PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[dr_dave]

Dr. Dave,

I believe you must have forgotten to respond. I'm waiting for you to tell all of us on AZ (since you think this is where information should be) how you have the impression that people who get answers from Stan over the phone are vowed to secrecy. I know for a fact that your statement is an absolute false statement. So what false information or faulty thought process took you to this impression? Hopefully, you did not knowingly just make it up in order to make Stan look bad. So enlighten us please.

An apology to Stan is certainly in order. Or you can try to make up something else to try to cover up your first false statements. It's up to you. Fess up now or dig the hole deeper.

Ignoring my question will do no good at all as if you don't answer now I'll keep quoting your statement about Stan and asking you how come you made false statements about him until you do answer in this post or any other post in which you show up. It's your call.

My statement relates to a long history of "veils of secrecy" that have often surrounded CTE debates and discussion over these many years. Stan and his followers have certainly been part of this in the past. Over countless years, very little substantive information has been openly shared or discussed, and promises were made that the DVD would address all of the questions. Now, IMO, there again seems to be an unwillingness to share and discuss ideas publicly.

Every time I've learned something about CTE and quoted or posted something on my website, I have been attacked, and people have claimed I have no right to share the information publicly. People have even demanded I remove the information from my website.

If I were to call Stan to try to get answers to all of the questions I've posted in this thread, he might provide answers, and he might be comfortable with me sharing what I learn, here and/or on my website. However, I would much prefer if Stan would provide the answers here directly, and be willing to discuss them openly. Wouldn't that be better than me trying to describe my interpretation of what I might or might not learn over the phone? I personally think even Stan might learn something during the process of trying to explain things in writing.

Also, over the extremely long history of CTE discussion and debate, a common reply to questions I (and many others) have posted is:

"Why don't you just pay the money and go learn it from the master? We're not going to spoon-feed the information to you for free."
​

Well, I have paid for the DVD, and I have studied it thoroughly, and I have shared what I've learned (and I've been attacked for that), and I still have many unresolved questions, and I'm not going to pay more money (or lots of time over long phone calls) to try to find the answers (if there are any).

Again, I hope that Stan or others who have useful answers to some of the important questions will step forward so everybody can learn. If not, I'm happy to spend my time on other things that honestly interest me more.

Sorry for the long response, but I thought it was necessary to put things in proper perspective.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Oh my God, was Dr. Dave in a car accident? Was he hit by a bus? What happened to poor Dr. Dave that crushed his fingers so that he cannot answer for himself?

If you must know, I kept away from AZB the last 10 hours or so because I had to get some work done. Also, Monday is my bowling night. Now, I'm going to bed soon, so I won't read or respond to anything until tomorrow afternoon, after I've again had some time to get some real work done. I hope I've adequately addressed your questions in my previous post.

I aim to squerve.

Have a good night,
Dr. Dave

 

[mista335]

If you must know, I kept away from AZB the last 10 hours or so because I had to get some work done. Also, Monday is my bowling night. Now, I'm going to bed soon, so I won't read or respond to anything until tomorrow afternoon, after I've again had some time to get some real work done. I hope I've adequately addressed your questions in my previous post.

Things are looking up.

It took 18 pages before the first incidence of name-calling in a CTE thread.

I wonder if CTE can work for bowling?

 

[mantis99]

OK! Here we go. At the risk of waking up tomorrow and not being able to reproduce it, I am going to say that I finally got it.

It is definately a matter of perception. I was way too caught up in trying to see the lines as I thought Stan meant them in the DVD, and it just wasn't working.

The answer that worked for me: I went down to my table and set up the straight in shot. Over and over again I was way too short of getting straight in after the pivot. I decided to forget the visuals I thought I needed, and simply adjust the visuals until I was able to get straight in after the pivot. What I found was that if I perceived the L CB edge to the L OB A, and what would be the CB point C (right quarter) to the OB R edge, and then moved straight into the face of the CB as the DVD and spidey have said, I was straight in after the pivot. This of course, allowed me to then make all of the thick cut shots. For thicker cuts, if I simply perceive CB CTE of the OB, my perception of the CB edge is naturally to either point A or C on the OB. Moving into center and pivoting from there made all of the thinner cuts. Thus, it really does not matter (for me at least) if I correctly perceive the edges as Stan puts them, but if I can repeatedly perceive the edges in a way that gets me there after the pivot. Noticing that the straight in shot for me required a quarter ball shift from Stans spots allowed me to make the same adjustment with thinner shots, thus perceiving points A or C instead of B on those shots, and it has worked great from there.

My current suggestion for those struggling, is to start out with the straight in shot and see what it takes for you to site in the shot so the pivot gets you straight in, and go from there. I see no reason why the visuals have to be the same for all, as long as your visuals get you in line with the shot. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[LAMas]

:thumbup:

Written word is all I can offer as to what the shooter is seeing. I am standing at a slight angle to the shot with my bridge hand side forward. I use both eyes to position myself starting with the Cte line. If the Cte line is at the left side of the cue ball, I let my left eye do most of the work to line up with the object ball.

My right eye will do most of the work as I sight the other edge of the cue ball to the reference points. If it is a thick cut, I know to use A or C. If it is a thinner cut, I use B. At this point I will choose a pivot direction. In the standing position, before I move my cue to any position other than just simply holding it at a ready position, I move straight into the cue ball. I am looking at the Cte line and the reference point as it lines up on the cue ball.

As I lower my eyes, I glance down and orient the cue to the cue ball with the 1/2 tip offset I previously decided to use. As I slide straight into the cue ball (1/2 tip offset), I glance back up to make sure my visuals are still at the Cte line and the same reference point. If there is any change at all, I will stand back up and reset my visuals to the original position.

If the visuals are still intact as I slide up to the cue ball I will glance back to the cue ball and pivot. I'll practice stroke my aiming point and then glance up to look at the object ball. The computer in my pool mind will red flag the shot if my alignment, reference point or pivot is wrong. If all is well, I will continue to briefly look at the object ball and stroke the shot. Don't aim the shot. Instead, concentrate on your stroke and trust your alignment to pocket the ball.

If you are dogging it, it is your visuals. Not to be mean, but you don't see any blind people playing pool for obvious reasons. You are, in essence, not "seeing" the shot as well. You must examine your visuals and make the necessary corrections. All pool players line up where their eyes tell them to without exception. Your body is along for the ride. Check your basic visuals.

Best,
Mike

Mike,
Tell me about the 1/2 tip pivot back to the center of the CB.

When I start out at the CTE line of aim and I move to the side to aim the edge of the CB to the A, B or C, B, Is it OK if I am no longer over the CTE line in a new stance? A different stance for the different cut angles to be attempted?

Thanks.:thumbup:

 

[mantis99]

If you must know, I kept away from AZB the last 10 hours or so because I had to get some work done. Also, Monday is my bowling night. Now, I'm going to bed soon, so I won't read or respond to anything until tomorrow afternoon, after I've again had some time to get some real work done. I hope I've adequately addressed your questions in my previous post.

I aim to squerve.

Have a good night,
Dr. Dave

Dr. Dave,

Give my suggestion above a try. I had a lot of the same questions you did, and was having trouble getting into the line. It did not make sense to me how those visuals could be perceived at the same time either, likely for the same reasons you struggled with. However, once you get to where your own perceptions can get you in line, all you have to do is slide into the shot and pivot, and the ball goes. It all didn't make sense to me because trying to use the alignment points from the DVD had me way off, so nothing else from the setup was working either. It is very simple once you adjust for your own perceptions.

 

[Murdoch7627]

My statement relates to a long history of "veils of secrecy" that have often surrounded CTE debates and discussion over these many years. Stan and his followers have certainly been part of this in the past. Over countless years, very little substantive information has been openly shared or discussed, and promises were made that the DVD would address all of the questions. Now, IMO, there again seems to be an unwillingness to share and discuss ideas publicly.

Every time I've learned something about CTE and quoted or posted something on my website, I have been attacked, and people have claimed I have no right to share the information publicly. People have even demanded I remove the information from my website.

If I were to call Stan to try to get answers to all of the questions I've posted in this thread, he might provide answers, and he might be comfortable with me sharing what I learn, here and/or on my website. However, I would much prefer if Stan would provide the answers here directly, and be willing to discuss them openly. Wouldn't that be better than me trying to describe my interpretation of what I might or might not learn over the phone? I personally think even Stan might learn something during the process of trying to explain things in writing.

Also, over the extremely long history of CTE discussion and debate, a common reply to questions I (and many others) have posted is:

"Why don't you just pay the money and go learn it from the master? We're not going to spoon-feed the information to you for free."
​

Well, I have paid for the DVD, and I have studied it thoroughly, and I have shared what I've learned (and I've been attacked for that), and I still have many unresolved questions, and I'm not going to pay more money (or lots of time over long phone calls) to try to find the answers (if there are any).

Again, I hope that Stan or others who have useful answers to some of the important questions will step forward so everybody can learn. If not, I'm happy to spend my time on other things that honestly interest me more.

Sorry for the long response, but I thought it was necessary to put things in proper perspective.

Regards,
Dave

Dr. Dave,

I posted another post 12 minutes before you posted this one and was answering one of your supporter who jumped the gun and decided he really just needed to post a reply for you. Had I known you were writing a reply and had your supporter not jumped the gun I would have waited until I read this post. While I still believe your associating Stan with others in the past is wrong and while I am 100% sure that your statment about Stan is wrong I can see now how you came to draw your impression even though it is wrong with regards to Stan. Thank you for your reply.

You know and I know that your logic is flawed. You have assumed guilt by association. With that thinking Jesus himself could have come down and done a DVD on CTE and you and others would still be assuming the veils of secrecy existed since it is a "given" in your thought process.

The reason any "sane person" would not even post on this site is because of the 10% "moron factor" on all sites such as this. That 10% can be divided into the "we really don't know anything but will still give our expert opinion on all threads" and the "we know a little and will do our best to disrupt any thread to show how clever we are". (Pocket Point being an excellent example in the cte threads.) On this site the 10% may be a low estimate. Couple that with another 5% of the out spoken members who think they should talk 75% of the time and I believe this is not the best place for a fair and drawn out discussion on a complicated topic of any kind. I think all involved in these CTE/Pro One threads have proven that beyond a doubt. We should stick to what cue do you like best, which table is your favorite, who won the last tourney, etc. You have already seen the mean spirited, the name calling, the confusion created by misspoken words, and the out and out hostility by many on the CTE/Pro One Topic. So, I think this is NOT a good place for the CTE/Pro One topic. Where is it? I don't know but surely it is not here. Maybe, create a second subAZ forum where everyone is required to use their real name, address, and phone number before they can join. I believe that would reduce the "moron factor" significantly.

 

[Murdoch7627]

The other problem that I didn't mention was that it is very hard to have any type of intelligent discussion when 15 people are all talking at the same time. There must be some order in any discussion and that does not happen on AZ or any other site like AZ. A possible solution if both sides of any topic really want to create a venue for discussion would to have each side appoint 3 or 4 speakers for their position and all would use their real names. Then create a subforum on AZ where only these 6 or 8 people can actually post on that subforum but all AZers could read the posts. Gone are the morons, the troublemakers and the snipers. Probably too logical of an idea so it could never actually happen, huh?

 

[cookie man]

Things are looking up.

It took 18 pages before the first incidence of name-calling in a CTE thread.

I wonder if CTE can work for bowling?

It actually does. find the ctel then pivot 4 boards over, and with a straight and repeatable arm motion you can throw strikes.

 

[cookie man]

My statement relates to a long history of "veils of secrecy" that have often surrounded CTE debates and discussion over these many years. Stan and his followers have certainly been part of this in the past. Over countless years, very little substantive information has been openly shared or discussed, and promises were made that the DVD would address all of the questions. Now, IMO, there again seems to be an unwillingness to share and discuss ideas publicly.

Every time I've learned something about CTE and quoted or posted something on my website, I have been attacked, and people have claimed I have no right to share the information publicly. People have even demanded I remove the information from my website.

If I were to call Stan to try to get answers to all of the questions I've posted in this thread, he might provide answers, and he might be comfortable with me sharing what I learn, here and/or on my website. However, I would much prefer if Stan would provide the answers here directly, and be willing to discuss them openly. Wouldn't that be better than me trying to describe my interpretation of what I might or might not learn over the phone? I personally think even Stan might learn something during the process of trying to explain things in writing.

Also, over the extremely long history of CTE discussion and debate, a common reply to questions I (and many others) have posted is:

"Why don't you just pay the money and go learn it from the master? We're not going to spoon-feed the information to you for free."
​

Well, I have paid for the DVD, and I have studied it thoroughly, and I have shared what I've learned (and I've been attacked for that), and I still have many unresolved questions, and I'm not going to pay more money (or lots of time over long phone calls) to try to find the answers (if there are any).

Again, I hope that Stan or others who have useful answers to some of the important questions will step forward so everybody can learn. If not, I'm happy to spend my time on other things that honestly interest me more.

Sorry for the long response, but I thought it was necessary to put things in proper perspective.

Regards,
Dave

First off their are no veils of secrecy. The only ones claiming that are the naysayers.
Second, do you really blame Stan for not coming on here constantly and putting up with this total bullshit. I mean is anyone ever really right on here, is there anyone who has participated who hasn't been torn to shreds.
Third, I applaud Stan for not getting caught in this horseshit. I don't think anyone figured Lou, PJ, or Dr. Dave to accept CTE. Three people who have stated they will never use it, never try it, never accept it, been that way for a long time. Hell Lou was face to face with Spidey less than a year ago and walked away in less than 30 seconds, what does that say about his interest. Yet these guys keep letting cte threads dominate there posting, what does that say about there motives.
PJ welcome back, you really should stay with the squirts and swerves where your expertize exceeds most, granted your threads do not last more than 12 or 13 posts, but it is good info. Do you get upset they don't attract more attention?
Dr. Dave, In watching some of your videos you should maybe concentrate more on bowling, or at least put in the time to become a B player.
Lou, rumor is you play pretty good, put your time in. Would love to see you on open mic night at the comedy factory though, would have to be a riot.
I don't blame Stan one bit for not getting involved here. If you have questions call him.

 

[peteypooldude]

:thumbup:

Mike,
Tell me about the 1/2 tip pivot back to the center of the CB.

When I start out at the CTE line of aim and I move to the side to aim the edge of the CB to the A, B or C, B, Is it OK if I am no longer over the CTE line in a new stance? A different stance for the different cut angles to be attempted?

Thanks.:thumbup:

After you sight the CTEL and you sight your CB edge to A,B or C,
You will NOT be on the CTEL. The CTEL is your 1st visual prior to shifting
or sighting the CB edge. Once the eyes are shifted then you are done with the initial line up(CTEL)
Once you are locked in on the reference points and CB edge, then you slide your bridge into
place and pivot to center

 

[LAMas]

After you sight the CTEL and you sight your CB edge to A,B or C,
You will NOT be on the CTEL. The CTEL is your 1st visual prior to shifting
or sighting the CB edge. Once the eyes are shifted then you are done with the initial line up(CTEL)
Once you are locked in on the reference points and CB edge, then you slide your bridge into
place and pivot to center

Thanks Pete,
With practice and discipline, I should be able to determine what cut angles that the secondary aim spots A, B, C and 1/8 that my visualization achieves (dominant right eye). At each aim point, I have the possibility of shifting toward the OB or away from it by 1/2 cue tip pre-pivot.

That gives me a potential of 6 cut angles. When I see those angles (OB to pocket and CB to OB), I will know what spot to aim at and whether to shift toward or away from the OB. If the cut angle is in between, I think that I can make an adjustment like with the shift...larger or smaller than 1/2 tip.

Add to that the straight in shot and the CTE 30 degree cut angle that do not require a shift and pivot.

:thumbup:

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Murdink there's another aiming guru on these boards who also encourages questions via phone - that way he can never be pinned down. He is also a pro at talking in circles, and saying what you want to hear, so it works in his great favor.. I don't believe Stan is like that, but I do believe that Stan wishes to discuss things by phone to maintain a veil of secrecy as best he can. For your info, the CTE group has always felt compelled to never divulge the esoteric teachings of their masters. And how much more now that Stan has a financial interest involved?. Look at the furor that erupted when Dr. Dave provided a key to help dicipher Stan's mysterious work. Spider went nuts. Started yelling STFU to Dr. Dave, and then accused Dave of erasing things from his website, and then replacing them - none of which happened.

That did indeed happen. I have no problem calling Dr. Dave a liar on that. In fact, if Dr. Dave went to Colorado State's IT department with me and we each bet our life on it prior to looking at the server's log file---- sadly, there'd be a world without our beloved Dr. Dave.

p.s. If Dr. Dave wanted to man-up, I'd bet a friendly $500 if he chose to submit to a lie detector test (if he didn't wanna look like an ass to the IT dept of the university). People wonder why I explode--- I can't hack liars. Beat the lie detector, he has my cash.

 

[lfigueroa]

That did indeed happen. I have no problem calling Dr. Dave a liar on that. In fact, if Dr. Dave went to Colorado State's IT department with me and we each bet our life on it prior to looking at the server's log file---- sadly, there'd be a world without our beloved Dr. Dave.

p.s. If Dr. Dave wanted to man-up, I'd bet a friendly $500 if he chose to submit to a lie detector test (if he didn't wanna look like an ass to the IT dept of the university). People wonder why I explode--- I can't hack liars. Beat the lie detector, he has my cash.

On come, a lie detector test. You know no one is going to go through the time, trouble, and expense of doing something like that.

FWIW, I was online while on that little tete-a-tete was going on. In fact I was reading what Dave had posted on his web site from one of the embedded links in one of his posts. When I came back to the group I saw what you had posted and went to your web site and saw what you had posted. So then I went back to Dave's web site and it was all the same, so that, taken in conjunction with Dave's strong denial, I think means you are mistaken.

Lou Figueroa

 

[SpiderWebComm]

On come, a lie detector test. You know no one is going to go through the time, trouble, and expense of doing something like that.

FWIW, I was online while on that little tete-a-tete was going on. In fact I was reading what Dave had posted on his web site from one of the embedded links in one of his posts. When I came back to the group I saw what you had posted and went to your web site and saw what you had posted. So then I went back to Dave's web site and it was all the same, so that, taken in conjunction with Dave's strong denial, I think means you are mistaken.

Lou Figueroa

I'm not going back and forth on this. The time in question was the previous day before the post --- around 7pm EST.

He changed it - he denied it - it is what it is. Two people in the world know what happened - Dr. Dave and myself.

P.S. When I saw he changed his page, I removed the links to my blog from this thread and PM'd Dr. Dave thanking him for doing the right thing. Now, if he didn't do ANYTHING--- why would I have done that? Read the thread and the days/times of the posts. Maybe Dr. Dave will post my PM with the date/time of that PM. So, I guess you're suggesting I visited his page --- had an hallucination, and removed my posts knocking Dave and sent him a "thank you for doing the right thing" PM --- all based on my inability to read.

The approximate quote at the top of the CTE/Pro1 section was something like "Brief summary at the request of Stan Shuffett" or something to that affect (the table wasn't there anymore). So, maybe Dave can shed some light on that. If I navigated to another page that discusses CTE/Pro1 (that isn't the page in question) that has that copy and I really was mistaken, I'll apologize to Dave and everyone. Otherwise, I stand my ground firmly. I also sent a TXT to Stan's phone letting him know what happened the moment I saw it on Dr. Dave's page. Maybe Stan might chime in.
Dave

 

[lfigueroa]

The approximate quote at the top of the CTE/Pro1 section was something like "Brief summary at the request of Stan Shuffett" or something to that affect (the table wasn't there anymore). So, maybe Dave can shed some light on that. If I navigated to another page that discusses CTE/Pro1 (that isn't the page in question) that has that copy and I really was mistaken, I'll apologize to Dave and everyone. Otherwise, I stand my ground firmly. I also sent a TXT to Stan's phone letting him know what happened the moment I saw it on Dr. Dave's page. Maybe Stan might chime in.
Dave

It's still there -- from Dave's web site:

"from Stan Shuffett (Note: Pro One is Stan's version of CTE. Note also, per Stan's request: the info below presents only "Partial Aspects of Pro One"):"

He goes on from there.

The table I believe you're referring to "CTE Version 4 (as interpreted by dr_dave from the description and examples on Stan Shuffett's Pro One DVD) - 6 lines of aim:" is also still there, just further back up the page.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JoeyA]

The other problem that I didn't mention was that it is very hard to have any type of intelligent discussion when 15 people are all talking at the same time. There must be some order in any discussion and that does not happen on AZ or any other site like AZ. A possible solution if both sides of any topic really want to create a venue for discussion would to have each side appoint 3 or 4 speakers for their position and all would use their real names. Then create a subforum on AZ where only these 6 or 8 people can actually post on that subforum but all AZers could read the posts. Gone are the morons, the troublemakers and the snipers. Probably too logical of an idea so it could never actually happen, huh?

For a relatively newcomer to the Main Forum, you have been making some incredible posts about a wide range of subjects.

It's a little late but welcome to the forum Murdoch. You make a LOT OF SENSE about many things. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Thanks,
JoeyA

 

[shankster8]

The other problem that I didn't mention was that it is very hard to have any type of intelligent discussion when 15 people are all talking at the same time. There must be some order in any discussion and that does not happen on AZ or any other site like AZ. A possible solution if both sides of any topic really want to create a venue for discussion would to have each side appoint 3 or 4 speakers for their position and all would use their real names. Then create a subforum on AZ where only these 6 or 8 people can actually post on that subforum but all AZers could read the posts. Gone are the morons, the troublemakers and the snipers. Probably too logical of an idea so it could never actually happen, huh?

Murdink, I assume you exclude yourself from the group you describe as "the morons, the troublemakers and the snipers" that should be required to use their real name?

 

[Murdoch7627]

For a relatively newcomer to the Main Forum, you have been making some incredible posts about a wide range of subjects.

It's a little late but welcome to the forum Murdoch. You make a LOT OF SENSE about many things. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Thanks,
JoeyA

Thank you, Joey.

 

[peteypooldude]

Lou,

I'm considered a troll here if I just raise a question against CTE. What should I do?

Why are you asking Lou questions on the Pro 1 Answering Questions thread.
Had nothing to do with the conversation. I can tell you why...You R Trolling.AS for what to do......Quit stirring sh1t