CTE automatically corrects stroke issues

[JB Cases]

lol

That's the "useful info" I thought you'd have, alright. Nothing but dodges.

pj
chgo

No, not a dodge. Just the qualifier of "useful" isn't something you get to be the judge of except for yourself only. I always post useful information about the CTE process as do other CTE users here.

I don't write for you.

I write for those who are interested in exploring objective aiming systems, especially the Center to Edge method.

From the most recent person who asked for some help with CTE.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't write for you.

Or anybody else here - too many unbaptized readers who won't simply buy whatever you sell. Best stick with the pre-screened congregation at the Church of CTElogy.

pj
chgo

 

[8pack]

What is the very first step on the way to pocketing a ball?

No wonder you have problems..

 

[Dan White]

I thought that you and I had an understanding of how we were going to talk to each other. If you can't be bothered to be accurate in your criticism then is this an indication that you are resuming hostilities?



No, not at all. I am countering your assertion and innuendo that Stan is LYING about CTE being great for banking and is ONLY making the curtain bank shots because of his banking experience. My explanation is far more likely, a bank pool expert is far more likely to be able to accurately evaluate the efficacy of any aiming method proposed for banking.



No, I said I got interested in the efficacy of the system by seeing Stan bank balls without seeing the rails. Has nothing to to with BUYING INTO some description of HOW or WHY it works. I can go to the hardware store and see a hammer that is advertised with all kinds of bullet points about WHY it works better than other hammers and none of that is more powerful for me than a video demonstrating it working better than other hammers. If I buy it and it actually works better then I will say that. If it doesn't then I will add my experience and say it doesn't. If someone then says, did you read the instructions and I say no and they say go read the instructions and report back and I find that I was not using it properly and in fact it does work better then I will report that.



Overhyping? The guy throws out balls at random and banks them one, two, three and four rails without seeing the target rails. Very very few people can do this with no curtain blocking the rails. There is no magic trick in play there. You try making ten banks in a row with a mix of one two and three railers with no curtain and report back. Then add a curtain and show us your results.



Um, amazingly that is what happens a lot of the time. That's the crazy part. I still can't get over it and love it when I use CTE to aim banks and watch them split the pocket.



See, this is the kind of defamation that is extremely uncool. If you were ever at Stan's house you would be hard pressed to not understand how deeply he loves pool and teaching. With 100% certainty if you went to visit him and had any other conclusion then it would be just dishonest and malicious. If you think that this is all something that any bank pool player can do then pick your champion, Brumback, Daulton, Billy Thorpe, whomever and they can ALL get action on Stan's ten foot table with curtains blocking the rails. You know I like to put my money where my mouth is so I will bet up to $10,000 that Stan outbanks them in that format. The only condition is that they must not be on record anywhere saying that they use any ball to ball aiming system like CTE.



No, he made more banks after learning CTE and using that aim them.



yes, says I who knows more about this, who knows Stan personally, and who knows CTE.



That's not what they say, so are you calling them liars? Do you know them better than they know themselves? As users of the CTE aiming method they are not under any obligation to do do any videos, say anything to anyone about CTE or otherwise share their knowledge and demonstrate their ability. You don't have to say with all due respect when you are going to follow it by telling me that people who have mastered a system better than me won't make balls better than me if they do a curtain exercise. And you show a complete lack of respect by throwing in the "after 20 years" crap. I have said dozens of times that I am NOT as diligent about mastering the process as others are. That's like me saying to you why can't you run 400 after 40 years of playing pool? You know as well as I do that someone really dedicated to practice and mastering techniques for two years can surpass many players who have been playing for 20 years.

If you were being respectful then you would already know that Stan's teaching in the form of free videos online, DVDS and now a book, started about 8 years ago.



I JUST SAID that it would be useful for testing for acuity in stroking. Please take the time to read what I said before responding.



See, NOW you're being productive.



Ok. That's a pretty good way to it. I will often set up a random shot and go through all the perceptions/sweeps to see where the cueball goes. I see no problem with such a test and it would be interesting to see what happens.



Maybe, but if so can you explain how a person with a straight stroke ever misses by more than a fraction of a diamond? Nick Varner told me that he never missed a ball because of his stroke and only missed because he aimed wrong. He said this to me at the Fox and Hound in downtown Charlotte in 2008 at a party that was thrown in conjunction with the BCA expo as we were conversing about aiming in pool.

But yes, with a curtain setup it opens up all sorts of tests that can be done when you have a large enough pool of players/humans to draw from.

We've had this discussion before without any common ground when it comes to who is better to demonstrate a method's ability to pocket balls. The guy who invented it or the guy who just learned it? Of course there are times, like for instruction, when you want to have the expert demonstrate the shots. I'm making a very simple point that you can't seem to wrap your head around or give any credence to. It is obvious that it is more powerful "proof" of a system if a student can do things the rest of us can't after said student learns the method from the master.

I am not saying that Stan is lying to people and trying to dupe them. You keep coming up with that straw man argument. I think Stan believes in what he is doing 100% but he's just wrong on the mechanism. How do I know? Because he said he doesn't know the mechanism and it is a mystery. I recall one Stan video where I actually felt a little sorry for him. He seemed a bit exasperated and said something very close to, "I just know I haven't wasted 10 years of my life on this." He said it in a way that didn't sound too sure. I don't have the clip on me but I recall it clearly. The reason I bring this up is because it shows Stan's frame of mind. He's not out to dupe anybody. Its just something he's convinced himself of because it seems like the balls go in effortlessly. At his level it should seem like that. So please stop accusing me of criticizing Stan and getting all upset over it.

Here's another thought for a test. The idea is to learn what impact seeing the pocket has on success while using CTE.
1. Set up the curtain and put down hole enforcers for the cb and ob but don't put them parallel to the long rail so the shooter can use that as a guide. Make it something like a C perception back cut.
2. Tell the player to hit 5 shots using a C perception but don't tell him to try and pocket the ball. He should focus only on executing the C perception perfectly. Record the results. If he is hitting the ball into the rail make a note of where (or on video, of course).
3. Now remove the curtain and continue to use the same hole reinforcers. Tell him he needs to pocket the ball using the C perception and see how long it takes before he starts pocketing it, or whether he keeps hitting it to the same spot on the rail as before.
4. If his success rate goes up significantly after being able to see the pocket then that might be interesting information.

I can see many variations on this method to gauge whether it is the objective steps or sight of the pocket that really makes CTE work.

 

[JB Cases]

We've had this discussion before without any common ground when it comes to who is better to demonstrate a method's ability to pocket balls. The guy who invented it or the guy who just learned it? Of course there are times, like for instruction, when you want to have the expert demonstrate the shots. I'm making a very simple point that you can't seem to wrap your head around or give any credence to. It is obvious that it is more powerful "proof" of a system if a student can do things the rest of us can't after said student learns the method from the master.

So, of course it would be awesome to have clear before/after data. I think that this would be valuable information. I gave credence to your point and countered with a better one. You seem to think that JUST BECAUSE Stan won a state bank pool title once in the 50-60 years of playing pool that it automatically disqualifies him from claiming that any given technique is good for bank pool. If so then it disqualifies ALL high level bank pool teachers of banking methods that are not strictly tied to geometric measurement, such as double the distance.

I think that when it comes to a messenger the person bringing the message is even more effective IF that person has high level knowledge of the subject of the message. In fact we can see by the way that I am constantly knocked for "missing while demonstrating" that showing less than perfect results are invalidating for some of the critics. So really it's a no win position when demonstrating perfect results isn't good enough and when demonstrating less than perfect results isn't good enough.

I am not saying that Stan is lying to people and trying to dupe them. You keep coming up with that straw man argument. I think Stan believes in what he is doing 100% but he's just wrong on the mechanism. How do I know? Because he said he doesn't know the mechanism and it is a mystery.

Again it doesn't matter because we come back to practicality. A person who knows how to create a fire using various means and also claims that fire is a gift from the gods can't be faulted for not knowing the chemical properties that cause combustion. Their practical need is to heat something and it doesn't matter if they pray to fkhkhee and do a chicken dance before they rub the sticks together to make the friction ignite the shavings.

I recall one Stan video where I actually felt a little sorry for him. He seemed a bit exasperated and said something very close to, "I just know I haven't wasted 10 years of my life on this." He said it in a way that didn't sound too sure. I don't have the clip on me but I recall it clearly. The reason I bring this up is because it shows Stan's frame of mind. He's not out to dupe anybody. Its just something he's convinced himself of because it seems like the balls go in effortlessly. At his level it should seem like that. So please stop accusing me of criticizing Stan and getting all upset over it.

You're the one characterizing Stan in ways that are not true. Find the clip and we can discuss it. I can tell you that what you mistake as uncertainty was not that. It was likely exasperation at the attitude of those who claim CTE does not work. If you want to feel sorry for something then feel sorry for all of those who would rather knock someone for expressing wonder at how something works while admitting that they don't know exactly HOW it works rather than work together with them to figure out how it works and reconcile the descriptive language used to be congruent with scientific understanding.

Here's another thought for a test. The idea is to learn what impact seeing the pocket has on success while using CTE.
1. Set up the curtain and put down hole enforcers for the cb and ob but don't put them parallel to the long rail so the shooter can use that as a guide. Make it something like a C perception back cut.
2. Tell the player to hit 5 shots using a C perception but don't tell him to try and pocket the ball. He should focus only on executing the C perception perfectly. Record the results. If he is hitting the ball into the rail make a note of where (or on video, of course).
3. Now remove the curtain and continue to use the same hole reinforcers. Tell him he needs to pocket the ball using the C perception and see how long it takes before he starts pocketing it, or whether he keeps hitting it to the same spot on the rail as before.
4. If his success rate goes up significantly after being able to see the pocket then that might be interesting information.

I can promise you that a proficient CTE user would have similar results either way. A lazy CTE user such as me would have better results when the pocket is in view. But yes, I like this experiment. This is the type of stuff I have been literally begging for. My early videos were done using experiments that were suggested by other posters. I took their suggestions to the table and did the test and showed the results.

I can see many variations on this method to gauge whether it is the objective steps or sight of the pocket that really makes CTE work.

I agree and fully believe that if skeptics and proficient users actually got together then a lot of information can be gathered that might reveal a lot. That's why I have made overtures plenty of times offering to bankroll such "roundtables" on the rectangular table.

 

[JoeyInCali]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSdlfdk6zG-rltsivz2zWAjkeYUj1UgWE

Real world pool instructions by the most likely the most popular instructor now based on his YT hits and lesson sales .
14 days of instructions . No fancy aiming systems yet the students show quantum leaps in their games after the lesson period .

 

[boogieman]

Not sure what your point is. was I disagreeing with you about something?

Nope no disagreeing, just trying to converse a little and failing. Basically they are applying however they personally have to get the certain look at the ball as you said but to a high degree of focus.

 

[JB Cases]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLSdlfdk6zG-rltsivz2zWAjkeYUj1UgWE

Real world pool instructions by the most likely the most popular instructor now based on his YT hits and lesson sales .
14 days of instructions . No fancy aiming systems yet the students show quantum leaps in their games after the lesson period .

Great. Shows that whatever he is doing is working for the people learning from him. SO WHAT? When a player reports "quantum leaps" after learning CTE then it's not accepted. I bet some of those students would benefit even more from learning CTE aiming as well.

CTE is not "fancy" aiming, it is accurate objective aiming.

 

[JB Cases]

Just thought I would put this here since Joey led me to it.

"I think that the greatest asset to becoming a pool player is curiosity." - Bill Stroud.

 

[JoeyInCali]

Great. Shows that whatever he is doing is working for the people learning from him. SO WHAT? When a player reports "quantum leaps" after learning CTE then it's not accepted. I bet some of those students would benefit even more from learning CTE aiming as well.

CTE is not "fancy" aiming, it is accurate objective a

Err,no.

 

[JB Cases]

Err,no.

Err Yes, accurate and objective.

 

[JB Cases]

So, I asked Stan directly what he means by CTE straightens the stroke:

"As far as stroke goes, the foundation is to always align to CCB based on one of the edges. Stroke improves because CTE requires accurate alignments. To become accurate, one must learn to stroke straight through the center. CTE is a center cue ball system that fosters repetition upon repetition. Conventional players do not have accurate center cue ball systems. They end up using a outside spin."

I personally think that this makes sense.

 

[JB Cases]

 

[JB Cases]

Don't do it Dan

 

[JoeyInCali]

Slip stroke and stroke slip straighten cue delivery.
But, you have to master the pendulum and 3-inch elbow drop too.

 

[JoeyInCali]

So, I asked Stan directly what he means by CTE straightens the stroke:

"As far as stroke goes, the foundation is to always align to CCB based on one of the edges. Stroke improves because CTE requires accurate alignments. To become accurate, one must learn to stroke straight through the center. CTE is a center cue ball system that fosters repetition upon repetition. Conventional players do not have accurate center cue ball systems. They end up using a outside spin."

I personally think that this makes sense.

Conventional players do not have accurate center cue ball systems ? Really ????
Heck, that would mean nobody can shoot straight consistently outside of CTE'rs ?

 

[JB Cases]

Conventional players do not have accurate center cue ball systems ? Really ????
Heck, that would mean nobody can shoot straight consistently outside of CTE'rs ?

What Stan means is that they don't have systems that accurately bring them to center ball. Since I haven't used every system I can't say if any of the others are accurate center ball systems. So, if we simply presume that CTE directs the shooter to center ball then what he means is that the shooter presumably would deliver the stroke straight through instead of unintentionally steering to throw the object ball in.

As for the idea that no one else can shoot straight, well clearly that is a broad statement. I would say that of course there are players who can shoot straight. I take Stan's words to mean that a lot of players are not aiming right and so they can't be both shooting straight without sidespin and pocketing balls.

I personally think that this has merit as is doverails with my own hypothesis that bad aiming causes body english. I have noticed over the past week or so as my vision has gotten better and better after surgery that my stroke is much straighter.

I can give Stan artistic license here because I don't think it matters really to the central claim that correct CTE usage leads to the correct shot line. If being on the correct shot line results in being able to stroke straighter then it is a by product benefit. As I know personally from experience it's quite easy to throw the cueball OFF of the correct shot line with a swoopy stroke. So if he discovered that there is some stroke straightening effect and he inuits that it is because of the intense focus brought to bear on the center of the cue ball then it's fair of him to point that out.

 

[8pack]

Nope no disagreeing, just trying to converse a little and failing. Basically they are applying however they personally have to get the certain look at the ball as you said but to a high degree of focus.

Yes Sir. Better players have more experience at being right.

 

[8pack]

So, I asked Stan directly what he means by CTE straightens the stroke:

"As far as stroke goes, the foundation is to always align to CCB based on one of the edges. Stroke improves because CTE requires accurate alignments. To become accurate, one must learn to stroke straight through the center. CTE is a center cue ball system that fosters repetition upon repetition. Conventional players do not have accurate center cue ball systems. They end up using a outside spin."

I personally think that this makes sense.

Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you hear.

Whats next ... cte will keep you from Playing bad pool when you're drunk.

 

[Low500]

To John Barton.....
John, in post #80 you stated that: "Nick Varner told me that he never missed a ball because of his stroke and only missed because he aimed wrong. He said this to me at the Fox and Hound in downtown Charlotte in 2008 at a party that was thrown in conjunction with the BCA expo as we were conversing about aiming in pool."
I believe that happened 100% just as you say.
I have had similar conversations with Nick and he absolutely believes in the power of precision aiming. And Nick Varner is no pool room bum. As you know, he is college educated, a gentleman, well read, well spoken and a credit to the game.
Some psychopathic loser around here, however, will believe one of the following:
#1 John Barton is lying
or
#2 Nick Varner is lying
or
#3 John Barton and Nick Varner BOTH are lying
My point being that it doesn't matter WHAT kind of evidence is presented to the psychopathic losers, they will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, resign themselves to admitting they have been wrong all these years concerning the CTE Aiming system and the work of Stan Shuffett. You will never get them to think open mindedly.
For them, there will always be something "incorrect" about videos, statements, books, when it comes to that topic.
Let it go, John....let it go....let it go.
Forget about the losers and continue to add to the Positive Testimonials thread that Mr. Howerton has given us. There ARE visitors and members in this wonderful billiards site who do not listen to or pay attention to the losers here.
What you're doing is just like "pissing into the wind and letting it blow back in your face". (no offense meant)

Kindest Regards,
Lowenstein