best cte videos on youtube?

[Dan White]

Yes he truthfully says he doesn't have the answer for the Why it does what it does. He also said he can explain the how it works completely.

You mean after 2 DVD's and 20 years he hasn't even been able to describe how to do it? I can do that. Line up ETA and CTE so you see both at the same time. Find CCB from there and address the cb with a 1/2 tip offset. Pivot in or out as necessary and shoot. Same thing for ETB, ETC, etc.. That's the HOW.

so Dubious Dan the trolling man, are you buying the book.

If the truth series shows that the system actually works then I will buy all the books and distribute them out for free. Problem is some thinking people already know how it works and it is not as Stan preaches. Think about it. Stan already said he doesn't understand how it works yet at the same time he tells us that our explanation is wrong. Huh?

 

[cookie man]

Back in February, someone asked Stan when the book would be out. His reply was:

No timeframe, but I am working with a company and their services that lead to book production. So, the process is essentially out of my hands at this time.

What the heck does this mean? What is a "company and their services that lead to book production"? I thought I knew what "out of my hands" meant but maybe you can explain that one to me as well.

Really, are you this stupid. "company and their services that lead to book production" means exactly what it says. It's a company that specializes in finalizing everything in the book, spelling, pictures, how it's put together. Getting the picture now.

 

[cookie man]

Yes he truthfully says he doesn't have the answer for the Why it does what it does. He also said he can explain the how it works completely. That description will not include any adjustments as adjustments are not necessary. In fact adjustments are detrimental to the system.
It seems the non users want to continually put up the fight that we can't possibly be doing it exactly as prescribed. They are wrong and are doing nothing more then trolling at this point, so Dubious Dan the trolling man, are you buying the book.

You mean after 2 DVD's and 20 years he hasn't even been able to describe how to do it? I can do that. Line up ETA and CTE so you see both at the same time. Find CCB from there and address the cb with a 1/2 tip offset. Pivot in or out as necessary and shoot. Same thing for ETB, ETC, etc.. That's the HOW.



If the truth series shows that the system actually works then I will buy all the books and distribute them out for free. Problem is some thinking people already know how it works and it is not as Stan preaches. Think about it. Stan already said he doesn't understand how it works yet at the same time he tells us that our explanation is wrong. Huh?

Again are you dense or just plain stupid. He knows THE HOW but not the why. HE NEVER SAID HE DOESN"T UNDERSTAND THE HOW.

 

[fy1017]

go!



the ones i seen confused me,



im making big leaps in my pool game this yr, so why not take it further if i can and actually learn something lol

This one might help

https://youtu.be/1kDDdpjiznI

https://youtu.be/B1zn2xcWSKw


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[BC21]

This one might help

https://youtu.be/1kDDdpjiznI

https://youtu.be/B1zn2xcWSKw


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

These clips are not relevant to CTE. What this guy is doing is fractional aiming. He just happens to be using "A, B, and C" references, the quarters. Then he simply does a parallel shift from the reference line to the aim line.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Again are you dense or just plain stupid. He knows THE HOW but not the why.

"The why" is (supposedly) CTE's "objectiveness". So after years of insisting that you know that CTE is absolutely, entirely, without doubt "objective", you now admit that Stan himself doesn't know that.

pj <- derp de derp
chgo

 

[BC21]

Well, OK, here it is:

https://youtu.be/ia45cZ-LEPA?t=1135

Listen for 30 seconds. What Stan says is that his book will tell you the specific steps on how to perform his method. He does not know why it works and his book WILL NOT address how it works.

Stan would be much better off telling everybody that he does not understand how it works. He should stop telling everybody it is an objective process when he clearly just said he doesn't understand what is happening. His 1,2,3, manual pivot steps are arguably "objective" (sweeps are not) but that alone does not explain how balls are pocketed. He should come to terms with the reality that his method requires the player to make small adjustments learned over rote practice. Essentially, if the 1,2,3 steps are followed exactly then the method cannot work for more than several angles.

The real "mystery that was never supposed to be" is why Stan cannot simply be honest with new players and tell them that subjective adjustments are necessary. It seems that some people, like probably Cookie The Enforcer and mohrt, etc. are able to make these adjustments without realizing it, so for them it is a good system.

The main thing I noticed with this video is the fact that each of those tightly scattered white donuts is within about 0.5° of being the same shot angle. With a 3.5" pocket the margin of error for this ob is 1.0°. So of course the same perception and pivot will work for each shot, just as using the same aim with any other aiming method will also work for each shot.

From what I've gathered here on AZ over the last two years, the big question about using the same perception and pivot on different angles isn't when the angle is only half a degree different, but more like 2 or 3 degrees different. In other words, widen this scatter of donuts a couple of inches left or right and see how well the ob hits that 3.5" pocket. I'm sure Stan or any other CTE veteran would still make each shot with no problem, but I think anyone else who follows the method objectively (as outlined in the DVDs and YouTube clips) will not get such results.

Maybe the book will provide more insight and make it possible for newbies to get it working as well as Stan demonstrates it.

 

[cookie man]

"The why" is (supposedly) CTE's "objectiveness". So after years of insisting that you know that CTE is absolutely, entirely, without doubt "objective", you now admit that Stan himself doesn't know that.

pj <- derp de derp
chgo

Go back to sleep PJ. The "why" has nothing to do with it's objectiveness.

PS do you guys drink together on Sundays? Some crazy posting on here today.

 

[cookie man]

The main thing I noticed with this video is the fact that each of those tightly scattered white donuts is within about 0.5° of being the same shot angle. With a 3.5" pocket the margin of error for this ob is 1.0°. So of course the same perception and pivot will work for each shot, just as using the same aim with any other aiming method will also work for each shot.

From what I've gathered here on AZ over the last two years, the big question about using the same perception and pivot on different angles isn't when the angle is only half a degree different, but more like 2 or 3 degrees different. In other words, widen this scatter of donuts a couple of inches left or right and see how well the ob hits that 3.5" pocket. I'm sure Stan or any other CTE veteran would still make each shot with no problem, but I think anyone else who follows the method objectively (as outlined in the DVDs and YouTube clips) will not get such results.

Maybe the book will provide more insight and make it possible for newbies to get it working as well as Stan demonstrates it.

Widening the donuts would not make any difference. Can't believe that you don't know this already. You say you've followed the directions and shot balls. If that is true you wouldn't be doubting what i said. We never think about angles, just VISUAL PERCEPTIONS. Game changer right there.

 

[cookie man]

From what I've gathered here on AZ over the last two years, the big question about using the same perception and pivot on different angles isn't when the angle is only half a degree different, but more like 2 or 3 degrees different. In other words, widen this scatter of donuts a couple of inches left or right and see how well the ob hits that 3.5" pocket. I'm sure Stan or any other CTE veteran would still make each shot with no problem, but I think anyone else who follows the method objectively (as outlined in the DVDs and YouTube clips) will not get such results.

.

There is no possible way for you to claim that you know 2 poolplayers that took CTE lessons from Stan but they can't make shots in different positions with the same visual perception without adjustments. You just can't claim that. Stan would never let them leave his house without being able to do it.

 

[BC21]

There is no possible way for you to claim that you know 2 poolplayers that took CTE lessons from Stan but they can't make shots in different positions with the same visual perception without adjustments. You just can't claim that. Stan would never let them leave his house without being able to do it.

I don't claim that. I don't know if they can do it or not because they don't use CTE. The younger might still be ironing it out, but he certainly isn't a fulltime CTE user yet. He's a good kid, but we don't ever play each other because he wants too much of a spot.

 

[BC21]

Widening the donuts would not make any difference. Can't believe that you don't know this already. You say you've followed the directions and shot balls. If that is true you wouldn't be doubting what i said. We never think about angles, just VISUAL PERCEPTIONS. Game changer right there.

Right. You never think about angles, only perceptions. But when you look at the cb-ob relationship and decide if it's an A, B, or C shot, your brain is making this call based on the angle you see. You aren't thinking about the exact angle, but more like which spectrum the particular shot falls into.

If it's straight in or a slight angle, you know to use a 15-outside. If it's a little more steep then you know to use a 15-inside. Objectively, both shots (15 inside and 15 outside) use the same exact 1/2 tip pivot from the same perception. If you were to shoot straight through the fixed cb from the perception, without offsetting your shaft half a tip inside or outside of that line, the ob would be struck in a manner that creates a certain objective shot angle. We know it's not 15° (14.5°) like fractional aiming. The 15 perception is a little more full than that. Anyway, a certain shot angle is created, but you don't shoot the shot from this perception. Instead, you place your bridge hand down parallel to this perception, exactly 1/2 a tip left or right, and then pivot to ccb and shoot from there

This pivot angle (created by an exact 1/2 tip offset and a specific bridge distance) provides a specific, objective thinning or thickening of the perception. The exact angles for thin and thick can easily be calculated and repeated. If the perception and pivots are done objectively these angles will always be the same as long as the distance between the cb and ob is the same. The only way they could be different is if the pivot is different (a result of varying bridge lengths and offsets that aren't exactly a 1/2 tip), which means it's no longer being done objectively. In other words, if the balls are 20" apart, it doesn't matter where they are on the table, an objective 15-inside or 15-outside should always produce the exact same amount of thinning or thickening, which is what I find when I shoot the shots as objectively as possible in accordance with Stan's instructions.

When I get the perception I am only looking at the cb and ob, and not directly at either one. If the cb and ob are 2ft apart I get a certain perception using the visuals, and it doesn't matter where they are on on the table because the perception is derived solely from the visuals between the two balls. And as long as the distance is the same I get the same results, which tells me I'm doing it objectively. I hope the book clears this up, because I believe this is the stumbling block for most people that try to learn this system in an objective manner.

 

[Low500]

There is no possible way for you to claim that you know 2 poolplayers that took CTE lessons from Stan but they can't make shots in different positions with the same visual perception without adjustments. You just can't claim that. Stan would never let them leave his house without being able to do it.

----------------------

 

[BC21]

......
.......I'd have to say that any 2 guys who paid out good money for lessons on how to use CTE aiming and then don't use it after paying, are just too stupid to absorb it in the first place. Like some "would be" instructors I've been hearing about through the grapevine.
Sounds like some idiot who complains that a bar is watering down their whiskey.....the question is, "if you think that then you're kinda' dumb to be drinking there aren't you?"
And as for any "stumbling blocks", in my opinion they've only been created and fostered by the continuous hassling from 4-5 posters in this forum.
:thumbup:

I consider these two guys to be above average in intelligence. They paid good money to drive to Kentucky for lessons, and they had nothing but good things to say about Stan. I'm not sure why they don't use what they learned, but I know it's not because they are "too stupid", as you so politely put it. It could be because they don't have the time to hit 500 or a 1000 balls every day like Stan has done over the years to perfect his implementation of the system.

As for creating stumbling blocks, I recall you questioning the basic CTE pivot in the past. You did not understand where to begin or how to do that final pivot to ccb. But of course, even with the lack of this basic CTE knowledge you also claimed to be robbing folks with the system at the same time.

In case you're still having trouble with this, here is the best video explaining exactly how to get your fixed cb and exactly how to do the offset pivots from the fixed cb perception. https://youtu.be/2KwI_62Npos

 

[SmokinJoe46]

I consider these two guys to be above average in intelligence. They paid good money to drive to Kentucky for lessons, and they had nothing but good things to say about Stan. I'm not sure why they don't use what they learned, but I know it's not because they are "too stupid", as you so politely put it. It could be because they don't have the time to hit 500 or a 1000 balls every day like Stan has done over the years to perfect his implementation of the system.

As for creating stumbling blocks, I recall you questioning the basic CTE pivot in the past. You did not understand where to begin or how to do that final pivot to ccb. But of course, even with the lack of this basic CTE knowledge you also claimed to be robbing folks with the system at the same time.

In case you're still having trouble with this, here is the best video explaining exactly how to get your fixed cb and exactly how to do the offset pivots from the fixed cb perception. https://youtu.be/2KwI_62Npos

Here is another good manual & Pro One example/discussion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iuvQT7dwfs

 

[BC21]

Here is another good manual & Pro One example/discussion...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iuvQT7dwfs

Yes! The most enlightening part begins 3 minutes into the video. This is the video that once prompted me to ask this question:

What if the fixed cb view looks like it'll send the ob straight into the pocket?

My reasoning was simply the obvious fact that in this video the first two shots (beginning at 3:00) would come off slightly thin if shot from the fixed cb, which Stan demonstrates, so they need to be thickened up with an outside pivot or sweep. The next shot (at 4:02) would come off slightly thick if shot from the fixed cb, so he thins it up with a pivot from the inside. It seems like somewhere in-between these thick and thin shots there would have to be a shot where shooting straight from that fixed cb would result in the ob hitting the pocket, not coming off thick or thin, and therefore needing no pivot or sweep.

This still confuses me, and it's one of the reasons I'm interested in getting the book or checking out the truth series.

 

[cookie man]

Yes! The most enlightening part begins 3 minutes into the video. This is the video that once prompted me to ask this question:

What if the fixed cb view looks like it'll send the ob straight into the pocket?

My reasoning was simply the obvious fact that in this video the first two shots (beginning at 3:00) would come off slightly thin if shot from the fixed cb, which Stan demonstrates, so they need to be thickened up with an outside pivot or sweep. The next shot (at 4:02) would come off slightly thick if shot from the fixed cb, so he thins it up with a pivot from the inside. It seems like somewhere in-between these thick and thin shots there would have to be a shot where shooting straight from that fixed cb would result in the ob hitting the pocket, not coming off thick or thin, and therefore needing no pivot or sweep.

This still confuses me, and it's one of the reasons I'm interested in getting the book or checking out the truth series.

Well since we pivot on straight in shots it should be obvious that there are no shots that are in between thick and thin. It's exactly what we have been saying. I would think knowing what you know and the you tube videos that you have watched you could really figure this out by yourself at the table. Can you come up with a shot that would need no pivot or sweep?
With the off set visual perception every shot will be thick or thin. You just need to except that and move on from there.

 

[BC21]

Well since we pivot on straight in shots it should be obvious that there are no shots that are in between thick and thin. It's exactly what we have been saying. I would think knowing what you know and the you tube videos that you have watched you could really figure this out by yourself at the table. Can you come up with a shot that would need no pivot or sweep?
With the off set visual perception every shot will be thick or thin. You just need to except that and move on from there.

Lol. I hear you. I must still be doing the perceptions wrong, despite verification from 2 people that have had a private lesson and one respected cte user from here in the forum. Because I can easily set up three shots, all with equal distance between cb and ob, and using the same visuals (15 perception) pocket one with an inside pivot, one with an outside pivot and one with no pivot (simply shoot straight through the fixed cb). I can set the exact same examples up that Stan shoots in some of his videos and pocket the balls in accordance with his instructions. But not all the shots, because for me the balls do not "present themselves differently" in different areas of the table.

The perceptions, as instructed, are strictly based on visuals between the cb and ob. The rest of the table has no influence on these visuals. I can shoot a straight in shot using a 15-outside, but if I move the balls so that it's no longer a straight in shot, but keep the distance exactly the same between cb and ob, and get my visuals exactly the same, and do an outside pivot exactly the same, all of this as objectively as possible, I consistently end up straight in on that ob after pivoting to center, only now it's straight into the rail, not the pocket. So there is something left out of the instructions that surely do not make it appear objective. And I know I'm in the majority with this, so hopefully the book and truth series will tie it all together and more players will benefit from the system.

 

[cutemonster]

For straight in shot, you should use 15 perception and pivot. That will allow you to align to center after pivot.

 

[BC21]

For straight in shot, you should use 15 perception and pivot. That will allow you to align to center after pivot.

Yes...like this shot with cb "A"....the fixed cb I get from the visuals would send the 3 ball to the red bottle cap on the rail. An inside pivot would thin it up and send it toward the piece of chalk on the rail, while an outside pivot would send it to the pocket (marked with another piece of chalk). From cb "B", using the exact same visuals as objectively as possible, my fixed cb would send the ob to the pocket (marked with a white bottle cap on top of the chalk), and the inside pivot sends the ob toward the .45cal round just right of the pocket, while the outside pivot hits the .45cal round just left of the pocket (straight as it lays). I am interested in discovering how these two shots can be done objectively and end up any different than shown here. That's what I'm hoping the book and truth series will reveal.