Stan Shuffet Challenge

[Neil]

Let me break it down so even the biggest dummy on here can understand it. (yes, that is condescending, as it should be at this point)

You use your visual intelligence (this means that you should at least have some idea of where you want to stand to pocket the ball where you want to. You have to be on the rough [ and it can be quite rough] line of the shot chosen)

That "rough" line gives one their proper perspective of the shot. ( I want to pocket the ball there, then I perceive that I should stand somewhere around here)

Once you have the proper perspective for the shot (which is exactly why those 5 shots can all be made with the same visuals) then you pick out your A,B or C or 1/8th line and your other line.

Once you have that, without moving your head, you now have a fixed cueball. (that means that you have two definitive edges and a definitive center line on the cb)

You then go from centerline cb either to the left or right (whatever the shot calls for) one half tip. (definite amount to offset, one half tip. No ambiguity there at all)

Then all you have to do is bring your bridge hand down so you are on that line. Pivot to center cb, and shoot.

So many are so fixated on wording, that they fail to see what the wording even means. Most fail because they won't even bother to take it to the table. Others simply can't understand what they are actually even reading. They automatically want to take any previous experience they have, and throw that into the mix. You can't do that, as has been stated many times. Just simply follow the directions.

Without seeing him shoot, I'll guarantee that straightpool_99 couldn't get it to work because he didn't use visual intelligence and the proper perspective on the shot. I am curious though, if he missed by the same amount with each try. If not, then his stroke leaves a lot to be desired. If so, then he should have caught on to that fact, and said to himself, "hey, doing this I miss the pocket, but I am missing it exactly the same every single time. What am I missing that makes it go into the pocket every time??"

 

[ENGLISH!]

My explanations are plenty if one is motivated to work.

You can not see the visuals of A and CTE on a table as you would on a 2D sheet. And that is where you are stuck, my friend. My explanations of perceptions are assisting students around the world in learning CTE.

My prediction is that in 5 years you will still be asking the same question. One day your window for really learning and benefitting from CTE will all but be gone.

Like I said. I tried with you. I do not care at this point that you will not work properly to gain knowledge of real CTE. Your choice.

Honestly, I think your energy is basically directed at trying to stifle the advancement of my work.

Too late for that.

Stan Shuffett

You are totally incorrect about me trying to stifle the advancement of your work & I truly appreciate all of the time, effort & money that you have invested in bringing this into the mainstream. That is why I closed my last post to you with Sincere Best Wishes & Success for YOU & EVERYONE that gives Your CTE a try.

I have already benefitted some from your CTE just as I have benefitted from the introduction of TOI here by CJ Wiley.

I used fraction overlap 'aiming' when I was 13. I thought I had invented it. My method for compensating for the holes was to use english. Hal & You have devised a different method to compensate for the holes. One that is very probably much easier for most to learn & execute.

The five(5) angles from one visual would IMHO have been better left out as I think it is a deterrent for some in giving CTE an honest try. Very many if not most people are logical or at least like to think of themselves as such. Many become very skeptical when something just doesn't seem to make sense. When that happens they ask questions. If the answers make sense to them then they become more comfortable with accepting what had earlier not seemed to make sense. If the answers do not make sense to them then they become even more skeptical.

I was in sales for many years including insurance sales. I never wanted to sell anyone anything. I wanted to give them enough information about the product so as to make them comfortable with buying the product from me.

I Honestly & Sincerely Do wish you increased Success just as I do Honestly & Sincerely wish EVERYONE that tries Your CTE success with it.

I can understand your feelings as you have been bombarded by many for quite some time but like Sean said earlier, not everyone that asks questions as to how & why is a detractor & not everyone that asks those questions is not saying that CTE does not work. It obviously does work, so much so as to be intriguing as it did me.

I can not help it if 1 +1 +1 = 3 in my mind & not 5 unless we are doing math in base 1.6666666666 etc.

As I said before, Best Wishes for Your Continued Success & Everyone that give Your CTE a try.

Rick

 

[nobcitypool]

My explanations are plenty if one is motivated to work.

You can not see the visuals of A and CTE on a table as you would on a 2D sheet. And that is where you are stuck, my friend. My explanations of perceptions are assisting students around the world in learning CTE.

My prediction is that in 5 years you will still be asking the same question. One day your window for really learning and benefitting from CTE will all but be gone.

Like I said. I tried with you. I do not care at this point that you will not work properly to gain knowledge of real CTE. Your choice.

Honestly, I think your energy is basically directed at trying to stifle the advancement of my work.

Too late for that.

Stan Shuffett

Stan, you should know from the past you're wasting your time. He'll tell you how much he respects you, blah, blah, blah and continue the passive aggressive stuff continuing to bring up the same ole, same ole over and over and over again. Doesn't matter that it has been covered dozens of times here and it doesn't matter if you explain it directly behind his post, it will be the same ole, same ole. I'm sure it is all also at a level of abstraction that makes it impossible to narrow down the question so you can provide a specific answer. That's because he doesn't understand your system well enough and is being purposefully vague and ambiguous so he can rehash the same ole, same ole time after time after time and throw up his hands declaring innocence. Amazing.

 

[sfleinen]

Why should that point have been made long ago? No user of it ever claimed that. Why should any user make points that are, well, quite frankly, rather ridiculous?

Sean, the problem lies, quite simply, with many readers reading comprehension. Your included. Get off the forums and get your butt on a table, and just simply follow the directions AS STATED. Listen to ALL the directions. (something straightypool_99 made quite clear that he did NOT do, even though he thinks he did) Forget what you THINK you know, and just do it.

What you will find out, is that all the claims made by the actual users of it, are correct. And, until you pull your blinders off, you will never ever see that. You read one thing, and automatically assume it means something other that what it says. You thereby contaminate the system with useless info.

Take your example above. No, you don't need to know exactly where the pocket is. But, you do need a general area for where you want to pocket the ball. That's called visual intelligence. Once you have that, then the system will fine tune you right into the heart of the pocket.

Quite frankly, you can forget about figuring out the math. You have zero chance of doing that until you first learn to let go of your pre-concieved notions, and just follow the directions. Until you can finally learn to do that, you have no chance of ever even learning how to use the system, let alone figure out why it works mathematically.

Neil:

This is what I'm talking about -- you have the inclination to insult when someone questions something. In fact, it appears that the inclination is so strong, that you have to hold back -- which it's really obvious above you did so.

It's not needed. Insulting my reading comprehension will get you nowhere except in my "ok, he's one of 'those'" categories.

I have the first DVD, and I've viewed it many times. I've tried what Stan demonstrates in the video, but it didn't click for me. I knew there must be more that was being glossed over, so I waited for the second DVD, asking the occasional question on this forum in the meantime.

And I have the second DVD. I haven't viewed it fully, so there's no use in me taking it to the table until I've done so. In the meantime, I reserve the right to ask any questions I want, and to debate anything I want based on what I already know from the first DVD -- which admittedly, has holes. Your "direction" to me to take my butt to the table elicits a little chuckle from me. I wouldn't have purchased the DVD and be here in this forum if I weren't interested in learning the system. Heck, for a 60+ hour a week working man, I don't think I do half bad with two days a week playing pool, and yet I'm a hundred ball runner. I *could* rest on my laurels and be happy. But I'm the consummate cueing arts student, and that's why I'm here. And trust me, after the dust settles on the job front I'm getting to a table to work on this.

So, "with all due respect" (I think that's how you guys do it here?), take your insults and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. "No offense, of course." (Did I do that correctly?)

-Sean

 

[Neil]

Neil:

This is what I'm talking about -- you have the inclination to insult when someone questions something. In fact, it appears that the inclination is so strong, that you have to hold back -- which it's really obvious above you did so.

It's not needed. Insulting my reading comprehension will get you nowhere except in my "ok, he's one of 'those'" categories.

I have the first DVD, and I've viewed it many times. I've tried what Stan demonstrates in the video, but it didn't click for me. I knew there must be more that was being glossed over, so I waited for the second DVD, asking the occasional question on this forum in the meantime.

And I have the second DVD. I haven't viewed it fully, so there's no use in me taking it to the table until I've done so. In the meantime, I reserve the right to ask any questions I want, and to debate anything I want based on what I already know from the first DVD -- which admittedly, has holes. Your "direction" to me to take my butt to the table elicits a little chuckle from me. I wouldn't have purchased the DVD and be here in this forum if I weren't interested in learning the system. Heck, for a 60+ hour a week working man, I don't think I do half bad with two days a week playing pool, and yet I'm a hundred ball runner. I *could* rest on my laurels and be happy. But I'm the consummate cueing arts student, and that's why I'm here. And trust me, after the dust settles on the job front I'm getting to a table to work on this.

So, "with all due respect" (I think that's how you guys do it here?), take your insults and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. "No offense, of course." (Did I do that correctly?)

-Sean

Blah, blah, blah. Did it ever occur to you, despite being pointed out numerous times, that your attitude and non-sensical questioning are what is demeaning, and we are only replying to that? But, you go right ahead with your better-than-thou attitude, where no matter what you say is perfectly legit, and no matter how others are offended by it, it just their problem and they have no right to reply to it.

Like I said previously, you have almost no chance of ever learning the system. You have way too many pre-conceived notions that are nonsense and have no bearing at all.

Also, real cool how you insult me for not being insulting. What a joke.

If you really wanted to learn it, you would keep your mouth shut until you had some time on the table in. Not be asking, actually not even asking, but accusing, the same old questions that have been answered a thousand times on here, and are in the video, and are easily understood once at the table.

Funny how the first DVD has so many holes, ( if that statement by you isn't insulting, I don't know what insulting is) yet so many others were able to learn it correctly from it. It's crap like you stating it is full of holes that riles up people. It's not full of holes, what is full of holes is your reading or listening comprehension of it. Plain and simple. And, if that offends you, too bad. Learn to look at the truth if you want to improve.

 

[nobcitypool]

Blah, blah, blah. Did it ever occur to you, despite being pointed out numerous times, that your attitude and non-sensical questioning are what is demeaning, and we are only replying to that? But, you go right ahead with your better-than-thou attitude, where no matter what you say is perfectly legit, and no matter how others are offended by it, it just their problem and they have no right to reply to it.

Like I said previously, you have almost no chance of ever learning the system. You have way too many pre-conceived notions that are nonsense and have no bearing at all.

Also, real cool how you insult me for not being insulting. What a joke.

If you really wanted to learn it, you would keep your mouth shut until you had some time on the table in. Not be asking, actually not even asking, but accusing, the same old questions that have been answered a thousand times on here, and are in the video, and are easily understood once at the table.

Funny how the first DVD has so many holes, ( if that statement by you isn't insulting, I don't know what insulting is) yet so many others were able to learn it correctly from it. It's crap like you stating it is full of holes that riles up people. It's not full of holes, what is full of holes is your reading or listening comprehension of it. Plain and simple. And, if that offends you, too bad. Learn to look at the truth if you want to improve.

This x 10

Rest on your laurels?. That's hilarious. What does your purported 100 ball run have to do with understanding and debating CTE? Perhaps I should go to the 14.1 forum and start spouting opinions and see how that is received. Perhaps if he spent his time watching DVD s and at the table, instead of tearing down CTE here, he could start doing some math.

 

[ENGLISH!]

In re-reading the last few pages it seems that there might have been a 'misunderstanding' regarding the 5 shots discussion.

The 5 shots are ALL parallel to the long rails with cue balls & object balls at the same cross lines of the table. That orients the object balls at Five(5) very different angles to the intended pocket. The only other difference is that the CB to OB line is different distances from the long rail at which the intended pocket sits.

I think to any normal player that would be 5 totally different shots other than they are all cuts to the left.

There are some, myself included, that can not see how all 5 can be pocketed into that same intended pocket using the same chosen line like CB center to OB edge & CB edge to the OB location 'A' which would be a visual 3/4 fractional overlap line.

Now given that CTE has a 1/2 tip offset & pivot back to center CB, 1 each from each side that would indicate to some that there then is only TWO (2) angle outcomes from that scenario.

All that those of us need to know is how do we get 5 different angles & if 5 can be obtained, how many more can be obtained from the same visual reference.

To some of us the prospect of all 5 from one visual is sort of like saying shoot them all with CB center aligned to OB edge & all 5 will pocket.

Here Is Stan's Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

PS Can someone define what the 'inner most edge' is?

 

[oneball]

You are under the predisposition that a single objective edge to A (with CTEL) equates to a single physical ball address. It does not. Perception takes us to a unique physical ball address. The placement of CB/OB affect our perception.

Given the shots in the video, if the points are truly objective, and only the cb and ob are considered (not the angle to the pocket, nor the position of the balls on the table) then the perception must be the same.

There's some element of subjectivity to it. But that's ok. An element of subjectivity doesn't mean the system can't work.

 

[AtLarge]

... All that those of us need to know is how do we get 5 different angles & if 5 can be obtained, how many more can be obtained from the same visual reference. ...

See mohrt's posts #214 and 323. It's like groundhog day, again.

 

[Neil]

In re-reading the last few pages it seems that there might have been a 'misunderstanding' regarding the 5 shots discussion.

The 5 shots are ALL parallel to the long rails with cue balls & object balls at the same cross lines of the table. That orients the object balls at Five(5) very different angles to the intended pocket. The only other difference is that the CB to OB line is different distances from the long rail at which the intended pocket sits.

I think to any normal player that would be 5 totally different shots other than they are all cuts to the left.

There are some, myself included, that can not see how all 5 can be pocketed into that same intended pocket using the same chosen line like CB center to OB edge & CB edge to to OB location 'A' which would be a visual 3/4 fractional overlap line.

Now given that CTE has a 1/2 tip offset & pivot back to center CB, 1 each from each side that would indicate to some that there then is only TWO (2) angle outcomes from that scenario.

All that those of us need to know is how do we get 5 different angles & if 5 can be obtained, how many more can be obtained from the same visual reference.

To some of us the prospect of all 5 from one visual is sort of like saying shoot them all with CB center aligned to OB edge & all 5 will pocket.

Here Is Stan's Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

PS Can someone define what the 'inner most edge' is?

Try reading post #441.:speechless:

 

[8pack]

In re-reading the last few pages it seems that there might have been a 'misunderstanding' regarding the 5 shots discussion.

The 5 shots are ALL parallel to the long rails with cue balls & object balls at the same cross lines of the table. That orients the object balls at Five(5) very different angles to the intended pocket. The only other difference is that the CB to OB line is different distances from the long rail at which the intended pocket sits.

I think to any normal player that would be 5 totally different shots other than they are all cuts to the left.

There are some, myself included, that can not see how all 5 can be pocketed into that same intended pocket using the same chosen line like CB center to OB edge & CB edge to to OB location 'A' which would be a visual 3/4 fractional overlap line.

Now given that CTE has a 1/2 tip offset & pivot back to center CB, 1 each from each side that would indicate to some that there then is only TWO (2) angle outcomes from that scenario.

All that those of us need to know is how do we get 5 different angles & if 5 can be obtained, how many more can be obtained from the same visual reference.

To some of us the prospect of all 5 from one visual is sort of like saying shoot them all with CB center aligned to OB edge & all 5 will pocket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

When you come up with 5 different angles from the same set up and you come center ball with the correct angle to pot the ball, its obvious what happened.It should be.

Your spot on again. English.

If number one were to create a half ball hit , they all should hit the same place.
You CANNOT say there the same and then say they ALL have their own unique perception and still call them the SAME. Does that make sense.:smile:

 

[BeiberLvr]

They use the same perceptions and same sweeps. That's why they are the "same" shots.

Obviously the angles and cb/ob collision point are different for each shot, but cte doesn't give a rat's ass about angles or contact points.

Jesus christ have mercy on these fools.

 

[stan shuffett]

In re-reading the last few pages it seems that there might have been a 'misunderstanding' regarding the 5 shots discussion.

The 5 shots are ALL parallel to the long rails with cue balls & object balls at the same cross lines of the table. That orients the object balls at Five(5) very different angles to the intended pocket. The only other difference is that the CB to OB line is different distances from the long rail at which the intended pocket sits.

I think to any normal player that would be 5 totally different shots other than they are all cuts to the left.

There are some, myself included, that can not see how all 5 can be pocketed into that same intended pocket using the same chosen line like CB center to OB edge & CB edge to the OB location 'A' which would be a visual 3/4 fractional overlap line.

Now given that CTE has a 1/2 tip offset & pivot back to center CB, 1 each from each side that would indicate to some that there then is only TWO (2) angle outcomes from that scenario.

All that those of us need to know is how do we get 5 different angles & if 5 can be obtained, how many more can be obtained from the same visual reference.

To some of us the prospect of all 5 from one visual is sort of like saying shoot them all with CB center aligned to OB edge & all 5 will pocket.

Here Is Stan's Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

PS Can someone define what the 'inner most edge' is?

Once upon a time, a few years ago, at least a couple, you were asking essentially the same questions...... So I thought you'd be a good person to completely school in all of my work.... and at no charge...I was willing to have you visit my home so you could share your lessons learned and insights, etc......but YOU DECLINED. You said NO.

You're still at it.....nothing has changed with you.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Neil]

When you come up with 5 different angles from the same set up and you come center ball with the correct angle to pot the ball, its obvious what happened.It should be.

Your spot on again. English.

If number one were to create a half ball hit , they all should hit the same place.
You CANNOT say there the same and then say they ALL have their own unique perception and still call them the SAME. Does that make sense.:smile:

What is so terribly hard about understanding the obvious?? Once you have your perception, the visuals are the same for the five shots. You have 5 different perceptions to get the same visuals!! Kapeesh?? How many times does it have to be said before you can understand what is simply written??

 

[Neil]

They use the same perceptions and same sweeps. That's why they are the "same" shots.

Obviously the angles and cb/ob collision point are different for each shot, but cte doesn't give a rat's ass about angles or contact points.

Jesus christ have mercy on these fools.

No, they use different perceptions, but the same visuals.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry I've been out for a few days, catching up now. So to answer the main question posed:

It is true that Stan is physically rotating farther and farther as he moves through shots 1,2,3,4,5. Not because the pocket is a steeper cut, not because he knows he has to, not because he is making a conscious adjustment. He is just lining up CTEL/A the same as he does for each shot. However, there is some visual illusion at play here, because as you lock onto CTEL/A for each shot, the actual physical alignment is slightly different. This is the "visual intelligence" of CTE. This isn't something you have to adjust to, this is what our eyes tell us as we look at these spheres on a table.

You can do a test yourself: setup shot #1, line up CTEL/A, then look where CCB alignment falls on the OB. Then move to the next shot and line up again, and compare again. You will see that the alignment changes ever so slightly as you go across the table. Why this visual phenomena happens, I don't know.

This is why you CAN'T figure out this system just by reading a forum or watching a video. You HAVE to take it to the table and put in some time to get the AHA moment. And it WILL happen, regardless of what some people say about everyone seeing things differently. I think we are all capable of doing it.

My first thoughts of CTE were exactly the same: skeptical, dismissive. But I had nothing to lose and gave it a shot. Watched the DVD, scratched head, shrugged, started going through the motions and the shots. After a couple of weeks it started happening. It clicked, it worked, it was pretty exciting to figure out. Since then it has always been getting better.

There's no real explanation in there except 'it just does'.

So, as I said before when my in house individual money league playoffs are over, I'll set this up & see what I 'see' because I can not see a 'visual illusion' nor 'visual intelligence' logically. I did not even know that my vision had it's own separate 'intelligence' that can not be put into words.

But.. if a nearly 45 degree shot can be pocketed with CB edge to 'A' why would one ever need CB Edge to B if CB edge to C can be taken that far toward 'A'?

 

[BeiberLvr]

No, they use different perceptions, but the same visuals.

That's what I meant. Thanks

 

[8pack]

They use the same perceptions and same sweeps. That's why they are the "same" shots.

Obviously the angles and cb/ob collision point are different for each shot, but cte doesn't give a rat's ass about angles or contact points.

Jesus christ have mercy on these fools.

You no how silly it sounds...that's like me saying I use a 3/4 hit to make all them shots.

 

[ENGLISH!]

When you come up with 5 different angles from the same set up and you come center ball with the correct angle to pot the ball, its obvious what happened.It should be.

Your spot on again. English.

If number one were to create a half ball hit , they all should hit the same place.
You CANNOT say there the same and then say they ALL have their own unique perception and still call them the SAME. Does that make sense.:smile:

Hi Anthony,

There seems to be a rather large language disparity when logical intelligence tries to talk to visual intelligence & vice versa.

I guess you & I & some others just don't see the visual illusion.
I wish I could.
Maybe only left brained people can see it.
Or... maybe Stan has just not yet been able to explain what causes the visual illusion.

I take it you have already done the 5 shot 'test' & have driven 3 or 4 of the 5 into the foot rail.

I'm going to do it in a few weeks & try my best to just do it with no preconceptions & 'see' what happens.

Best to Ya',
Rick

 

[8pack]

No, they use different perceptions, but the same visuals.

Do you create more then one perception to create the right perception?