I bought Poolology

[BC21]

Sorry for my last post. You obviously didn't have time to answer me. I knew Jack Dunbar well and also Bruce Pawley. I used to play against them along with Chuck Samples, window washer Joey, Charlie Bufford and many others at the Hub, Strand, Monarch, Boulevard, etc. I don't think that there is a good pool room in Charleston now but I could be wrong. Thank you for your answer.

Wow....I had forgotten all about Chuck! I used to play his son, Mark, at the Eldorado in St Albans quite often. I couldn't hang with Chuck or Bruce or Jack back then, probably not even now, seriously. PM me your name please. You probably know Eddie C also..? He just sent me text telling me he'd take 9-6 in one hole. I didn't even reply...lol.

Charlie used to just knock balls around, usually with the blonde.... Jennifer?

 

[anbukev]

I wouldn't double check CTE with a fractional system. Odds are when using CTE if you make any adjustment then you miss the shot.

Statements like these are what's the problem. What you are saying is CTE is not the problem it is you. All "systems" fail if you don't ADJUST properly. Brian broke down the half tip pivot at a fixed bridge length. We all have our own fixed bridge length meaning any system that involves pivoting will differ from person to person. We all have different heights so our perceptions will all be different. What we can do is supplement it to our game.

I'll say this again. There is 1 shot line to make the shot. It doesn't matter how you get on that shot line. Do ghost ball, CTE with half tip pivot, double the distance, ferrule aiming, 90/90, Samba, Salux, fractional, Poology, ECT. We are all trying to get on that same line. The reason why CTE attracts so many questions is that all the other systems have clear explanations while CTE doesn't. Brian dissected the half tip pivot of his own bridge length. I too have my own half tip pivot for my OWN bridge length with my OWN tip size. When the distance between cue ball and object ball differs, adjustments has to be made just like any other system. What Stan hasn't and probably will never say is that you have to use your own JUDGEMENT to find a solution to any particular shot.

Every system has their advantages and disadvantages the same way with low deflection shafts and standard maple shafts. I'm not siding with anybody, I'm just trying to learn from both sides.

 

[cookie man]

Statements like these are what's the problem. What you are saying is CTE is not the problem it is you. All "systems" fail if you don't ADJUST properly. Brian broke down the half tip pivot at a fixed bridge length. We all have our own fixed bridge length meaning any system that involves pivoting will differ from person to person. We all have different heights so our perceptions will all be different. What we can do is supplement it to our game.

I'll say this again. There is 1 shot line to make the shot. It doesn't matter how you get on that shot line. Do ghost ball, CTE with half tip pivot, double the distance, ferrule aiming, 90/90, Samba, Salux, fractional, Poology, ECT. We are all trying to get on that same line. The reason why CTE attracts so many questions is that all the other systems have clear explanations while CTE doesn't. Brian dissected the half tip pivot of his own bridge length. I too have my own half tip pivot for my OWN bridge length with my OWN tip size. When the distance between cue ball and object ball differs, adjustments has to be made just like any other system. What Stan hasn't and probably will never say is that you have to use your own JUDGEMENT to find a solution to any particular shot.

Every system has their advantages and disadvantages the same way with low deflection shafts and standard maple shafts. I'm not siding with anybody, I'm just trying to learn from both sides.

Actually it's people like you that don't want to accept the experienced opinion from a long time user that is the problem. CTE fails when you do adjust. Been there tried that. Brian broke down nothing concerning CTE, I never worry about bridge length. The only adjustment is which edge too line to use and that's not even an adjustment, it's defined by the system.
Brian has people fooled into thinking he has solved the WHY with CTE when in reality he has solved nothing with CTE. He's a beginner. Plain and simple. He has knowledge, i guess, of whatever poolology is supposed to be. He tries to link it to CTE but has been very unsuccessful at doing that. If he really solved the WHY as far as CTE is concerned Stan would have flown him to Kentucky by now. I haven't heard of that happening have you.

 

[cookie man]

I'm not going to be provoked into arguing with you about something you and every CTE user, including Stan, think is a mysterious phenomenon. Stan has admitted to not knowing the "why", only knowing the "how to". I know the why. There is no way you can understand this, because you don't know the "why". You only know the "how to". I could easily spend the next few weeks working on the "how to", but I was mainly curious about the "why", so I'm content. Anyway, thanks for the link to your 90/90 pivot video. I had seen it before, but this time I watched with a better understanding.

So you alone know "the why" After all these years a complete non user of the system figured it all out. Well done. Please share.

 

[nobcitypool]

It's quite clear at this point. BC21 somehow sees himself as Stan but part of him realizes his stature is nowhere close. He is jealous of Stan and his achievements. It's rather hilarious to watch him troll and attempt to manipulate people. I think what you have here is a classic case of Narcissism. I watched one of his videos (trying to copy Stan) the other evening. 4 minutes 31 seconds and he said absolutely nothing of any consequence.

He keeps drawing diagrams that are not the true representation of CTE simply because he doesn't understand CTE. The naysayers always come back to that half tip pivot bridge length. The think there is this "magic line" that you pivot from. What they fail to comprehend, which is the core of CTE, is that line differs depending upon the bridge length and tip size. Two different bridge lengths, two different lines. They are not parallel.

I remember a guy here, (Sean Fleinen??) who was supposedly a math and computer expert, perhaps genius. No question, he was an intelligent fellow. He committed to figuring out the math for CTE and publishing it within some amount of time a couple of years ago. I think six months or a year. Guess what? He never posted a single formula. A number of people laughed at him when he made that statement and they all had the last laugh.

WC Fields was right, there's a sucker born every minute. Supposedly, there has been a thousand people buy BC21's book. That's from a guy who's latest resume is he's second in a BCA league out of 50 something people. Amazing. On the other hand, BC21 spends the majority of his time here trolling and questioning CTE and Stan. Look at Stan's resume beside BC21's. No matter how hard I try, I can't make any sense of that until I realized what his true motivation was. Jealousy. Narcissism.

 

[BC21]

It's quite clear at this point. BC21 somehow sees himself as Stan but part of him realizes his stature is nowhere close. He is jealous of Stan and his achievements. It's rather hilarious to watch him troll and attempt to manipulate people. I think what you have here is a classic case of Narcissism. I watched one of his videos (trying to copy Stan) the other evening. 4 minutes 31 seconds and he said absolutely nothing of any consequence.

He keeps drawing diagrams that are not the true representation of CTE simply because he doesn't understand CTE. The naysayers always come back to that half tip pivot bridge length. The think there is this "magic line" that you pivot from. What they fail to comprehend, which is the core of CTE, is that line differs depending upon the bridge length and tip size. Two different bridge lengths, two different lines. They are not parallel.

I remember a guy here, (Sean Fleinen??) who was supposedly a math and computer expert, perhaps genius. No question, he was an intelligent fellow. He committed to figuring out the math for CTE and publishing it within some amount of time a couple of years ago. I think six months or a year. Guess what? He never posted a single formula. A number of people laughed at him when he made that statement and they all had the last laugh.

WC Fields was right, there's a sucker born every minute. Supposedly, there has been a thousand people buy BC21's book. That's from a guy who's latest resume is he's second in a BCA league out of 50 something people. Amazing. On the other hand, BC21 spends the majority of his time here trolling and questioning CTE and Stan. Look at Stan's resume beside BC21's. No matter how hard I try, I can't make any sense of that until I realized what his true motivation was. Jealousy. Narcissism.

For starters, you are saying that the line from which you pivot differs based upon bridge length and tip size. That's not true. The line from which you pivot has nothing to do with bridge length. Are you sure you are using Stan's version of Hal's CTE?

Let's say we are cutting a ball to the left. With CTE, two visuals put your vision center in a certain place that "fixes" the CB. From there you get your perception line for the shot, a CCB line. From this line you determine whether or not the shot looks thick or thin. In other words, if you pulled the trigger from here would the OB hit short or long of the pocket? If you think, based on your personal experience/judgement that the shot looks short/thick, you shift your cue stick a 1/2 tip to the left (inside) of this perception line. The shift is not a pivot, it's a lateral movement that simply places your entire cue about 1/2 a tip distance from the CCB perception line. I say about because the likelihood of placing your cue exactly 6.5mm or 7mm from the CCB line is slim. Next, from wherever you place your bridge hand/bridge "V" you pivot the cue tip to CCB and shoot.

If the perception looks thin you do this shift then pivot move from outside the CCB perception line. The inside and outside pre-pivot alignments are parallel to the ccb perception line, each a 1/2 tip offset, one to the left, one to the right.

And please post a link to this video where I was supposedly copying Stan. Lol. By your standards, anyone on YouTube that gives pool instructions or demonstrates shot examples is copying Stan Shuffett out of narcissistic jealousy. And I suppose when Stan first started putting videos on YouTube he must have been copying someone also? No. There is no narcissism, no jealousy. In fact, a person probably can't be both. I mean, a true narcissist would never be jealous of anyone, because in his/her mind no one is better or smarter. That doesn't describe me. I play pool. I wrote a book. I can do basic math.

I have never reported anyone for trolling, but this post of yours is probably a fine example worthy of reporting. Civility is tough sometimes, but I confidence you'll get the hang of it.

 

[justadub]

It's quite clear at this point. BC21 somehow sees himself as Stan but part of him realizes his stature is nowhere close. He is jealous of Stan and his achievements. It's rather hilarious to watch him troll and attempt to manipulate people. I think what you have here is a classic case of Narcissism. I watched one of his videos (trying to copy Stan) the other evening. 4 minutes 31 seconds and he said absolutely nothing of any consequence.

He keeps drawing diagrams that are not the true representation of CTE simply because he doesn't understand CTE. The naysayers always come back to that half tip pivot bridge length. The think there is this "magic line" that you pivot from. What they fail to comprehend, which is the core of CTE, is that line differs depending upon the bridge length and tip size. Two different bridge lengths, two different lines. They are not parallel.

I remember a guy here, (Sean Fleinen??) who was supposedly a math and computer expert, perhaps genius. No question, he was an intelligent fellow. He committed to figuring out the math for CTE and publishing it within some amount of time a couple of years ago. I think six months or a year. Guess what? He never posted a single formula. A number of people laughed at him when he made that statement and they all had the last laugh.

WC Fields was right, there's a sucker born every minute. Supposedly, there has been a thousand people buy BC21's book. That's from a guy who's latest resume is he's second in a BCA league out of 50 something people. Amazing. On the other hand, BC21 spends the majority of his time here trolling and questioning CTE and Stan. Look at Stan's resume beside BC21's. No matter how hard I try, I can't make any sense of that until I realized what his true motivation was. Jealousy. Narcissism.

Sean is a friend of mine. I can't speak to his level of ability in mathematics, but I wouldn't discount his ability in making the attempt. Even when he stated that he would make the attempt, he didn't garuntee that he would accomplish it, only that he wanted to make the attempt.

What happened? The forum happened. All the constant fighting and trolling turned him off of the forum almost entirely. My words, not his, but I'm reasonably certain that I'm correct. He communicates regular with many old time AZBers on Facebook, this will provide some chuckles...

 

[BC21]

Sean is a friend of mine. I can't speak to his level of ability in mathematics, but I wouldn't discount his ability in making the attempt. Even when he stated that he would make the attempt, he didn't garuntee that he would accomplish it, only that he wanted to make the attempt.

What happened? The forum happened. All the constant fighting and trolling turned him off of the forum almost entirely. My words, not his, but I'm reasonably certain that I'm correct. He communicates regular with many old time AZBers on Facebook, this will provide some chuckles...

The thing about the math is this: It isn't difficult once you realize that it all boils down to the perception line, the first CCB view from that "fixed" CB perspective. We don't need to understand how one's vision gets this line. We have plenty of specific shot examples that allow us to calculate where this line is for those specific shots. It's the visual relationship between the balls that provides the 2 lines leading to this fixed CB perspective.

The rails and the pockets are insignificant for seeing the visuals, as Stan has shown with his curtain shots. So it boils down to a CB/OB visual relationship, which varies based on distance between the balls and also distance between the player's vision center and the CB. The perception line changes with these changing distances because the visual perspective changes. But if the distances remain constant, like two balls placed X distance apart, and the player standing in exactly the same position behind the balls, a specific set of visuals will give a specific CCB perception line for this setup. Regardless of where the setup is positioned on the table, if the player stands behind the balls in a consistent manner to get the visuals (never varying sight/stance distance), the CCB perception will always be the same.

 

[justadub]

The thing about the math is this: It isn't difficult once you realize that it all boils down to the perception line, the first CCB view from that "fixed" CB perspective. We don't need to understand how one's vision gets this line. We have plenty of specific shot examples that allow us to calculate where this line is for those specific shots. It's the visual relationship between the balls that provides the 2 lines leading to this fixed CB perspective.

The rails and the pockets are insignificant for seeing the visuals, as Stan has shown with his curtain shots. So it boils down to a CB/OB visual relationship, which varies based on distance between the balls and also distance between the player's vision center and the CB. The perception line changes with these changing distances because the visual perspective changes. But if the distances remain constant, like two balls placed X distance apart, and the player standing in exactly the same position behind the balls, a specific set of visuals will give a specific CCB perception line for this setup. Regardless of where the setup is positioned on the table, if the player stands behind the balls in a consistent manner to get the visuals (never varying sight/stance distance), the CCB perception will always be the same.

I am the last person to be involved in a discussion about mathematics. What I can tell you is that there a great many folks who are very well versed in math who have flogged this deceased equine long before you came here, and none of them have stated that it is as simple as you proclaim.

Sean is a very deep, very intelligent individual, and better, he would have been coming at this from a neutral viewpoint, being neither a CTE proponent nor a naysayer. He would have had no agenda in regards to this. Sadly, the forum mentality flamed even higher than it had been previously (thanks Rick) and he just stepped away from AZB, which is a big loss to the forum.

Please don't take this dismissal personally, I just don't believe that after all this time, someone new to CTE and the forum can say that the math to prove it is simple. Too much water under this particular bridge....but maybe you're a progidy and this will be your breakthrough...

 

[paultex]

I wouldn't double check CTE with a fractional system. Odds are when using CTE if you make any adjustment then you miss the shot.

I think i can speak for Stan in the sense of his discipline for systems and what it truly means. If you double check CTE with fractional or any other method in general, then you are not using CTE correctly because it's supposed to be a complete system.

One thing I do know and not that it matters, when you start down a road intended a certain way, you got to be really careful about method and understand what it means or how it works, or else you open doors that never seem to have an end. One thing leads to another and it will backfire eventually like a house of cards.

I have particular cut shots to the right, down the rail, that to this day, I miss thick and I will continue missing it thick until I understand it and have it solved through correct alignment from eyes to feet because that is my method. I don't "aim", I deliver.

Do you know how easy it would be for me to put a twist mojo on the shot and "solve" it?

Guarenteed, that bandaid will fester and eventually carry over to other shot relationships because it feels too comfortable under pressure. But then when you need to shoot the shot square and run a natural running tangent line, you're fkd.

At what point does the double check, possibly lead to just shooting it fractionally instead of CTE because the particular shot works perfect without CTE altogether?

It works so well, that it becomes a go to shot.......mannnn I gots dis game beat mang.

Then one day, it betrays you. Ok, ima do wut i did be'fo mang an use dat CTE and double check it wit dat fraction thang.

What? Mannnn wtf, it don't work now. Stay cool man, you gawt this. Ok, I gonna fractionalized this thang right'herrr an double checks it wit dat CTE.....awight, that works now, I said gawd dam man dat was gettin scary mang. I gots it AWL figured out now.

I see a hollow popsicle stick in that man's future.

I would say, if a person goes off method for particular shots, they better know exactly what and why they are doing it and if they do know, then they wouldn't need a bandaid in all reality.

Just my opinion based on studying Stan the man, and my own personal experiences with bandaids.

Don't make me start up on my golf experience decades ago about one day, coming down steep on a shot and the mind set of digging the ground just underneath the ball. After two weeks, I litterally felt sorry for "golf". I had it beat man.......easy game. A joke! My *****! Weeeeeeeee!

The 3rd week, I walked off dat course, straight to my car from the 7th fairway and it wasn't because I had a emergency that needed me, but it sho was an emergency in more ways than one fo'sho pot'nuh.

It took me years to stop hitting fat and fought it ever since.

 

[BC21]

I am the last person to be involved in a discussion about mathematics. What I can tell you is that there a great many folks who are very well versed in math who have flogged this deceased equine long before you came here, and none of them have stated that it is as simple as you proclaim.

Sean is a very deep, very intelligent individual, and better, he would have been coming at this from a neutral viewpoint, being neither a CTE proponent nor a naysayer. He would have had no agenda in regards to this. Sadly, the forum mentality flamed even higher than it had been previously (thanks Rick) and he just stepped away from AZB, which is a big loss to the forum.

Please don't take this dismissal personally, I just don't believe that after all this time, someone new to CTE and the forum can say that the math to prove it is simple. Too much water under this particular bridge....but maybe you're a progidy and this will be your breakthrough...

I don't take it personally. And I'm no mathematical prodigy. I'm also not a naysayer. I do, however, have a compulsive disorder involving puzzles. So I looked at CTE as a puzzle, a puzzle that too many say is unsolvable, which for others (like me) just makes the compulsion to figure it out even greater.

So after working out exactly how and why the 1/2 tip pivot and 15° perception works for a straight-in shot, it explains the rest of the system and other perceptions, and also why and when you must go from using a 15 to using a 30. It's not because the 15 inside just stops hitting center pocket. It's because it only hits center pocket from a certain angle, targeting the ob across the mouth of the pocket (left or right) until it no longer hits the pocket, and that's when a thinner perception must be used.

Anyway, Stan has already said that there will be no math or explanation for the how's/why's of CTE in his upcoming book. That's cool.... probably a good idea not to go there. But I still had to satisfy my compulsive mind.

 

[paultex]

Sean is a friend of mine. I can't speak to his level of ability in mathematics, but I wouldn't discount his ability in making the attempt. Even when he stated that he would make the attempt, he didn't garuntee that he would accomplish it, only that he wanted to make the attempt.

What happened? The forum happened. All the constant fighting and trolling turned him off of the forum almost entirely. My words, not his, but I'm reasonably certain that I'm correct. He communicates regular with many old time AZBers on Facebook, this will provide some chuckles...

Well, quitting because of boos from the crowd is not what I personally call "commendable". Not that you are commending him or making excuses for him, im just saying the guy himself has excuses that aren't good enough for me personally.

If he did solve it and left for the same reasons, then that is a commendable person.

The problem I've found in life, I've never encountered a person like that because I've never heard a person complain or quit when they are "winning".

Kind of like all the losers who ALL OF A SUDDEN, find Jesus when they go to prison and now they see the light. Go fk yourself mannn lol.

Not you, just talking about people in general and maybe it's you too, I don't know.

I know I was convinced to quit sports betting when I was going to bet mcgreggor vs diaz 2. Everyone knew I wanted to put a sizeable bet on this, a couple grand, and I didn't have a way in this case but to drive 5 hours to reno and place the bet.

I didn't go because I was too busy with pool and figured the jackass factor of a long drive just to possibly lose, wasn't worth the juice of gas, wear and tear and time itself.

Mcgreggor won as expected, the next day, people looked at me like my cat died and that was the most pathetic experience I just about encountered ever in my life. People just don't seem to get it.

But you would have won!

And I said, that's not the point, it did not go the way I predicted. Mcgreggor almost lost that fight AGAIN and it shows my handicapping skills just plain suck or is not good enough to formulate profitable EV expected value.

I was glad I did not make the bet and like I said, nobody "got it".

Tell this sean fellow to get back in here and finish what he said he would do. I can't imagine he would have left if he won but I don't know for sure but ill bet a truck load at even money saying im right. I'll come out of hibernation fo dat bet fo sho mang.

All day err'day.

 

[justadub]

I'm speaking for someone else when I don't mean to. Understand that first.

Please don't misunderstand my earlier post. Sean didn't "quit" because he was losing at anything, or because someone disagreed with him. He stepped away from the forum because of the atmosphere here had become too much to tolerate voluntarily. Not related to this "math and CTE" issue.

This forum ebbs and flows. And the atmosphere does as well. There are many who come here solely to stir the $hit, not to contribute to the discussion. Sean was here pretty much from the beginning, and predates AZB back to the newsgroup RSB days. He had merely tired of the caustic atmosphere here. Again, my words, not his.

It has driven off many good long time members over time. Sean is not the first, nor will he be the last.

 

[BC21]

I think i can speak for Stan in the sense of his discipline for systems and what it truly means. If you double check CTE with fractional or any other method in general, then you are not using CTE correctly because it's supposed to be a complete system.

........

This has been blown way out of context. If you are learning a new method of doing something, anything, and you already have a known method but the new method us supposed to be better, you will inevitably compare your result when learning the method with what your result would be using your already known method. After enough of this double-checking you'll eventually know/trust the integrity of the new method.

Also, Stan specifically shows examples where he looks at the initial CCB perception, where it's going to hit the OB, and points out that the ball will miss the pocket by an inch to the left or right. This is how you know whether or not to thin or thicken the perception. What method does he use to determine this? Is it ghostball, like Bob Nunley suggests? Is it fractional knowledge based on the 5-line Quarters, Stan's favorite aiming system next to CTE?

 

[nobcitypool]

Justabub, while Sean and I had some differences of opinion, overall, I thought he was a good guy. Whether he hung around or not, even with his considerable intelligence, I don't believe he could have solved the mathematical model for CTE. Unlike BC21, I think Sean at least had some reasonable understanding of CTE. I hope Sean is doing well.

 

[justadub]

Justin, while Sean and I had some differences of opinion, overall, I thought he was a good guy. Whether he hung around or not, even with his considerable intelligence, I don't believe he could have solved the mathematical model for CTE. Unlike BC21, I think Sean at least had some reasonable understanding of CTE. I hope Sean is doing well.

He is, and is having a good laugh at where this thread went... Heh heh. Just communicated with him about it

 

[paultex]

This has been blown way out of context. If you are learning a new method of doing something, anything, and you already have a known method but the new method us supposed to be better, you will inevitably compare your result when learning the method with what your result would be using your already known method. After enough of this double-checking you'll eventually know/trust the integrity of the new method.

Also, Stan specifically shows examples where he looks at the initial CCB perception, where it's going to hit the OB, and points out that the ball will miss the pocket by an inch to the left or right. This is how you know whether or not to thin or thicken the perception. What method does he use to determine this? Is it ghostball, like Bob Nunley suggests? Is it fractional knowledge based on the 5-line Quarters, Stan's favorite aiming system next to CTE?

Well i was making a point about Stan and his disciplined approach toward a system. I really don't understand the point of it all because I do believe in mixing or referencing off of other known methods when it comes to pool itself.

I dared speak for Stan on my own accord and I'll stick to it and im pretty sure you would agree that if a person references fractional to double check CTE, Stan would say it's incorrect or not using CTE properly because to make it work, you have to engrain the CTE values strictly till you get it ironed out.

I wasn't trying to backslide you and if my writing suggested it unbeknownst to me, I apologize because I write in a hurry and I often don't edit or read back what I wrote.

And I also repeat, I don't like visual contact type point systems but I don't dismiss them either. It has value obviously and definitely solves certain problems that I have already theorized i may have to resort to one day. I still say if you can align and know exactly where your stroke is going precisely for any position on the table, you got this thing beat and beat real bad too. I believe it's the key.

 

[BC21]

Well i was making a point about Stan and his disciplined approach toward a system. I really don't understand the point of it all because I do believe in mixing or referencing off of other known methods when it comes to pool itself.

I dared speak for Stan on my own accord and I'll stick to it and im pretty sure you would agree that if a person references fractional to double check CTE, Stan would say it's incorrect or not using CTE properly because to make it work, you have to engrain the CTE values strictly till you get it ironed out.

I wasn't trying to backslide you and if my writing suggested it unbeknownst to me, I apologize because I write in a hurry and I often don't edit or read back what I wrote.

And I also repeat, I don't like visual contact type point systems but I don't dismiss them either. It has value obviously and definitely solves certain problems that I have already theorized i may have to resort to one day. I still say if you can align and know exactly where your stroke is going precisely for any position on the table, you got this thing beat and beat real bad too. I believe it's the key.

Good post.....I don't like contact point systems either. It just always seemed too iffy for me, like ghostball.

 

[nobcitypool]

I did buy the book, found the kindle version on Amazon for $5 and change. I'm impressed with your mathematical acumen to figure out the geometry of the table in the manner you did. With that said, I think I'll stick with CTE. And with that said, congratulations on doing something many people can only dream of, that is, publishing a book and selling a thousand copies.

 

[BC21]

I did buy the book, found the kindle version on Amazon for $5 and change. I'm impressed with your mathematical acumen to figure out the geometry of the table in the manner you did. With that said, I think I'll stick with CTE. And with that said, congratulations on doing something many people can only dream of, that is, publishing a book and selling a thousand copies.

Thanks. And thanks for the purchase.