Stan and a 33 minute video...

[Neil]

This SOP of hitting all shots with medium to firm speed was never mentioned as standard until Dan White pointed out the CIT that Stan says gets trumped by CTE.

It doesn't matter, pros play shots at varying speeds. No pro player plays "all" shots at medium to medium firm speed. And that's not cherry picking your words or taking them out of context. You should word things differently if one can't quote what you write without being accused of taking it out of context. The fact is, MANY shots are played at a normal medium speed, not ALL shots. Some are slow-rolled and some are fired in at lightning speed.

I'm not saying the CTE over-cut doesn't work for slow speed, I'm saying the player must adjust the shot in many situations where the natural over-cut is going to cause a miss if an adjustment isn't made. That's SOP for any method of aiming and not a bash on CTE. However, Stan has claimed many times that CTE requires no aiming or stroke adjustments and no player judgement. Once again, nothing here is out of context.....Stan has been very vocal on these claims.

And I'm very aware that a learned process can be considered objective once the process is learned, but that only applies to learning things like trigonometry or calculus. It's math, a process that requires zero personal judgement. I'll agree that a visual, something anyone with eyes and a known fixed focal point can see, is objective. If I say "Look at that ball", you can easily look and see the ball -- no training or learning curve needed. That is objective. If I ask, "What perception would you use to pocket that ball?" or "What fractional aim would you use to pocket the ball?", the player would have to use some sort of judging criteria, asking himself if it's too thin for a 15° perception, or too thick for 3/8 fraction, etc... This judgement process depends solely on the player's personal opinion, based on comparable experiences and results. It's subjective.

It may feel objective to him, but that's because the 86 billion neurons in his brain have built a complex pathway of understanding for this particular situation, unique to him and no one else. Now if he doesn't use personal judgement, but instead uses a pure objective process like math or measuring devices to determine exactly where to aim, he has removed the subjectiveness from the process and can truly call his result objective.

Medium speed has been mentioned in the past. Just another one of the things you missed. And, no one said pros play all shots at medium speed. I did say most shots. SOP- standard operating procedure. Nice twist though, right out of Rick's playbook. And you are wrong stating that many shots require an adjustment. And you have nothing to back up your claim but conjecture. You have no data from the table because you don't use the system.

As far as objective, Mohrt pretty well covered it, But, like I said in the past, you might want to do an in depth study of the word.

 

[BC21]

The perception changes. Every CB/OB orientation has a unique perception. I believe this has been said before. This can be discovered at the table. This what Stan phrases as what Hal said “what was not meant to be”. I suppose that can mean it is something contradictory to logic? Because yes, I think it is. But nonetheless, there it is. Perception is a curious thing.

But you can physically move closer to the CB or farther away from the CB and change this "unique" perception.

 

[BC21]

Medium speed has been mentioned in the past. Just another one of the things you missed. And, no one said pros play all shots at medium speed. I did say most shots. SOP- standard operating procedure. Nice twist though, right out of Rick's playbook. And you are wrong stating that many shots require an adjustment. And you have nothing to back up your claim but conjecture. You have no data from the table because you don't use the system.

As far as objective, Mohrt pretty well covered it, But, like I said in the past, you might want to do an in depth study of the word.

Your exact words:

"What did Stan actually say? He said that one should play a professional game. That means all shots hit with a medium speed."


Maybe you said "most" shots some other time. But not here. So how did I twist it? Lol. And I assumed SOP was Standard Operating Practice, or Procedure.

And I actually said that many situations require an adjustment when the natural overcut is going to cause the ball to miss the pocket without adjusting something. Not many shots, many "situations" that arise quite often with a hand full of shots.

 

[mohrt]

But you can physically move closer to the CB or farther away from the CB and change this "unique" perception.

YOU moving closer/farther does not change the perception. Moving the CB closer farther from OB, yes of course. I've never thought about moving my head closer or farther from the shot. I always use whatever a comfortable distance/stance is for any given shot.

 

[Dan White]

Name one that doesn't.

Poolology and HAMB. That's two.

 

[Dan White]

I'm one of those people that don't really understand CTE. I'm sure I'd have to taught by an Instructor to actually get it.

I'm sure my mechanics has a lot to do with me missing certain shots.

Eddie - mista said you should pass any of the CTE videos to me before you view them so I can point out all the errors. Wouldn't you like to know if an instructional video contains errors before you commit your time to it?

 

[Dan White]

Medium speed has been mentioned in the past. Just another one of the things you missed. And, no one said pros play all shots at medium speed. I did say most shots. SOP- standard operating procedure. Nice twist though, right out of Rick's playbook. And you are wrong stating that many shots require an adjustment. And you have nothing to back up your claim but conjecture. You have no data from the table because you don't use the system.

As far as objective, Mohrt pretty well covered it, But, like I said in the past, you might want to do an in depth study of the word.

Does Stan use the system?

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=462546

 

[Dan White]

The perception changes. Every CB/OB orientation has a unique perception. I believe this has been said before. This can be discovered at the table. This what Stan phrases as what Hal said “what was not meant to be”. I suppose that can mean it is something contradictory to logic? Because yes, I think it is. But nonetheless, there it is. Perception is a curious thing.

I think different people are using words to mean different things. Is ETA a visual or a perception, as in the ETA visual, or the ETA perception?

When you say that every shot has a unique perception, you are not talking about ETA, correct? You are now talking about the mystery that was not supposed to be that allows ETA to pocket balls at many different shot angles. Stan said you are the only other person on earth who undersands how this works, like Stan. I assume, therefore, that whatever you tell us here is what Stan would say as well.

I just want to be sure I am using the correct terminology before continuing down this line of reasoning.

Thanks.

 

[mohrt]

I think different people are using words to mean different things. Is ETA a visual or a perception, as in the ETA visual, or the ETA perception?

When you say that every shot has a unique perception, you are not talking about ETA, correct? You are now talking about the mystery that was not supposed to be that allows ETA to pocket balls at many different shot angles. Stan said you are the only other person on earth who undersands how this works, like Stan. I assume, therefore, that whatever you tell us here is what Stan would say as well.

I just want to be sure I am using the correct terminology before continuing down this line of reasoning.

Thanks.

Say we are looking at a 30I. ETA is one aim line. CTEL would be the other. Together, they form a perception that takes your eyes to a very specific alignment for a given shot. If you move the balls, the perception is a new one.

Stevie Moore published a video not long ago that demonstrates the "phenomena" where we can get different perceptions with similarly oriented shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1mlnRiAXA8

 

[BC21]

YOU moving closer/farther does not change the perception. Moving the CB closer farther from OB, yes of course. I've never thought about moving my head closer or farther from the shot. I always use whatever a comfortable distance/stance is for any given shot.

Actually it does change. From a closer point of view, the CB visually covers more of the OB. In other words, you can find the 30 perception, then move your head/vision center toward the CB and eventually pick up the 15 perception by simply keeping that CTE line in sight. The thing is, you've worked with the system long enough to create what is called subjective biases. You automatically know when you're in the right visual location based on repetitive learning. It has become a habit, which isn't a bad thing if it helps you play great pool! :thumbup:

 

[mohrt]

Actually it does change. From a closer point of view, the CB visually covers more of the OB. In other words, you can find the 30 perception, then move your head/vision center toward the CB and eventually pick up the 15 perception by simply keeping that CTE line in sight. The thing is, you've worked with the system long enough to create what is called subjective biases. You automatically know when you're in the right visual location based on repetitive learning. It has become a habit, which isn't a bad thing if it helps you play great pool! :thumbup:

That has never been an issue for myself, although I think there is a diminishing return trying to move your head in extremely close or far, no matter how you aim in pool. If I'm at my "normal" distance things tend to be consistent. I have not, however, gone to a table and tried any confirmations of how things look when I move way in/out, or how far you have to move before things look different.

 

[BC21]

That has never been an issue for myself, although I think there is a diminishing return trying to move your head in extremely close or far, no matter how you aim in pool. If I'm at my "normal" distance things tend to be consistent. I have not, however, gone to a table and tried any confirmations of how things look when I move way in/out, or how far you have to move before things look different.

This means you have found your sweet spot, kind of like knowing how your specific cue shaft handles bhe as far as bridge length. I get that.

 

[mohrt]

This means you have found your sweet spot, kind of like knowing how your specific cue shaft handles bhe as far as bridge length. I get that.

Well, it has never been an issue. I've never had to move my head in, out, then go AHA to find what I'm looking for. In the context of CTE.

 

[Neil]

Your exact words:

"What did Stan actually say? He said that one should play a professional game. That means all shots hit with a medium speed."


Maybe you said "most" shots some other time. But not here. So how did I twist it? Lol. And I assumed SOP was Standard Operating Practice, or Procedure.

And I actually said that many situations require an adjustment when the natural overcut is going to cause the ball to miss the pocket without adjusting something. Not many shots, many "situations" that arise quite often with a hand full of shots.

Why take it out of context and only cherrypick something out you think you can find fault with? Here is what I said- "To the throw- once again, you miss parts and take parts out of context. What did Stan actually say? He said that one should play a professional game. That means all shots hit with a medium to medium firm speed. That is SOP for the system. Now, if you need to or want to go outside the SOP, that is easily done. " Why leave out the part in red?

Now all you are doing is trying to find fault with anything you think you can. No desire to actually learn or use the system. Only desire is to try and tear down. No point in even conversing with you if this is all you are after. Makes you no different than Rick.

 

[Neil]

Poolology and HAMB. That's two.

Wrong again. And I will leave it at that because I'm not going down the same rabbit hole you and Brian are in.

 

[Dan White]

Say we are looking at a 30I. ETA is one aim line. CTEL would be the other. Together, they form a perception that takes your eyes to a very specific alignment for a given shot. If you move the balls, the perception is a new one.

Stevie Moore published a video not long ago that demonstrates the "phenomena" where we can get different perceptions with similarly oriented shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1mlnRiAXA8

Yes, I'm very familiar with that video. Don't you see this isn't an explanation, it is merely saying "it works?" In fact at 1:09 where he was about to explain why the ball went into the side pocket instead of 6" over to the red chip like the first shot did, his explanation as to why is "that's the nature of center to edge. It takes you to right angles." Well blow me over with a feather! Great explanation.

The reason I believe there is more than meets the eye with how the mystery works is precisely because I DID take it to the table and try it out. In theory, and watching these pro's perform the shot as described, you start to believe that maybe something mysterious is happening. Then you go to the table and it doesn't seem to matter where the balls are on the table. ETA produces the exact same shot angle everywhere on the table if you perform the steps as described EXACTLY without allowing any outside influence creep in. Then I think, "What are these guys smoking?"

I almost think it is like hypnotism. Some people can be hypnotized and some can't. Some people are "suggestible." I saw a hypnotist perform years ago in college. He told this girl to forget the number 3. She would count her fingers and go 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. She would do it over and over and just couldn't imagine the number 3 anymore. It was truly an amazing demonstration of how the mind works.

Does Stan have anything like this in his pool room? J/K, don't have cow!

 

[Neil]

Yes, I'm very familiar with that video. Don't you see this isn't an explanation, it is merely saying "it works?" In fact at 1:09 where he was about to explain why the ball went into the side pocket instead of 6" over to the red chip like the first shot did, his explanation as to why is "that's the nature of center to edge. It takes you to right angles." Well blow me over with a feather! Great explanation.

The reason I believe there is more than meets the eye with how the mystery works is precisely because I DID take it to the table and try it out. In theory, and watching these pro's perform the shot as described, you start to believe that maybe something mysterious is happening. Then you go to the table and it doesn't seem to matter where the balls are on the table. ETA produces the exact same shot angle everywhere on the table if you perform the steps as described EXACTLY without allowing any outside influence creep in. Then I think, "What are these guys smoking?"

I almost think it is like hypnotism. Some people can be hypnotized and some can't. Some people are "suggestible." I saw a hypnotist perform years ago in college. He told this girl to forget the number 3. She would count her fingers and go 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. She would do it over and over and just couldn't imagine the number 3 anymore. It was truly an amazing demonstration of how the mind works.

Does Stan have anything like this in his pool room? J/K, don't have cow!

How many times are you going to say the same thing, get the same answers, before you finally realize you are leaving out what you keep being told over and over? Don't you even care that it makes you look rather dense?

 

[Dan White]

The perception changes. Every CB/OB orientation has a unique perception. I believe this has been said before. This can be discovered at the table. This what Stan phrases as what Hal said “what was not meant to be”. I suppose that can mean it is something contradictory to logic? Because yes, I think it is. But nonetheless, there it is. Perception is a curious thing.

Yes, this is the crux of the matter. Throw is a way to illustrate the subjectivity of CTE, but this claim about "the balls presenting themselves differently on the table" is the big daddy whopper.

You are right that it has been said before, but it has never been explained. Stevie Moore's explanation is basically "see it works! CTE takes you to right angles." Stan's explanation is that he never really explained it properly and he will do so in the book due out, hopefully before the end of the decade. You, mohrt, are the only other person on earth who Stan said truly understands the phenomon he is going to disclose in the book (but maybe not based on some of his videos). So far my recollection is that you said there is something about the rails on the table and the shape of the table that changes your perception (aka fools your eye - my term) into seeing the cut angle needed to pocket the ball even with the same ETA or whatever alignment.

So let's say you are right for a moment. I set up a ball like Stan did in the 5 shot perception video. Put an ob 1 diamond out from the side pocket and the cb parallel to that on the head string. Pocket the ball with an ETA. Now move over to the next ball, say 2 diamonds from the side pocket and cue ball again parallel to the rail. Use ETA again and pocket the ball. Now, obviously we can both agree that if you sent the ball in a different direction then something had to change between the two shots. You SAW both shots to be exactly the same ETA/CTE alignment but I think we agree that something had to change. So what is it that changes? We know the cue must be pointing away from the ob more in the second shot than the first, right? So is it your body position or eye position, or what that changes in the second shot? In other words, when the balls present themselves differently on the table, what is it that the balls are making you do in the second shot that results in a different shot angle?

 

[BC21]

Yes, this is the crux of the matter. Throw is a way to illustrate the subjectivity of CTE, but this claim about "the balls presenting themselves differently on the table" is the big daddy whopper.

You are right that it has been said before, but it has never been explained. Stevie Moore's explanation is basically "see it works! CTE takes you to right angles." Stan's explanation is that he never really explained it properly and he will do so in the book due out, hopefully before the end of the decade. You, mohrt, are the only other person on earth who Stan said truly understands the phenomon he is going to disclose in the book (but maybe not based on some of his videos). So far my recollection is that you said there is something about the rails on the table and the shape of the table that changes your perception (aka fools your eye - my term) into seeing the cut angle needed to pocket the ball even with the same ETA or whatever alignment.

So let's say you are right for a moment. I set up a ball like Stan did in the 5 shot perception video. Put an ob 1 diamond out from the side pocket and the cb parallel to that on the head string. Pocket the ball with an ETA. Now move over to the next ball, say 2 diamonds from the side pocket and cue ball again parallel to the rail. Use ETA again and pocket the ball. Now, obviously we can both agree that if you sent the ball in a different direction then something had to change between the two shots. You SAW both shots to be exactly the same ETA/CTE alignment but I think we agree that something had to change. So what is it that changes? We know the cue must be pointing away from the ob more in the second shot than the first, right? So is it your body position or eye position, or what that changes in the second shot? In other words, when the balls present themselves differently on the table, what is it that the balls are making you do in the second shot that results in a different shot angle?

I think maybe our questions are too difficult. Instead of asking HOW one perception and exact pivot/sweep achieves multiple cut angles, or WHAT objective element automatically tells a player when a 15, 30, or 45 perception should be used, we should replace the HOW and WHAT with "WHY". Then generic answers such as "because CTE provides an over-cut alignment", or "because it was never supposed to be", etc....would actually fit the questions somewhat.

 

[Renegade_56]

I think maybe our questions are too difficult. Instead of asking HOW one perception and exact pivot/sweep achieves multiple cut angles, or WHAT objective element automatically tells a player when a 15, 30, or 45 perception should be used, we should replace the HOW and WHAT with "WHY". Then generic answers such as "because CTE provides an over-cut alignment", or "because it was never supposed to be", etc....would actually fit the questions somewhat.

Maybe, before you guys hurt yourselves patting yourselves on the back for the attempt at total annihilation of Pro1 , all in expert tone of course since you know Stan won't step in to correct you on how little you actually know about it you should stop and think about why so many people buy it, and use it, and don't even care how it works,,,,, or, if any of you actually ever come up with a convincing answer of why it can't work. You looked silly arguing with Stan about it, but you really look like idiots now knowing he will not interject.