are doing visually in this aiming system must have some logical basis that, even if not practically done with mathematical thinking, can still be expressed mathematically if wanted to, and if such a mathematical basis can't be formulated at all, there's something funny going on.

 

[boogieman]

What are "visuals" in this context? Mathematics are one way of explaining how things work under the hood. I don't get the claim that an aiming system could have "nothing to do" with math or can't be explained using math.

Whatever you are doing visually in this aiming system must have some logical basis that, even if not practically done with mathematical thinking, can still be expressed mathematically if wanted to, and if such a mathematical basis can't be formulated at all, there's something funny going on.

I don't want to answer for him but IMO visuals is when you know the shot is on. You can do this in many ways. You know the part in your brain that when you look at the shot knows it's on? That is visuals. When visuals are correct (and practiced until rote in a way you can trust) math makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, physics still applies, but the CB and OB don't care if they make a 7/16 ball hit or a 36.95 degree cut. Sure, the math is there in the background, it can be used as a proof in a way, but it's not the math that makes the balls. Math, aiming, fractions, angles, etc are more just there so you can shut your ego up to a point that your subconscious can execute a shot. Some people need to convince themselves a shot is on more than others. Some just trust the visuals.

 

[Oikawa]

I don't want to answer for him but IMO visuals is when you know the shot is on. You can do this in many ways. You know the part in your brain that when you look at the shot knows it's on? That is visuals. When visuals are correct (and practiced until rote in a way you can trust) math makes absolutely no difference.

Yes, physics still applies, but the CB and OB don't care if they make a 7/16 ball hit or a 36.95 degree cut. Sure, the math is there in the background, it can be used as a proof in a way, but it's not the math that makes the balls. Math, aiming, fractions, angles, etc are more just there so you can shut your ego up to a point that your subconscious can execute a shot. Some people need to convince themselves a shot is on more than others. Some just trust the visuals.

Yeah I agree, my point was just that if an aiming system claims to have something new to offer or be profound in any way, it should be able to be broken down into its components and understood on a theoretical level. If this theory can't be explained at all, it just sounds like a misleading sales pitch.

If any system makes you somehow see or execute the visuals/lines/pots/whatever clearer, there is a reason for it. Whether those reasons are rooted in human perception intricacies, geometry, physics or whatever, it can all be broken down into a theoretical explanation. I've yet to see such explanations about CTE.

Put it another way, if CTE was just a simple trick that somehow lets you perceive the shot image more consistently, there wouldn't be ridiculously long and detailed instructional material available for it. The fact that the instructions are so long means there must be some sort of more complex stuff going on. This complex stuff could be explained on a summarized level in a coherent way showing why CTE works, or what it's fundamentally claiming to do, yet I haven't seen anyone do this.