Hal Houle

Pool

eze said:
I have spoke with hal several times,and i could not get the cueball to pivot where i could pocket the ball.
Hal had me set up a thin cut shot
to the right and then put my tip on the right side of the cueball then aim the center of my cueball to the left edge of ob and then pivot my tip back to center of cueball.Its like i was always shooting a 1/2
ball hit. I dont know if im doing the pivot thing wrong or the center to edge thing is wrong.Just wondering. NO THEY CANNOT HELP YOU. I SET UP MORE SHOTS AND YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT I TOLD YOU. ASK YOUR BUDDIES THEY MAY BE ABLE TO HELP YOU.

HAL
Click to expand...
 
av84fun said:
Dave, were pretty much on the same team here but I'm not sure I understand the above.

Since the CB is round..."addressing the CB dead center" can mean a lot of things.

If the reader assumed you meant dead center in relation the the CTE line, that would not be correct because simply aiming through the center of the CB to the edge of the OB merely produces a half ball hit.

I KNOW that advanced users don't even think in terms of determining a specific hand placement...they just land correctly due to repetitive practice...just like you don't have to look at the keyboard keys after a while...but you DO have to look at them at first, and since there are so many readers who are beginners at the system or who haven't even tried it, I'm trying to speak to Level 1...or Level 0...and to that audience, IMHO the bridge hand placement is CRITICAL and has to be learned mechanically at first.

For those interested, first place your bridge hand 4 inches to the left of the CTE line...point the tip to the edge of the CB and pivot to the center. You will see that you will miss the whole OB!

Do the same thing from the right and DITTO.

So, now we have established that bridge hand placement DOES matter. So, where the hell do you place it.

There are several different ways to explain that which is why those who think that simple breif text can teach much of anything are mistaken. (You don't read a book and then go drive a car...at least not MY car!)

GENERALLY, the shaft needs to be a LITTLE offset from the CTE line. It should be outside the line on a cut to the right and inside the line on a cut to the left.

How much? Say 1/4 inch. But the shaft is angled to the CB when you move into the shot so that inside/outside placement is a little difficult to determine.

So, for Level 1...the purely mechanical level that everyone should start on, I have developed a couple of methods myself and therefore, don't mind posting them.

If you imagine the CTE line....and if you can't do that then forget about the whole enchalada...and extend it back from the CB toward you...place your hand so that the CTE line is directly under the inverted V formed by the index finger of your closed bridge.

Push up to your normal bridge length keeping that inverted V RIGHT ON TOP of the CTE line...like it was a track while pointing the cue tip to the outside edge of the CB.

When you get to your normal bridge length, stop...and pivot ALONG THE HORIZONTAL CENTER OF THE CB...to dead center.

THAT is your aim line and if you look, you should see that the V formed by your thumb and index finger of your bridge hand is just about 1.4 inch offset from the CTE line.

Start by setting up pretty easy cuts ...10 degrees and 2 diamonds from the pocket and 1 diamond CB/OF distance and DO NOT take a full backstroke. The shot should be short enough so that lag speed on the CB is plenty so just take a SHORT...Allen Hopkins backstroke of maybe an inch and stroke straight throuh the center of the cb.

All you're doing is trying to verify the accuracy of the aim line...not play pool at this stage.

Then, replace the CB to where it was and move the OB a half ball for a little more angle and do the same thing. Keep doing that...in both directions until you PASS the half ball hit.

Shoot 5 different cut angles 5 times each in both directions for a 50 shot series.

Approach each shot like it was the 9 ball for the match and DO NOT set up longer shots before you have done the 50 shot series. If you race ahead, then don't blame me if you start missing.

As SpideyDave said (I think) this is a PROCESS and if you don't use a building block approach then missing will be your own fault and not that of the system.

If you have trouble PM me. I have now reached the limit of what I am going to post on the forum and won't say much more in PMs at this time...I'll only try to explain the above with different words.


But at this point, you should see that there is NO feel or intuition or any need for subconscious adjustments....dealing of Tarot cards or Gregorian chants necessary.

It is a ROTE system that will work for a HUGE range of cut angles...AS LONG AS THERE IS AN AVAILABLE POCKET i.e. if the OB is frozen to a long rail and the CB is directly across the table on the same diamond line...sorry folks but there is not pocket available for the shot so you bank it or duck.

This is an aiming system not voodoo! And the beauty of it...even at Level 1...is that when the system runs out of gas it is OBVIOUS and you resort to plan be and eventually get to Level 2 and then Pro One at which point you will use CTE on almost every shot...just like Django.

Finally....I'm TRYING to be helpful here and to the extent that sharp comments have passed BACK AND FORTH that is unfortunate.

But there have been a LOT of dismissive posts...you are subconsciously adjusting...you don't understand what you are actually doing...the method cannot work...etc. posted by people who have NO IDEA how the system works and sorry...that is just intellectual laziness and/or closed-mindedness which makes me want to YUKE!

(-:

Jim
Click to expand...

When I say addressing at center... I'm pivoting in the air from an offset point (the foundation of Hal's system). I'm just setting up where I'd end up if I pivoted on the table. Hope that makes sense.
 
cigjonser said:
This is just a quick sketch, so sorry for the ugliness of it.

There is a red CB and a blue CB, each with three lines associated with it. One goes from the center of each CB to the "ghost" ball, the second goes from the center of each CB to the edge of the OB, and the third is the inital line the cue stick is on before pivoting (parallel to the CTE line).

pivotimage.gif


It looks like the pivot point must change from shot to shot depending on distance and angle. As the lines show, the blue CB has a much closer pivot point than the red one does. Does the CTE system deal with this with the bridge hand placement somehow?

I'm genuinely asking and please don't take this as some kind of proof that the system is flawed or that the pivot point must necessarily change on each shot. Since I'm assuming the system works this apparent discrepancy will somehow be accounted for, I just can't get my head around that part of it.

If it matters the "red" shot is about 10 degrees and the "blue" one is about 48 degrees (roughly).
Click to expand...
Very interesting diagram.

I don't think this is how the CTE pivot is determined but it does demonstrate a potential pivot system based on CTE as a guide. It would need to determine the pivot point based on the angle and distance from CB to OB on each shot.

Colin

Edit: Though this method develops a pair of congruous lines that could be interpolated into a system, the major problem is that the reference point furthest from the contact point. I think the further away the reference point, the greater the margin of error. Hence, it might be not to bad on straightish shots but way off for fine cuts.
 
Last edited:
SpiderWebComm said:
[...] It's NOT feel, I just "see" it from repetition (manual repetition).
Click to expand...

Is it possible to have a clearer statement that shows most of the disagreements here are semantic ones?

Honestly, I don't know why it works. I mean that sincerely. If I asked Django why it works, I'd bet my nuts he'd have no clue. [...]

Who cares....it works. My guess is the math is pretty complicated based on "what's going on."
Click to expand...

Dave - I don't know your "system," so my comments here are not specific to your system. But PLEASE PLEASE try to understand a little different perspective here. I'm not saying adopt it; just please try to understand it.

If something seems to work or to help some people it IS important to many of us to understand WHY it helps. Part of this--most of us are here for fun when it comes down to it--is intellectual curiosity, but a big part of it is understanding what specific problems are solved by a particular approach to be able to incorporate and communicate those things directly and extend them to new situations.

Here's a couple analogies.

Suppose somebody claimed that a diet consisting of only hot chicken wings leads to weight loss and cited several people who have been eating only chicken wings for eight weeks and have lost weight.

Somebody might say they don't care why it works; it just works.

Others might suggest the hot sauce must interact with the fat to dissolve it in some way.

A little examination, though, might reveal it works because people eat fewer calories when all they're allowed to eat is hot chicken wings. This is both because they don't always have hot chicken wings available when they get the urge to eat, and also because they get sick of the chicken wings.

Why does it matter whether the Louisiana hot sauce has some strange metabolic effect, or it's a simple calorie issue? It matters because the people who find the true reason it works are in a position to modify this style of diet to make it more nutritious.

Or here's another:

Someone claims smearing dog poop all over your backyard swing set makes the grass grow. They can show several people who have tried this method with great success. They don't understand why anyone would question the poop-on-the-swing-set method as it clearly works.

A little analysis, though, reveals anyone who smears dog poop on their swing set also spends a nasty afternoon with the garden hose cleaning it off--and it's the water from the garden hose that makes the grass grow. I think it's clear how this understanding would help to suggest a modification of the method.

There are reasons why beginning every shot the same way--looking full on or looking at the half-ball hit for instance--might be useful. The "SEEing it (from manual repetition)" you described above benefits from approaching the same shots the same way every time.

There are other reasons some of these approaches--whether it's one of Hal's methods or S.A.M. or whatever is being discussed here--help people. Get ready, because there's a big secret coming... These approaches cause people to do something they don't usually do. It's such an important thing that we have a name for it. It's called AIM. That's right.

If you look at the QUIET EYE studies, you will find one bit of consistency about the studies of pool, of putting, of basketball free throws, and of other aims involving stationary targets. Consistently a group of experts is compared to a group of wanabees. Consistently the group of experts GAZE at they target on average for a notably longer period of time in the "set" position. I'm talking maybe 2.5 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It has become increasingly clear that this slightly longer gaze time--locking on your target for enough time-- is crucial for processing the information necessary to aim successfully.

Let's suppose many people suffer from inadequate GAZE time. IF true, then showing them a new method that forces them to lock in on the target (while following whatever the prescription is) will increase their success rate. Like the poop-on-the-swingset, the method might just be a mechanism to bring out the real solution (water/quiet-eye gaze time).




I point out in one of my aiming videos that I think another reason for any success people find with fractional ball aiming techniques is it causes them to sight parallel to the line the stick is moving. Many people don't. Many people sight from above the stick to the object ball contact point. This line is not parallel to the line of the stick or the cueball motion.

Please understand Dave that when someone suggests a method that SEEMS to not have the gaps filled in, that SEEMS to have shots that require two different angles to receive the same aim, that SEEMS to request the exact same aim for two sticks that we know squirt differently, it is like a giant bell going off for many of us.

Then if rather than taking off the system's clothes so that we can examine it honestly, the proponent points out that you really have to learn it in person or that such and such a world-class player uses it, it's like another giant bell going off.
 
Mike...Since you're talking about something I know quite a bit about, I'll chime in here. You're close, but not quite accurate. First, it is not necessary to call beginner players "wannabees". That is a derogatory remark.

Second, the Quiet Eye studies detailed the difference between a quick glance (1/10-1/2 of a second) versus a focused look, or gaze, as you call it. The data from neurosurgeons and opthamologists tell us that the brain needs a minimum amount of visual information (minimum of 2 seconds; delivered to the brain via the optic nerve), before the brain can "lock in" on the image, process the information, and give some sort of feedback. Anything less, and the brain basically says, "Huh? I didn't get that...look AGAIN"...which becomes repetitive, or what we call 'ping-pong' or 'peekaboo' eyes. In pool, the feedback is frequently a 'go' or 'don't go' response...or even just a simple muscle command (move your arm). That's why poolplayers (and others) have a greater success rate, with a consistent eye pattern, which is built around a long look (2 seconds) at both targets...the CB & OB. Shorter glances, or an inconsistent eye pattern, will likely not deliver the optimum results. The eye patterns are part of the teaching process, that goes hand-in-hand with an accurate, repeatable stroke.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

mikepage said:
If you look at the QUIET EYE studies, you will find one bit of consistency about the studies of pool, of putting, of basketball free throws, and of other aims involving stationary targets. Consistently a group of experts is compared to a group of wanabees. Consistently the group of experts GAZE at they target on average for a notably longer period of time in the "set" position. I'm talking maybe 2.5 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It has become increasingly clear that this slightly longer gaze time--locking on your target for enough time-- is crucial for processing the information necessary to aim successfully.

Let's suppose many people suffer from inadequate GAZE time. IF true, then showing them a new method that forces them to lock in on the target (while following whatever the prescription is) will increase their success rate. Like the poop-on-the-swingset, the method might just be a mechanism to bring out the real solution (water/quiet-eye gaze time).
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
Mike...Since you're talking about something I know quite a bit about, I'll chime in here. You're close, but not quite accurate. First, it is not necessary to call beginner players "wannabees". That is a derogatory remark.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was just being flip.

Second, the Quiet Eye studies detailed the difference between a quick glance (1/10-1/2 of a second) versus a focused look, or gaze, as you call it. The data from neurosurgeons and opthamologists tell us that the brain needs a minimum amount of visual information (minimum of 2 seconds; delivered to the brain via the optic nerve), before the brain can "lock in" on the image, process the information, and give some sort of feedback. Anything less, and the brain basically says, "Huh? I didn't get that...look AGAIN"...which becomes repetitive, or what we call 'ping-pong' or 'peekaboo' eyes. In pool, the feedback is frequently a 'go' or 'don't go' response...or even just a simple muscle command (move your arm). That's why poolplayers (and others) have a greater success rate, with a consistent eye pattern, which is built around a long look (2 seconds) at both targets...the CB & OB. Shorter glances, or an inconsistent eye pattern, will likely not deliver the optimum results. The eye patterns are part of the teaching process, that goes hand-in-hand with an accurate, repeatable stroke.
Click to expand...

Yes. I have read several of these studies. I agree with this.
 
Spidee:
[...] It's NOT feel, I just "see" it from repetition (manual repetition).
Click to expand...
Mike:
Is it possible to have a clearer statement that shows most of the disagreements here are semantic ones?
Click to expand...

Since it's obvious some don't understand this, what Mike means here is that "just see it from repetition" IS THE DEFINITION OF "by feel". (Get ready for av84fun's avalanche of irrelevant dictionary definitions.)

Obviously Spidee and av84fun don't know the meaning of "feel" in this context - that's one reason trying to talk with them about this is like being on a merry-go-round. Another is that they refuse to accept that questioning how these systems work isn't an attack on the systems or on them (they get flack for being stubborn, arrogant and argumentative - like me, except wrong).

They also stubbornly refuse to listen to explanations like this - so I'm afraid communicating with them about this is hopeless. But that doesn't mean threads like this are useless (despite the fact they're often annoying). Others get it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
focus and attention helps

Mike,

Excellent post. I agree 100%. Any "system" that forces a person to focus on the aim consistently and with concentration will be beneficial to many people (especially people who currently don't focus well or long enough).

Regards,
Dave

mikepage said:
If something seems to work or to help some people it IS important to many of us to understand WHY it helps. Part of this--most of us are here for fun when it comes down to it--is intellectual curiosity, but a big part of it is understanding what specific problems are solved by a particular approach to be able to incorporate and communicate those things directly and extend them to new situations.

There are reasons why beginning every shot the same way--looking full on or looking at the half-ball hit for instance--might be useful. The "SEEing it (from manual repetition)" you described above benefits from approaching the same shots the same way every time.

There are other reasons some of these approaches--whether it's one of Hal's methods or S.A.M. or whatever is being discussed here--help people. Get ready, because there's a big secret coming... These approaches cause people to do something they don't usually do. It's such an important thing that we have a name for it. It's called AIM. That's right.

If you look at the QUIET EYE studies, you will find one bit of consistency about the studies of pool, of putting, of basketball free throws, and of other aims involving stationary targets. Consistently a group of experts is compared to a group of wanabees. Consistently the group of experts GAZE at they target on average for a notably longer period of time in the "set" position. I'm talking maybe 2.5 seconds versus 1.5 seconds. It has become increasingly clear that this slightly longer gaze time--locking on your target for enough time-- is crucial for processing the information necessary to aim successfully.

Let's suppose many people suffer from inadequate GAZE time. IF true, then showing them a new method that forces them to lock in on the target (while following whatever the prescription is) will increase their success rate. Like the poop-on-the-swingset, the method might just be a mechanism to bring out the real solution (water/quiet-eye gaze time).

I point out in one of my aiming videos that I think another reason for any success people find with fractional ball aiming techniques is it causes them to sight parallel to the line the stick is moving. Many people don't. Many people sight from above the stick to the object ball contact point. This line is not parallel to the line of the stick or the cueball motion.

Please understand Dave that when someone suggests a method that SEEMS to not have the gaps filled in, that SEEMS to have shots that require two different angles to receive the same aim, that SEEMS to request the exact same aim for two sticks that we know squirt differently, it is like a giant bell going off for many of us.

Then if rather than taking off the system's clothes so that we can examine it honestly, the proponent points out that you really have to learn it in person or that such and such a world-class player uses it, it's like another giant bell going off.
Click to expand...
 
how long to see a target?

First I agree with Mike, changing anything can result in short term gains. However many people using these systems not only see long term gains but continue to improve as they get better using the system so in my opinion the "any change increases focus theory" doesn't hold water when it comes to explaining why these systems work. Once someone was used to the system the benefit should disappear if increased focus doing something new was the answer.

Now I have to shoot holes in the august "quiet eye theory" also. Although I think looking at a target longer is an advantage and I work with the quiet eye theory playing pool, trying to claim that the brain takes two seconds to acquire a target is flat wrong. I'm a former speed shooter. Being old and gimpy before I started and only staying with it a year or two my typical best times to draw a gun and hit five targets on a signal were around two and a half seconds, carefully aiming at each target. My draw and first shot was very slow. Due to hearing loss I had to listen to the buzzer for several tenths of a second to confirm I was indeed hearing the buzzer. After shooting the first target, splits between targets were around .25 to .30 seconds confirmed by an electronic timer. This was to move the gun, acquire the target, confirm, and break a shot. One of the best in the world produced a video using an electronic timer showing that he shoots at .15 second intervals doing the same thing. A local speed demon kid that shoots on a military pistol team the last I knew shot five plates in a little over two seconds, alternating shooting the plates on each end!

My belief is that the mind can learn to acquire targets with far greater speed. In a few life or death situations I suspect that I acquired targets or hit a gap in traffic with my eyes and mind coordinating in a few tenths of a second, maybe less.

"Quiet eye" works and is an advantage. Why? I don't know because I know that the reasons given don't match the facts. Makes it sound like a lot of other systems in that respect doesn't it?

Hu
 
Hu...Try shooting your bullet into another bullet, and then into the target (which is precisely what you're doing when you play pool). I think you'd find you couldn't do that quite as quickly. The "2 second rule" was figured out by a lot smarter people than you or me.:rolleyes: The quiet eye theory works, because it DOES match the facts.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

ShootingArts said:
Now I have to shoot holes in the august "quiet eye theory" also. Although I think looking at a target longer is an advantage and I work with the quiet eye theory playing pool, trying to claim that the brain takes two seconds to acquire a target is flat wrong. I'm a former speed shooter. Being old and gimpy before I started and only staying with it a year or two my typical best times to draw a gun and hit five targets on a signal were around two and a half seconds, carefully aiming at each target. My draw and first shot was very slow. Due to hearing loss I had to listen to the buzzer for several tenths of a second to confirm I was indeed hearing the buzzer. After shooting the first target, splits between targets were around .25 to .30 seconds confirmed by an electronic timer. This was to move the gun, acquire the target, confirm, and break a shot. One of the best in the world produced a video using an electronic timer showing that he shoots at .15 second intervals doing the same thing. A local speed demon kid that shoots on a military pistol team the last I knew shot five plates in a little over two seconds, alternating shooting the plates on each end!

My belief is that the mind can learn to acquire targets with far greater speed. In a few life or death situations I suspect that I acquired targets or hit a gap in traffic with my eyes and mind coordinating in a few tenths of a second, maybe less.

"Quiet eye" works and is an advantage. Why? I don't know because I know that the reasons given don't match the facts. Makes it sound like a lot of other systems in that respect doesn't it?

Hu
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Since it's obvious some don't understand this, what Mike means here is that "just see it from repetition" IS THE DEFINITION OF "by feel". (Get ready for av84fun's avalanche of irrelevant dictionary definitions.)

Obviously Spidee and av84fun don't know the meaning of "feel" in this context - that's one reason trying to talk with them about this is like being on a merry-go-round. Another is that they refuse to accept that questioning how these systems work isn't an attack on the systems or on them (they get flack for being stubborn, arrogant and argumentative - like me, except wrong).

They also stubbornly refuse to listen to explanations like this - so I'm afraid communicating with them about this is hopeless. But that doesn't mean threads like this are useless (despite the fact they're often annoying). Others get it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Are you serious? No one is more stubborn that you...no shit. Ron offered to help you and you told him you don't believe in systems in general... so you ended up learning nothing.

Ya know... I do get frustrated in these forums often because it's like arguing with someone who speaks another language. After a while, you scream in hopes they hear you better--- but they never do. You're one of those guys.

To say we get frustrated and you don't is a joke. You have this preconceived notion that you're the "resident expert" on preventing "SHIT INFO" from being disseminated on here (as if you KNOW things)... but the ironic thing is you know nothing on the topic we're discussing.

A good idea would be to get TAR to stream and back and forth between you and I "in-person" at the next major event..... so planet earth will see the true Patrick Johnson and the true Dave Segal. If you and I ever got face-to-face on a table....I have an eerie feeling this "DISCUSSION" on the forum would come to a screaming halt, in its current form.

Dave
 
it's like arguing with someone who speaks another language. After a while, you scream in hopes they hear you better--- but they never do.
Click to expand...

LOL. It's not like this; it is this - the only thing you get wrong is who speaks the language.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
LOL. It's not like this; it is this - the only thing you get wrong is who speaks the language.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Funny. I see the opposite. You speak old english.... I speak the language of the future.

How about a live in-person debate (moderated) in front of a REAL tight pocketed table?
 
How about a live in-person debate (moderated) in front of a REAL tight pocketed table?
Click to expand...

I've already told you, this can't be "settled" with a shootout, and I'm not interested in your he-man challenges. If you want to say you play better than I do, go ahead - I won't argue. The only thing that proves about this is that you don't know how to prove anything about this.

pj
chgo
 
Scott Lee said:
Hu...Try shooting your bullet into another bullet, and then into the target (which is precisely what you're doing when you play pool). I think you'd find you couldn't do that quite as quickly. The "2 second rule" was figured out by a lot smarter people than you or me.:rolleyes: The quiet eye theory works, because it DOES match the facts.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...


Scott,

the target area on a object ball is considerably bigger than the end of another bullet at 25 feet but just to add to what I said, my target in one competition was the centerline of an eight inch steel plate at 25 feet, two-thirds of the way up from the bottom of the plate. I started and stopped my gun between each shot so quite a lot of the .25 to .30 second was taken up with mechanical action yet I hit my target probably 90%+ of the time when I was "ON". Of course plates fell if I was slightly off so my actual success rate was much higher.

I have also went through a door three times with the very real expectation that someone with a gun and great willingness to shoot might be on the other side. Being a reasonable person, I had a gun and a great willingness to shoot if necessary also. Acquiring a target is done in an instant and deciding to shoot or not shoot is done in the same instant. I have also headshot a pissed off three or four foot cottonmouth snake that was heading at me from eight feet away at high speed. I can assure you that much less than two seconds were required to acquire a rapidly moving target that was considerably smaller than an object ball!

However, let's bring this back to pool. Speed pool isn't pool in many of our opinions but Luc Salvas(SP?) and others certainly aren't using quiet eye techniques.

Although I can site many more instances from circle track racing and other things, the fact remains, the eye and brain can and do coordinate in tiny fractions of a second. Trot out scientific theory against known and repeatable facts and I'll always call the theory wrong. Working in R&D with a handful of PhD's they often came up with things that they figured had to work that those of us that actually dealt in the real world knew were laughable.

By the way, chimps are proven far better than people at this particular skill, I suspect because chimps use it more. When people use it, they get better too. Constant repetition on a pool table trains the eye and mind.

Hu
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I've already told you, this can't be "settled" with a shootout, and I'm not interested in your he-man challenges. If you want to say you play better than I do, go ahead - I won't argue. The only thing that proves about this is that you don't know how to prove anything about this.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a challenge match. SHEESH! I'm just think I can prove the system in-person.

Blind fold me and have someone scream STOP when my tip is at CB center. I'll pull the trigger and see what happens;) I've been practicing this. It's scary. So much for feel. Now what. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 
bluepepper said:
Jim, these 5 satements still and will continue to teach nothing. They only allude to a possibility of a self-adjusting technique. I accept that there's a possibility. I doubt that there is, but I accept that the possibility is out there.

But again, all I'm asking is that you stop reworking the same Pro One teaser into new posts. It just makes threads too difficult to sift through. Your posts are often very long, which I don't mind, if they have new things to say, but if you were to go back and read through your posts in this thread, I think you'd realize that you haven't revealed any new technique. You've either been a Shuffet pitch man or a Patrick hater. Teach us something. I'm ready to learn.
Click to expand...

Jeff, the 5 points "taught" that those who argue about there being too many contact points for any system to be able to accommodate are wrong.

In other posts, I have offered SPECIFIC guidance regarding the CTE system. You STILL don't get it. You have visited with Hal and then post your version of what he teaches that had holes in it that you could drive a truck through.

So, no disrespect intended, but you just seem to have difficulty in successfully processing that which people attempt to teach you.

As for the content of my posts, thanks for the advice but I will continue to post as I see fit. As for being a "Patrick hater" A) that isn't true at all. Mostly I feel a little sorry for him and B) if fairness had any appeal to you, you would review the nature of his comments regarding me and you would see that the nature of my comments to him are quite well justified.

As for being a "Shuffett pitch man" I am on record as having NO financial involvement with anything that Stan does. I am merely encouraging people to avail themselves of the knowledge possessed by a man who is CLEARLY one of the most informed people on planet earth about an aiming system that WILL become the "standard of excellence" in the game of pool.

If you have a problem with that, all I can suggest is that you find a way to live with it.

Jim
 
SpiderWebComm said:
When I say addressing at center... I'm pivoting in the air from an offset point (the foundation of Hal's system). I'm just setting up where I'd end up if I pivoted on the table. Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

Yep it does. I just wanted to make the "offset point" clear.

THANKS!

Jim
 
SpiderWebComm said:
I'm not talking about a challenge match. SHEESH! I'm just think I can prove the system in-person.
Click to expand...

Oh. Sorry.

But you've already shown that you can make banks, and I assume you can also show that you can make other shots. What you don't show is how you make them - you say it's systematic, but you don't show that in any way. In fact you said in another post you "just know from experience" how to do it. That's what I call feel.

What are you going to do differently to show there's a formula for where to place your bridge hand (like the ball fractions "formula" that tells you precisely how to aim a 3/4-ball, 1/2-ball or 1/4-ball hit)? That's what I call systematic.

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top