Another video from Stan: The How vs. The Why

[sixpack]

I don't want to feud with you, sixpack. If that's what you believe then so be it. Of course, if there are only like 2 guys complaining all the time, why did Stan take his marbles and stop off from the forum, and then go on a video producing bender?

You would have to ask Stan that. I don't speak for him on anything.

I don't think we're feuding. I also don't think there's a good resolution to the questions you have posed until the book comes out. I certainly don't have a good answer except that in my limited experimentation with pivoting throw doesn't seem to matter as much as it should.

I guess my position would be summarized as "we should all wait until the book and then debate until the cows come home."

 

[Koop]

.........still fattening frogs for snakes.
They're NEVER going to believe it....even if they could do it themselves, they're never going to believe it.

Exactly why I wouldn't bother posting or responding to them anymore. It's a futile waste of time. Stan had the right idea bailing on this cesspool.

 

[Dan White]

You would have to ask Stan that. I don't speak for him on anything.

I don't think we're feuding. I also don't think there's a good resolution to the questions you have posed until the book comes out. I certainly don't have a good answer except that in my limited experimentation with pivoting throw doesn't seem to matter as much as it should.

I guess my position would be summarized as "we should all wait until the book and then debate until the cows come home."

Cool. I do think you missed the part where Stan said that his book is not going to explain anything beyond the steps you need to take to make CTE work. That's what I got out of it. Don't expect an explanation for the "mystery" that Stan, until now, has said he WILL explain in the book.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Cool. I do think you missed the part where Stan said that his book is not going to explain anything beyond the steps you need to take to make CTE work. That's what I got out of it. Don't expect an explanation for the "mystery" that Stan, until now, has said he WILL explain in the book.

When's the last time you cracked a math book on spherical geometry? Don't pretend you'd understand the math that would prove it. If you care to send me a paper layout with all the lines and circles and arrows all lined up I'll take a crack at it. Please, no more than 27 8X10 diagrams.

 

[BC21]

I don't have much history in the aiming forum either. I think I started posting in it about the same time you did.

Anyway, it's all good. I don't think anybody is a 'hater'. I just feel like you guys are pushing on points that really there is no good answer to. I'm waiting for the book.

I think you're right.....some questions just r
don't have answers right now. I have a few drawings I made years ago trying to figure out some CTE workings, and I'm going dig them back out and look at them again.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Take a look at my pivot triangle post. Once you see how the sine of the shot angle is related to cue ball it may help you figure things out.

 

[Dan White]

When's the last time you cracked a math book on spherical geometry? Don't pretend you'd understand the math that would prove it. If you care to send me a paper layout with all the lines and circles and arrows all lined up I'll take a crack at it. Please, no more than 27 8X10 diagrams.

I'm not the one saying it works. The math would be up to those making outrageous claims in order to sell a product. I know you are the guy with all the diagrams, geometry and trigonometry. I'm surprised you are so willing to accept things you are being told without at least a hint of proof.

 

[Vorpal Cue]

I've got a pretty good understanding of pivoting in the 2D or paper realm. To believe it works in the third dimension with an offset doesn't take too great a leap of faith

 

[lfigueroa]

Adding valuable information to a conversation, as always!

I prefer to think of it as adding a little levity to a conversation that sorely needs it.

BTW, you little comment wasn't exactly e=mc2.

Lou Figueroa
irony to the left of me
irony to the right of me
slowly I turned

 

[sixpack]

I'm not the one saying it works. The math would be up to those making outrageous claims in order to sell a product. I know you are the guy with all the diagrams, geometry and trigonometry. I'm surprised you are so willing to accept things you are being told without at least a hint of proof.

Okay. This is a little dramatic.

"Making outrageous claims in order to sell a product."

That is not what Stan is doing and there is no way to make it fit into that characterization.

Stan is working hard on a labor of love that he wants to bring to the pool world. He might make some money off of it but I bet if you add up the total hours he's spent it will be around minimum wage - at best.

He's not saying CTE cures cancer. He's not saying it will make you rich. He's saying: "I've found this thing that works really well and I want to share it."

 

[Dan White]

Okay. This is a little dramatic.

"Making outrageous claims in order to sell a product."

That is not what Stan is doing and there is no way to make it fit into that characterization.

Stan is working hard on a labor of love that he wants to bring to the pool world. He might make some money off of it but I bet if you add up the total hours he's spent it will be around minimum wage - at best.

He's not saying CTE cures cancer. He's not saying it will make you rich. He's saying: "I've found this thing that works really well and I want to share it."

Dramatic? Listen to the first 10 seconds or so:

https://youtu.be/ERJ-bZJTGfE?t=5m30s

 

[paultex]

The sweep direction is always determined by how the shot lays from the given perception: thicker or thinner. That is always the variable to determine. I don't know how else to explain it. You can't map perceptions or sweeps to static angles.

Thank you and that explains everything.

My perceptions are dependent upon what it is im tryin to do with the cb. So based on that, no wonder why I have not been able to quantify it reasonably, which sounds rather dumb but my method is so involved, I often get confused or sometimes totally lost.

Thanks for the info. I may have buried myself with all the multiple combination sequences in order to establish a platform that I believe has a answer for just about any shot with any spin. Correct alignment with either eye and delivery system from the ground up with the necessary multiple angles of attack.

My theory is this, maximum spin, if aligned correctly, can produce a big window, no different than any other high percentage shot. So, perception is where it all starts and with that being said, a sweep is relative to that and not a static ob/cb fixed angle to a pocket.

With CTE, which I repeat I don't use, it's very interesting how when using the manual version correctly, the pivot or in essence a sweep is a obvious left or right back to center.

I may have tried it 50 times or so and not once did I come in without a obvious pivot direction back to center. So, I know CTE is real enough and it is in fact a unique and probably the best visual system because you don't have to rely on shadows or lighting reflections on the top of the ob.

If im not mistaken, hal had a system for fluorescent tube lighting that shines on the top of the ob. If there is three tubes, then there is 3 curved lines of light reflecting on the top of the ob.

I would never use that or a shadow system if you put a gun to my head.

Thanks

 

[8pack]

If there is an overcut alignment please explain how you no this. Also where is the ball actually aimed?

 

[ribdoner]

If there is an overcut alignment please explain how you no this. Also where is the ball actually aimed?

GR8 question

 

[anbukev]

If there is an overcut alignment please explain how you no this. Also where is the ball actually aimed?

I was wondering about that also. We aim from a standing position but once we are down on the shot, how do you double check if you're still on the aim line? Some people aim with their shaft/ferrule and some peole aim the cue ball. Stan never indicated which method he uses to VERIFY he is still on the shot line.

 

[hogie583]

GR8 question

Let's use a cut to the right. Set up a gb and ob lined up too center pocket. Start with cue ball in a 15degree perception. Get your visuals and make your manual pivot to center. Just look directly down the shaft. If your made the correct sweep it should look like just a tick left of the core on the gb which indicates a slight over cut. It really is a good way to refine your sweep/pivots. But you dont want to shoot looking down the shaft...practice your manual pivots with known bridge distance first. Stan has videos on this on youtube. Its all there free.Once you feel comfortable that your sweep and pivots are correct. Get your visuals sweep pivot shoot dont move your head to look down shaft. The shaft will be ever so slightly angled depending on the sweep/pivot you choose. If you Start missing ball setup gb again repeat process get your visual correct then get your pivot correct. Sounds like work well it is! But it pays off bigtime...

 

[BC21]

I was wondering about that also. We aim from a standing position but once we are down on the shot, how do you double check if you're still on the aim line? Some people aim with their shaft/ferrule and some peole aim the cue ball. Stan never indicated which method he uses to VERIFY he is still on the shot line.

I remember one of Stan's youtube clips where he uses a strip of masking tape to show where/how to determine bridge placement for the sweep or pivot. The masking tape is the basic shot line given by the particular perception used for the shot, as seen from the perspective (focusing on CCB) from where your head happens to be in order to first see the perception lines.

He refers to an offset alignment, placing your cue/bridge hand either left or right of that tape line then pivoting to CCB. Left or right is the process of making the shot thick or thin I suppose, as needed. He says it's a 1/2 tip pivot. Well, that creates a precise angle that depends on bridge length and tip diameter. For example, using a 10" bridge with a 13mm shaft creates a 1.5° pivot, which would either thicken or thin the shot by that exact amount, depending on which side of that tape line your pivot originated.

With a 13mm shaft and 10" bridge distance, a 1/2 tip pivot will always be 1.5°, regardless of perceptions. So that confuses me....a constant pivot that doesn't change with the perceptions or actual shot angle.

CTE seems like an improved version of the Quarters fractional system, where the perceptions sometimes get you aligned dead on a CCB shot line, and other times get you very close, and then you fine tune left or right as needed, based on experienced judgement. But the fine tuning (this 1.5 degrees with a 10" bridge length) only gives a left/right fractional adjustment of approximately 1/32. What if the shot perception is 1/16 thick, not 1/32? You'd have to shorten your bridge hand to create a larger pivot angle. Maybe all of this stuff is in the book. Or maybe it's not relevant, but it sure seems relevant.

The thing is, Stan does his curtain shots without being able to see the pocket or precise shot line, which tells me he uses years of instinct/feel to pocket the balls through the curtain. How else could he know whether or not any of those perceptions are dead on or need to be thickened or thinned?

 

[cookie man]

Any experienced CTE user can recognize thick or thin very easily. It actually becomes quite natural and easy to do. The curtain shots are done by just using the CB and OB relationship and a general idea of where the pocket is. No need to know precisely where the pocket is or the shot line. That goes for shots without the curtain also. It's all about the CB and OB relationship.

 

[BC21]

Any experienced CTE user can recognize thick or thin very easily. It actually becomes quite natural and easy to do. The curtain shots are done by just using the CB and OB relationship and a general idea of where the pocket is. No need to know precisely where the pocket is or the shot line. That goes for shots without the curtain also. It's all about the CB and OB relationship.

Ok. I thought recognizing think or thin was something you do by comparing what "looks" right for the shot to what the actual perception is giving you. Some CTE users use the GB or just look at the angle of the shot to do this comparison. The exact same CB/OB relationship could easily appear in multiple places across the table, at multiple angles toward any given pocket. There's more to look at than the simple relationship between the balls. For accuracy, the shot must be analyzed by your brain and then compared to the alignment that your perception is giving you. That's the only way to know if it's dead on or needs to be thinned/thickened. So a "general" idea of pocket location doesn't seem to be precise enough to make this determination.

 

[BC21]

Any experienced CTE user can recognize thick or thin very easily. It actually becomes quite natural and easy to do.

..........

It's the same way with players that say we play by feel. However we first learned (gb, fractions, contact points, etc...) has become so natural feeling and so automatic that we don't know what else to call it other than "feel".

I know Stan considers "feel" to be a bad word when it comes to playing pool, but like it or not we all incorporate a sense of feel when we play, despite any system or lack of system we elect to learn.