Stan shuffet and cte pro one

[cookie man]

What assessment? That a 15-inside is the same as a 30-outside? I hope I'm not wrong about that.

AHH, the expected spin move. If your perception leads you to no sweep or pivot then you are relying on your experience and the way you used to aim. YOU ARE NOT PROPERLY USING CTE AND IT"S PERCEPTIONS.
Please wait for the book, you just keep embarrassing yourself with your posting on this subject.

 

[Mirza]

Considering that the perception lines are based on the relationship between the two balls as seen from a certain position behind the CB.....yes, using objective visuals I get the exact same overlap perspective when I address CCB inmmediately after getting both visual lines. The only time the perception changes my perspective of CB/OB relationship is when I change the distance between the CB and OB, which makes sense. As long the distance between the balls is constant, I always get the same results with any particular perception regardless of where the balls are in reference to the rails or pockets. The first shot is very close to 15°, and 15-perception with inside pivot thinks it up way too much. I could work with it for a while, tweaking the pivot or perception to match what works for the shot, but then I wouldn't be following instructions -- I'd be doing my own thing to make it work.

Perception of seeing both lines from one place (one and the other, not both at the same time), would give you different CB-OB overlaps for those 5 shots, so you're not getting the visuals/perceptions correctly, so why not just drop it until the book and truth series?

 

[Low500]

The eyes lead and the body follows is correct and if Stan made up that saying, then more power to him and I agree with it.

BUT, he also has two different stances to set up the alignment for delivery.<=it doesn't matter how many stances a shooter may have. The eyes still have to lead the shooter into the stance. That's alignment and the eyes have to do it...(the feet can do nothing accurately without the eyes telling them where to go. That's so simple to understand isn't it?) I mean, just put on a blindfold and try to walk up to the table and get into position for playing to prove that.

You're speaking for JJ as if he is using a method similar to the concept of CTE or a pure visual system and I know for a fact that you can step on or near the shotline in such a way that sets up your mechanics first, way before the visual even makes sense, if you are trying to put a heavy angular bias on your delivery angle. <==I have no idea what JJ uses. If his method is similar to CTE, if he has his own method, I have no clue. I've watched him many times and he can darn sure make those balls. But his eyes are leading him into whatever position his feet, head, arms, hands, wind up in. Without his eyes to lead him, he's helpless and blind. By the way there is NO WAY I am qualified to speak for anybody. I've got enough worries 'plowing my own garden.'

You can speak for Stan, but you can't speak for "aiming" unless, and I'll use the ever popular line of "unless you try it for yourself" and I will not venture to say you will or won't, but perhaps you are closed minded.<==I speak for nobody (already said that). Every alignment/aiming method I ever tried in 60 years of playing required the eyes to put the shooter into the proper position. CTE seems to best for me...what other people do is none of my business. But whoever they are...their eyes are still putting them into the proper position....not their feet or any other part of their body. Let 'em try it blindfolded and see what happens. That's basic human biology and I am definitely "closed minded" about that aspect.
JJ is right and it should suggest or leave a door open as to method and that discussion should always be left open. So, the assertions of others and the CTE'ers heresy is not their imagination. <==if he or any other player in the world thinks they can align, aim, stroke, or anything else without their eyes taking them to the answer, I want to bet on that session. (I'll furnish the blindfold):wink:
I got one question for anyone qualified to answer, is CTE and the big secret that will be revealed in the book......is it provable math or is it voodoo? <==I am unqualified to know what the big secret from the upcoming Shuffett book is (if there is any big secret). But I can bet you 5 bucks that there will be no "provable math" in it. So I guess the answer is it will be what you call "voodoo". Personally I'll settle for that. If it helps me make more shots.

I got no problems with either one because I believe you don't have to see a shot clearly to execute a particular effect, but alignment itself can never be ruled out and there's no question it starts or can start from the feet.<===no alignment or anything else starts from anywhere without the eyes at work. Can't happen and never has happened. The eyes are the root.

Have a nice day and thanks.

These things (in blue) are my conclusions based on intelligence guided by experience, education (not formal schooling), and common sense...nothing more.
I am merely a simple old man who's learned a personal better way to aim pool shots.
What anyone else does (as I said previously) is none of my affair.
And a very nice day to you also, sir.
:thumbup:

 

[BC21]

Perception of seeing both lines from one place (one and the other, not both at the same time), would give you different CB-OB overlaps for those 5 shots, so you're not getting the visuals/perceptions correctly, so why not just drop it until the book and truth series?

According to Stan Shuffett, you see both lines at the same time, not one then the other, and not standing directly behind any one. That is exactly what I am doing.

I started with straight in shots, using a 15-inside or 15-outside, and it works. I used a 10" bridge distance, came in parallel to the CCB line initial given by the perception, 1/2 tip left or right for inside/outside pivots. I set up the exact shots Stan shoots in a few videos where he says the 30-outside is the same as a 15-inside, and that's when you know a shot is thin enough to be moving out of the 15 and into the 30 perception. I have no problem doing this. The bridge distance affects the offset angles (thin or thick) generated by the pivot -- a longer bridge creates finer thinning or thickening angle. The distance between the balls affects the perception you get from the visuals. CTE and ETA lines with 1 diamond distance between the balls will provide a different CCB perception than a CTE and CTA at a 3 diamond distance.

What I find odd is that all of this can be proven with math on paper, yet no one has posted anything on it that shows how or why it works. And still I am told that I am way off. How would anyone know whether or not I am wrong if no one can explain or show how it works?


But I'm fine with waiting on the book. CTE's been out 10+ years already, so a few extra months isn't that much longer to wait. It sure beats dogmatically duking it out with fellow pool players over how something works, especially when so many admit to not knowing how it works.

 

[Mirza]

According to Stan Shuffett, you see both lines at the same time, not one then the other, and not standing directly behind any one. That is exactly what I am doing.

I started with straight in shots, using a 15-inside or 15-outside, and it works. I used a 10" bridge distance, came in parallel to the CCB line initial given by the perception, 1/2 tip left or right for inside/outside pivots. I set up the exact shots Stan shoots in a few videos where he says the 30-outside is the same as a 15-inside, and that's when you know a shot is thin enough to be moving out of the 15 and into the 30 perception. I have no problem doing this. The bridge distance affects the offset angles (thin or thick) generated by the pivot -- a longer bridge creates finer thinning or thickening angle. The distance between the balls affects the perception you get from the visuals. CTE and ETA lines with 1 diamond distance between the balls will provide a different CCB perception than a CTE and CTA at a 3 diamond distance.

What I find odd is that all of this can be proven with math on paper, yet no one has posted anything on it that shows how or why it works. And still I am told that I am way off. How would anyone know whether or not I am wrong if no one can explain or show how it works?


But I'm fine with waiting on the book. CTE's been out 10+ years already, so a few extra months isn't that much longer to wait. It sure beats dogmatically duking it out with fellow pool players over how something works, especially when so many admit to not knowing how it works.

You get the aim line first, and then the sight line, not align/move until you see both in the same time, you align to aim line perception first then switch eyes to sight line to check if you have a strong perception of it, if not get back to aim line and change the perception until you see strong perception of sight line too by switching your eyes back and forth from one to another, not looking at them at the same time.

Of course you're not directly behind either - hence the word perception.

Post by stan shuffett in the "Peripheral vision and perception CTE" thread on 10-06-2017, 04:42 AM:

"Pick up the aim line first and then the sight line. You won't be directly behind either line as if in your nose is looking straight down one of the lines. I promise to help out big time with this...", and also a little after this post, on 10-06-2017, 01:36 PM, he wrote:

"Very good.
Keep in mind that you can't view both lines simultaneously but that you can see a perception as a whole. From your peripheral base position, while standing, you must shift your eyes and their focus for seeing each line as a check.

Stan Shuffett"

You should really restrain yourself from commentating something you're obviously doing wrong, at least until the book and truth series come out and you try the new info on the table.

 

[cookie man]

What I find odd is that all of this can be proven with math on paper, yet no one has posted anything on it that shows how or why it works. And still I am told that I am way off. How would anyone know whether or not I am wrong if no one can explain or show how it works?


But I'm fine with waiting on the book. CTE's been out 10+ years already, so a few extra months isn't that much longer to wait. It sure beats dogmatically duking it out with fellow pool players over how something works, especially when so many admit to not knowing how it works.

You kind of answered yourself. No one in all these years has been able to show the math, but you think you can and it's easy to do so. Does that make you think for a minute that maybe you are wrong and really don't know enough about CTE. I'm sure you are a pretty smart guy but again the math you are doing is not CTE math.
I know you are wrong because your results as you explain them are not the results that actual users get. Pretty simple to know.
I may not know how it works but i know how to perform and use CTE, and the results i get with it.

 

[BC21]

You get the aim line first, and then the sight line, not align/move until you see both in the same time, you align to aim line perception first then switch eyes to sight line to check if you have a strong perception of it, if not get back to aim line and change the perception until you see strong perception of sight line too by switching your eyes back and forth from one to another, not looking at them at the same time.

Of course you're not directly behind either - hence the word perception.

Post by stan shuffett in the "Peripheral vision and perception CTE" thread on 10-06-2017, 04:42 AM:

"Pick up the aim line first and then the sight line. You won't be directly behind either line as if in your nose is looking straight down one of the lines. I promise to help out big time with this...", and also a little after this post, on 10-06-2017, 01:36 PM, he wrote:

"Very good.
Keep in mind that you can't view both lines simultaneously but that you can see a perception as a whole. From your peripheral base position, while standing, you must shift your eyes and their focus for seeing each line as a check.

Stan Shuffett"

You should really restrain yourself from commentating something you're obviously doing wrong, at least until the book and truth series come out and you try the new info on the table.

Yes. This describes what I see. I don't see either line directly. It's more of a peripheral view of each line as seen from one position. Both lines are noticable at the same time. Sure I get one first and then move until I find this one position where I can make out both lines. If I weren't doing it correctly it wouldn't work at all.

 

[Mirza]

Yes. This describes what I see. I don't see either line directly. It's more of a peripheral view of each line as seen from one position. Both lines are noticable at the same time. Sure I get one first and then move until I find this one position where I can make out both lines. If I weren't doing it correctly it wouldn't work at all.

Well obviously you are doing something wrong since it isn't working for you as it is for us and as it should, then why are you keeping comentating about it, I don't see any of your posts as contributing, and the rules are clear about that.

Real key to learning CTE is to master the full half ball pivot first, I'll leave it at that and I really recommend you to do the same if you don't want to finish like your buddy Dan (banned).

 

[BC21]

You kind of answered yourself. No one in all these years has been able to show the math, but you think you can and it's easy to do so. Does that make you think for a minute that maybe you are wrong and really don't know enough about CTE. I'm sure you are a pretty smart guy but again the math you are doing is not CTE math.
I know you are wrong because your results as you explain them are not the results that actual users get. Pretty simple to know.
I may not know how it works but i know how to perform and use CTE, and the results i get with it.

Good response. But I was under the impression that there is no CTE math. Anyway, I can use the perceptions and pocket balls easily doing manual pivots. However, there are gaps. I'm sure if I worked with it everyday for a week, or for months or years like many here have already done, my brain would fill in the gaps. But strictly sticking to a consistent 1/2 tip offset cue alignment (parallel to my initial CCB provided by the perception), and a consistent bridge length for a manual pivot, an inside pivot to CCB sends the CB a certain amount of degrees thinner. The outside pivot sends it the same amount of degrees, only thicker into the OB instead of thinner/away from it.

 

[Mirza]

Good response. But I was under the impression that there is no CTE math. Anyway, I can use the perceptions and pocket balls easily doing manual pivots. However, there are gaps. I'm sure if I worked with it everyday for a week, or for months or years like many here have already done, my brain would fill in the gaps. But strictly sticking to a consistent 1/2 tip offset cue alignment (parallel to my initial CCB provided by the perception), and a consistent bridge length for a manual pivot, an inside pivot to CCB sends the CB a certain amount of degrees thinner. The outside pivot sends it the same amount of degrees, only thicker into the OB instead of thinner/away from it.

It’s the perfect half ball pivot that fills the gaps that you are referring to.
You are almost there. You are certain to be in the CTE Hall of Fame soon.

 

[BC21]

Well obviously you are doing something wrong since it isn't working for you as it is for us and as it should, then why are you keeping comentating about it, I don't see any of your posts as contributing, and the rules are clear about that.

Real key to learning CTE is to master the full half ball pivot first, I'll leave it at that and I really recommend you to do the same if you don't want to finish like your buddy Dan (banned).

My posts may not be considered contributing to you and other CTE users, but they very well might be helping those quiet readers that may be struggling to learn CTE. Not all the CTE users here even describe the system exactly like Stan does. Go to YouTube and watch numerous clips of CTE users doing their own versions or methods. It makes for a very ambiguous learning process.

I am simply going by Hal Houle's instructions as posted several years back. Stan repeats Hal's terminology word for word, but his videos take it a few steps further, sometimes more enlightening, sometimes more confusing.

As long as no one is rude or hateful, an open discussion is always constructive.

 

[BC21]

It’s the perfect half ball pivot that fills the gaps that you are referring to.
You are almost there. You are certain to be in the CTE Hall of Fame soon.

Lol. :thumbup:

 

[BC21]

It’s the perfect half ball pivot that fills the gaps that you are referring to.
You are almost there. You are certain to be in the CTE Hall of Fame soon.

Ok. A 1/2 ball pivot. So there is more to it than shown on Stan's 90+ youtube videos? That explains a lot. Book time.

 

[bbb]

i get dizzy trying to read all this back and forth
[STAN PLEASE PUBLISH YOUR BOOK SO I CAN BUY IT AND POST YOUR VIDEOS SO I CAN WATCH[
Larry

 

[8pack]

I am finished with questions. After Stan's latest videos, and going back to look at the 5 shots video, and thoroughly reading the info on Mohrt's website, I have learned enough to satisfy my curiosity, including the math that produces the various angles.

One odd thing in that 5 shots video is Stan says all 5 shots can be made with a 15-inside and a consistent pivot. That's simply not possible. The first shot with a 15-inside over-cuts the ball considerably. I find that the 15 perception puts me right on the proper CCB with no need for thinning or thickening. This makes sense, considering that a 15-inside creates the same cut angle as a 30-outside, and there's no way a 30-outside will make that ball without throwing it several degrees with a good stun shot. So 15-inside is too thin, while 15-outside is too thick. But the initial CCB I get from my perception lines is just right. It's one of those shots that I was questioning when I was told that there is always a pivot when using CTE. But I've found that there is a point where a 15-inside cuts the ball too much and a 15-outside doesn't cut it enough.

Your a little late to the party Brian.

And you wonder why so many of them cant wait for the book.:groucho:
10 years from now they'll still be wanting more.

 

[8pack]

Is cte or pro1 a Subconscious or conscious act ?

 

[BeiberLvr]

Is cte or pro1 a Subconscious or conscious act ?

You can't really prove one or the other.

 

[paultex]

These things (in blue) are my conclusions based on intelligence guided by experience, education (not formal schooling), and common sense...nothing more.
I am merely a simple old man who's learned a personal better way to aim pool shots.
What anyone else does (as I said previously) is none of my affair.
And a very nice day to you also, sir.
:thumbup:

Ok very true, we don't shoot blindfolded but we usually try to retain a visual line that retains constant sense. I am speaking for myself now when I say that I pick up visual lines with my undoninant eye as if the shot line is way over to the right side of my body, so my right foot is well left of the shotline and this forces a particular alignment effect that produces a particular stroke that is simply hard to achieve without perhaps shooting down the line conventionally and jacking up the stick to achieve the same effect.

So my point was, the feet can do alot of the work initially to help the aim. I personally shoot better or more truly square as well because I still believe without any doubt, most of us get too crowded in to a shot while retaining a comfortable visual. This forces a compensatory twist or offset of some sort that ends up being a angled cue and that is fine for a lot of shots but not all.

I will admit as well that Stan does a great job of alignment to get out of his own way and I still say that goes a long way in making any visual system work.

If I'm wrong, then so be it but I don't think I am speaking for exceptions because I see too many commonality when I ask people to perform certain shots, knowing one of 3 things are usually going to happen, and none of the 3 being a good result.

I think the crux of CTE is explainable mojo but so is pool itself because math has a hard time defining it. I personally don't care which one it is because I accept both.

Thank you for your reply, you win ultimately but I was just trying to make a rational argument. Have a good evening/day.

 

[Low500]

Ok very true, we don't shoot blindfolded but we usually try to retain a visual line that retains constant sense. I am speaking for myself now when I say that I pick up visual lines with my undoninant eye as if the shot line is way over to the right side of my body, so my right foot is well left of the shotline and this forces a particular alignment effect that produces a particular stroke that is simply hard to achieve without perhaps shooting down the line conventionally and jacking up the stick to achieve the same effect.
So my point was, the feet can do alot of the work initially to help the aim. I personally shoot better or more truly square as well because I still believe without any doubt, most of us get too crowded in to a shot while retaining a comfortable visual. This forces a compensatory twist or offset of some sort that ends up being a angled cue and that is fine for a lot of shots but not all.
I will admit as well that Stan does a great job of alignment to get out of his own way and I still say that goes a long way in making any visual system work.
If I'm wrong, then so be it but I don't think I am speaking for exceptions because I see too many commonality when I ask people to perform certain shots, knowing one of 3 things are usually going to happen, and none of the 3 being a good result.
I think the crux of CTE is explainable mojo but so is pool itself because math has a hard time defining it. I personally don't care which one it is because I accept both.
Thank you for your reply, you win ultimately but I was just trying to make a rational argument. Have a good evening/day.

Excellent post.
You're a wise man......and probably a skillful and dangerous player. (the kind I want to stay away from)
As for myself, I'm a 'bargain hunter'. :smile: I want the opponent to be drunk, depressed, desperate, loaded with money, and scared to death.......then I might think I've got the best of it.
Your positions are well stated and there's a lot to be said for all of it. If they work for you and you're booking mostly winners, then that's all that really matters over the long run.
Stay happy and healthy..............and always sweet talk 'em into raising the bet when they're on the ropes. :yeah:

 

[8pack]

You can't really prove one or the other.

Are you saying it's neither one?