Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.

quiet eyes

Member
I am sure Stan Shuffet has found some interesting regularities. It might be interesting to try to understand his concepts from an educational standpoint. So kudos for all the work. Having said that, my advice to all people struggling with making balls is to not confuse themselves with systems. This system in particular is both counter-intuitive and over-intellectualized. I still have not understood it after hours of instruction. Regardless, I am amazed about the fixation on an aiming system in general.

In theory, making balls is a simple task. First, we have to cue straight (otherwise you won't be able to diagnose). Secondly, we have to guess the correct line of aim. So given a straight stroke, we have to learn what the correct line is. This learning process is a visual process. We feed our brains with pictures of potting experiments and implicitly learn from the observed results. The learning process by nature is immanent and visual not intellectual or conceptual like in a system.

Also, why do aiming systems not play a role in snooker even though potting is harder in snooker? Advanced players just "see" the shot line which is more exact than doing calculations. This whole body of aiming "science" is a puzzle for players who have learned to see the correct line of aim just by doing it/HAMB (it is in fact much less than a million balls).

The "system" of successful players:
Guess line of aim standing behind the cue ball --- 100 % commit to this line --- go down on this line --- cue straight --- stay down and observe the result
adapt REPEAT adapt REPEAT (all unconsciously)

This is the recipe for learning angles and potting precision in LESS TIME and in a natural way. Why would we need a system based on concepts that is less fine-grained than an intuitive system? Me aiming my key into the keyhole in bad lighting does not require a system as well.

PS: I don't want to troll this CTE post. I just think it will not help players looking to improve their shot making abilities and might even get in their way.
 
Last edited:

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
Show them what I wrote. Bring them and cash. I know exactly what I said. 2:1 on the money if you get Lou to be the player. This is NOT hyperbole.
If I show up with the nuts my guess is your horse will not be on board with your foolishness. The man has way too much integrity to throw you under the bus like that drawing dead.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
This. Plus as things went I decided BEFORE the match to do a cross country sales tour instead of spending time training and getting my fundamentals squared away. AND - even when I did have the time to practice I instead spent it on AZB responding to the bait tossed out by Lou's "group". I later found out just how coordinated they were in doing that. In other words I did everything in the most SUCKER way possible to prepare for a big match. Still wasn't totally unhappy about the performance. I was MORE UNHAPPY that I was a TERRIBLE example of CTE in use on an important stage.

It would have been worth remembering that being a cheerleader for a great aiming system doesn't make one into a decent player by osmosis. At the end of the day though I am on the right side still. The marketing I got out of that match, in the five months leading up to it and for about a month after was worth so much more to me than the money I spent on the match. The logo impressions were in the hundreds of thousands and everywhere I went people wanted to talk to me about the match. So for me the only better result would have been to win but I didn't really give myself the best chance to perform better under pressure. Countless people stepped up to help me though and the things I learned about how detested my opponent is were sadly enlightening and not unexpected.

At the end of it all I am still the same person and am happy that I stepped up with ZERO deception. The other side......let's just say it took a group to take me down and to me that says they had some fear that I might show up able to play a little. What else I know for a fact is that in the total games played between myself and Lou the score stands at 11-10.

And I know FOR A FACT that when I offered to play for 30k they didn't show up. Dave Segal put it best, if they thought they they had the nuts then they should have begged and borrowed to lock up that offer.

Stan Shuffett is about the same speed as Lou in balls run in 14.1. Yet Lou WILL NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER even consider stepping up to play Stan in ANY GAME for anything serious. Lou yips and yaps and embellishes but NEVER steps up to face any actual heat. Twice now I have shaken this man's hand with an agreement to be peaceful from that point and twice he has broken his word completely. As far as I am concerned the pool world will be far better off when he is no longer in it. People like Stan grow pool. People like Lou kill it.
You should have played him an ahead set...you had the momentum at the end.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
LOL - the old hit back cuts all day method.....

I told you why it works. And....it doesn't matter why it works....

Why does hitting back cuts for two weeks work assuming that it does? Your answer is going to have to be something you cannot prove. The actual answer is going to be because it does.
Not all day. I said hit 15 back cuts a day for two weeks. Just 15. Let me modify that to say 15 successful shots per day. If you could do it twice a day say morning and evening that would be even better. Maybe 20 minutes a day total required, not "all day."

It works because of the brain, not because of some pre shot procedure that circumvents the requirement that the brain OK's the shot before hitting it.

Also, I'm pretty sure your $10,000 challenge that Stan can beat anyone is a go but we need to be sure Stan is up for fulfilling your commitments before I pursue it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: JC

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
Also, I'm pretty sure your $10,000 challenge that Stan can beat anyone is a go but we need to be sure Stan is up for fulfilling your commitments before I pursue it.
I would place the odds of that in the when pigs can fly category.

In fact I will take action on Stan playing or not.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I would place the odds of that in the when pigs can fly category.

In fact I will take action on Stan playing or not.
LOL I'm sure. This is an easy game to make, and I'm sure way more than $10,000 could be wagered. It's up to Stan, though, not JB.
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
LOL I'm sure. This is an easy game to make, and I'm sure way more than $10,000 could be wagered. It's up to Stan, though, not JB.
Better hope Jay doesn't get wind of this thread.

The Helfert/Orcullo squad is probably ready to roll on a moment's notice. :D
 

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
You would think that with so many high-brows in this thread, that instead of attempting as they usually do to tear apart something they have never seen; they would make an effort to review Stan's book, if only for intellectual curiosity and instead of making uninformed opinions. That's the way this forum has gone despite Mike Howerton's efforts. As John Barton has already attested, contrary to what some of the high-brows in this thread have said, Stan would be the first to tell you (and has) that, an aiming/alignment system by itself won't make you an accomplished player. The book is very well-written and while I am just getting into reading it, it appears that Stan has written a book that will dispel many of the misconceptions that are expressed in this group about CTE/Pro One. But I will leave you now to your gossip. You can apologize for speaking out of turn at a later date in this thread. And yes, CTE/Pro One works on banks as well:
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
You would think that with so many high-brows in this thread, that instead of attempting as they usually do to tear apart something they have never seen; they would make an effort to review Stan's book, if only for intellectual curiosity and instead of making uninformed opinions. That's the way this forum has gone despite Mike Howerton's efforts. As John Barton has already attested, contrary to what some of the high-brows in this thread have said, Stan would be the first to tell you (and has) that, an aiming/alignment system by itself won't make you an accomplished player. The book is very well-written and while I am just getting into reading it, it appears that Stan has written a book that will dispel many of the misconceptions that are expressed in this group about CTE/Pro One. But I will leave you now to your gossip. You can apologize for speaking out of turn at a later date in this thread. And yes, CTE/Pro One works on banks as well:
Give me credit from the two DVDs I bought toward it and I'll pick up a copy. I would love to understand it but don't want to be fooled a third time.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You would think that with so many high-brows in this thread, that instead of attempting as they usually do to tear apart something they have never seen; they would make an effort to review Stan's book, if only for intellectual curiosity and instead of making uninformed opinions. That's the way this forum has gone despite Mike Howerton's efforts. As John Barton has already attested, contrary to what some of the high-brows in this thread have said, Stan would be the first to tell you (and has) that, an aiming/alignment system by itself won't make you an accomplished player. The book is very well-written and while I am just getting into reading it, it appears that Stan has written a book that will dispel many of the misconceptions that are expressed in this group about CTE/Pro One. But I will leave you now to your gossip. You can apologize for speaking out of turn at a later date in this thread. And yes, CTE/Pro One works on banks as well:
Joey, with all due respect, and I mean that, you are mischaracterizing the argument. I'll give you an example since you bring up banking. Let's say you never heard of Stan and had no idea of his reputation, good or bad. You watch the video and think, "wow this must be a great aiming method if I can make all those banks"! Well, there is a thing called conflict of interest or full disclosure. You look into the player's background and find out that he did nothing but play bank pool from the age of 8 to 16, played banks at a professional level and considers it his best game, and all of this decades before he even heard of CTE. Isn't that something pretty important to disclose?

So what's the solution? You find a student that hasn't learned CTE yet and video him attempting a few dozen bank shots. Then you teach him CTE and then show another video of him now making all those bank shots. Wouldn't that be more convincing? Stan's bank videos are meaningless. A bank video from an inexperience student would be convincing. I say inexperienced because according to CTE you only have to learn how to align to the cue ball so banking should be almost the same as making a straight shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JC

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You would think that with so many high-brows in this thread, that instead of attempting as they usually do to tear apart something they have never seen; they would make an effort to review Stan's book, if only for intellectual curiosity and instead of making uninformed opinions. That's the way this forum has gone despite Mike Howerton's efforts. As John Barton has already attested, contrary to what some of the high-brows in this thread have said, Stan would be the first to tell you (and has) that, an aiming/alignment system by itself won't make you an accomplished player. The book is very well-written and while I am just getting into reading it, it appears that Stan has written a book that will dispel many of the misconceptions that are expressed in this group about CTE/Pro One. But I will leave you now to your gossip. You can apologize for speaking out of turn at a later date in this thread. And yes, CTE/Pro One works on banks as well:

wow.

That's quite the lecture, thanks, Joey.

BTW, what kind of wooden ruler do you prefer nowadays? You sticking to the basic Wescott or maybe a Fiskar?

Lou Figueroa
 

Attachments

  • Unknown-1.jpeg
    Unknown-1.jpeg
    4.5 KB · Views: 67
  • Like
Reactions: JC

bbb

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
this thread was about stans book coming

Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.​

and what happened
the resurrection of a 20 plus year flame war
history just repeats itself
dont you guys get tired of beating your heads against the wall?
did any of you buy the book to see whats in it???
just askin
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
The contingency that Stan shall perform his set shot routine when it's put up time. Of course he can make his R&D shots especially if they're defined by donuts. What about haphazardly throwing the cue ball and another ball onto the table and banking? This part doesn't end. Pool is largely a random affair.
Lol, you are clearly uninformed. The proof is on the table. If you think that Stan's demonstrated shotmaking is all just "high percentage shot at "cinch" speed" then go ahead and demonstrate equal proficiency. Go for it. Set up your curtain and show us.

I will be happy to go to Stan's with you and bring 10k to bet. Stan can throw out balls randomly and bank them in easily assuming that the shot is possible. You don't get what you are seeing and likely never will. I have seen it in person while challenging him for hours. I tried to trip him up and find holes in the method. I used every criticism that the critics have tossed out there in the past 10 years, the same ones they used 24 years ago. I have offered to pay for the flights and expenses of the critics to go spend time with Stan. Not a single one of them on here has taken that opportunity. Now I wouldn't pay a quarter to help any one of these vile worthless excuses for humans.

I don't mind probing questions. I mind malicious destructive activity and especially when it's done with pleasure and glee. I have always felt that when someone says something is good they ought to be able to back it up and for me Stan and Hal and many other instructors teaching objective aiming system have been able to back up what they say.

Not a single person who claims that they aim by feel/intuition/instinct has ever duplicated the demonstrations Stan has put out there. Not Lou, Not JoeyinCali, not Duckie (ESPECIALLY NOT DUCKIE), not Pat Johnson, not Dan White, none of them. Not a single one to my knowledge has demonstrated that they can achieve the same results WITHOUT the use of an objective aiming method. Not Dr. Dave, not Bob Jewett, none of them. And for the record I am deeply grateful to the body of work put out by Jewett and Dr. Dave. I think Dr. Dave has contributed a ton of great material to the pool world. But not even he has duplicated Stan's demonstrations which would be a logical thing for a critic to do in my opinion. James Randi spent his life debunking so-called mystics and snake-oil pushers. He offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who could prove the existence of psychic ability and to date no one has been able to win that money. Along the way though he has actively criticized and debunked those who claim psychic ability by revealing the methods behind the tricks they use. Randi was an accomplished magician with a deep understanding of the mechanics involved. So to me when these CTE critics want to attempt to debunk CTE then they should prove that they understand the mechanics OR that they at the very least could say that they can achieve the same consistent results by whatever conventional aiming methods they claim to use. Ought to be easy for them right?

No matter though. Every single post you and them make in these threads only serves as a reason to continue the thread and subsequently piques interest for the readers and creates new students of the Center to Edge method of aiming. You can argue academically all day but for the students of the CTE method the proof is on the table not on the chalkboard.
 

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
Lol, you are clearly uninformed. The proof is on the table. If you think that Stan's demonstrated shotmaking is all just "high percentage shot at "cinch" speed" then go ahead and demonstrate equal proficiency. Go for it. Set up your curtain and show us.

I will be happy to go to Stan's with you and bring 10k to bet. Stan can throw out balls randomly and bank them in easily assuming that the shot is possible. You don't get what you are seeing and likely never will. I have seen it in person while challenging him for hours. I tried to trip him up and find holes in the method. I used every criticism that the critics have tossed out there in the past 10 years, the same ones they used 24 years ago. I have offered to pay for the flights and expenses of the critics to go spend time with Stan. Not a single one of them on here has taken that opportunity. Now I wouldn't pay a quarter to help any one of these vile worthless excuses for humans.

I don't mind probing questions. I mind malicious destructive activity and especially when it's done with pleasure and glee. I have always felt that when someone says something is good they ought to be able to back it up and for me Stan and Hal and many other instructors teaching objective aiming system have been able to back up what they say.

Not a single person who claims that they aim by feel/intuition/instinct has ever duplicated the demonstrations Stan has put out there. Not Lou, Not JoeyinCali, not Duckie (ESPECIALLY NOT DUCKIE), not Pat Johnson, not Dan White, none of them. Not a single one to my knowledge has demonstrated that they can achieve the same results WITHOUT the use of an objective aiming method. Not Dr. Dave, not Bob Jewett, none of them. And for the record I am deeply grateful to the body of work put out by Jewett and Dr. Dave. I think Dr. Dave has contributed a ton of great material to the pool world. But not even he has duplicated Stan's demonstrations which would be a logical thing for a critic to do in my opinion. James Randi spent his life debunking so-called mystics and snake-oil pushers. He offered a one million dollar prize for anyone who could prove the existence of psychic ability and to date no one has been able to win that money. Along the way though he has actively criticized and debunked those who claim psychic ability by revealing the methods behind the tricks they use. Randi was an accomplished magician with a deep understanding of the mechanics involved. So to me when these CTE critics want to attempt to debunk CTE then they should prove that they understand the mechanics OR that they at the very least could say that they can achieve the same consistent results by whatever conventional aiming methods they claim to use. Ought to be easy for them right?

No matter though. Every single post you and them make in these threads only serves as a reason to continue the thread and subsequently piques interest for the readers and creates new students of the Center to Edge method of aiming. You can argue academically all day but for the students of the CTE method the proof is on the table not on the chalkboard.
You are writing checks that Stan's ass account may be shy to cash.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not a single person who claims that they aim by feel/intuition/instinct has ever duplicated the demonstrations Stan has put out there. Not Lou, Not JoeyinCali, not Duckie (ESPECIALLY NOT DUCKIE), not Pat Johnson, not Dan White, none of them. Not a single one to my knowledge has demonstrated that they can achieve the same results WITHOUT the use of an objective aiming method.
That would be incorrect. Here's a very respectful video I made 5 years ago that you commented on liberally. The point of the video, in a nutshell, is that hiding the pockets does not prove that CTE is doing some amazing thing that cannot be done any other way.

 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Mister Grey loves the CTE method of playing pool...and he "don't make no bad bets"
 

Attachments

  • MisterGray on Pool Table with caption.jpg
    MisterGray on Pool Table with caption.jpg
    192.3 KB · Views: 66

JC

Coos Cues
Gold Member
That would be incorrect. Here's a very respectful video I made 5 years ago that you commented on liberally. The point of the video, in a nutshell, is that hiding the pockets does not prove that CTE is doing some amazing thing that cannot be done any other way.

Is it "shoe fit" ?
 

JB Cases

www.jbcases.com
Silver Member
To this day I get asked about that match or I hear people refer to me as, "the guy who beat the case maker for $10,000" -- they don't know from John Barton or JB Cases.

And at the time it pretty much consumed the group here with threads, polls, and memes. I think the stream itself got over 800 viewers the first night.

Lou Figueroa
lol, it's not much but...
Yep consumed the group, thanks for the zillion ad impressions. Best ten k I ever spent on marketing.
I am sure Stan Shuffet has found some interesting regularities. It might be interesting to try to understand his concepts from an educational standpoint. So kudos for all the work. Having said that, my advice to all people struggling with making balls is to not confuse themselves with systems. This system in particular is both counter-intuitive and over-intellectualized. I still have not understood it after hours of instruction. Regardless, I am amazed about the fixation on an aiming system in general.

In theory, making balls is a simple task. First, we have to cue straight (otherwise you won't be able to diagnose). Secondly, we have to guess the correct line of aim. So given a straight stroke, we have to learn what the correct line is. This learning process is a visual process. We feed our brains with pictures of potting experiments and implicitly learn from the observed results. The learning process by nature is immanent and visual not intellectual or conceptual like in a system.

Also, why do aiming systems not play a role in snooker even though potting is harder in snooker? Advanced players just "see" the shot line which is more exact than doing calculations. This whole body of aiming "science" is a puzzle for players who have learned to see the correct line of aim just by doing it/HAMB (it is in fact much less than a million balls).

The "system" of successful players:
Guess line of aim standing behind the cue ball --- 100 % commit to this line --- go down on this line --- cue straight --- stay down and observe the result
adapt REPEAT adapt REPEAT (all unconsciously)

This is the recipe for learning angles and potting precision in LESS TIME and in a natural way. Why would we need a system based on concepts that is less fine-grained than an intuitive system? Me aiming my key into the keyhole in bad lighting does not require a system as well.

PS: I don't want to troll this CTE post. I just think it will not help players looking to improve their shot making abilities and might even get in their way.
there are aiming systems in snooker. You are right, in theory, making balls is a simple task, in theory. Just because someone has brute-forced their way into proficiency doesn't mean that a better way doesn't exist or will never exist. That's like the head of the patent office in 1870 saying that everything that can be invented has been invented.

Who says LESS time? Have you done any sort of comparison with all variables accounted for? What IF the brute-force method actually results in the player adopting objective aiming because objective aiming is in fact the better way? What if the brute-force method produces a player who fundamentally enters the shot in the way that CTE codifies without knowing that this is what they are doing. What if the CTE user is functionally equivalent to the brute-force player but got there in less time? What if both players had EXACTLY the same amount of time and the CTE user was MORE proficient?

Why do you assume that because you have not been able to understand it that others are equally confused? What if the majority of people who commit to learning it are not confusing themselves at all? What if the majority of people who try to learn it do learn it and have a higher degree of success after learning it?

This is your advice......guess the line of aim, commit to that guessed line,and if wrong do it again, and again, and again, and again, for the 63,000,000 possible shots.

My advice is learn an objective system that trains your visual acuity to accurately apply a small set of perceptions which have been proven to work for just about any shot directly to a pocket and for the vast majority of bank shots. Then one does not need to use brute-force to train one's perception for each individual shot and one has a set of "master keys" that fit almost every lock in the building. To me if the building has 2000 locks and each lock has it's own key then it takes far longer to shuffle though two thousand keys than it does to choose from six keys. And even easier still if the keys are coded in such a way that for any lock half of them are instantly discarded so that one of three of them will open the lock. And better still if the keys are coded in such a way that of the remaining three one of them can be instantly discarded. Wouldn't take long to become fairly adept at picking the right key from the remaining two.
 
Top