Stan's Perception Curtain Video - My Version

[Dan White]

Who cares if it's ready for prime time? Stan isn't asking for investment. He asks, like Hal did, for people to give it a shot. For CTE currently that means spending time to learn the method properly. Which means buying the dvd and studying each chapter thoroughly.

There is no magic step. There are only steps.

That you dismiss Mohrt's shotmaking is another slap-in-the-face. I mean you made a big deal out of the hole reinforcers on Stan's video implying that he as tricking people with set up shots, completely forgetting to mention that Stan had several other videos with balls just thrown up, and then don't even have the basic decency to admit that Mohrt's video completely debunks your premise.

Stan explains ALL the steps clearly on his videos. You all asked for instruction and he made a DVD, then made a second one with better information and yet you act as though something is being withheld. Nothing is being withheld just you won't go get the instruction you claim to want.

Again, the videos Stan puts out for free are SUPPLEMENTAL for the people who are actual students learning CTE. They are not intended to teach the system. Those of us who know CTE are able to get out of them what Stan wants to impart.

It's really that simple.

You're like some guy who comes into a discussion on building an engine in the middle of the discussion and starts picking apart the material without having a foundation in engine construction.

JB, with all due respect, it is just too exhausting to keep explaining everything to you. If you think I was disrespectful to Mohrt then we're living in two different universes. Based on reading some of your posts in the main forum I get the flavor you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and not necessarily with any resolution in sight.

At this point the only thing I'm interested in is hearing Mohrt's take on Stan's video that I already linked to.

 

[JB Cases]

JB, with all due respect, it is just too exhausting to keep explaining everything to you. If you think I was disrespectful to Mohrt then we're living in two different universes. Based on reading some of your posts in the main forum I get the flavor you enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and not necessarily with any resolution in sight.

At this point the only thing I'm interested in is hearing Mohrt's take on Stan's video that I already linked to.

Then stop trying. You make these "hit" videos and use language that clearly shows you aren't interested in actually learning CTE and wonder why you get pushback.

You were disrespectful. Basically you're like well those were all easy shots. If they are so easy then duplicate them.

What resolution are you looking for?

I just posted a video showing you manual CTE. Baby steps.

 

[JB Cases]

...performed by a guy who admits he's been studying it for 20 years and is a professional player. I'm sure Stan thinks he is using CTE. I couldn't say one way or the other because the method is a bit shrouded in mystery. My other couple of videos of Stan's stroke show that there's more going on than maybe even Stan realizes.

The one video I just posted isn't meant to disprove anything. It is meant to provide some perspective for new players who don't know what they are really looking at. Nothing more than that.

Nonsense. You can't even get the timeline right. Stan started with Hal about a decade ago.

He is not a professional player.

Nothing is "shrouded in mystery"

And you all but call him a liar when you say you can't say one way or the other if he is using CTE. Well if he isn't then you're really screwed because what he calls CTE and teaches is what we all use and it works for us.

The video you made is meant to KNOCK Stan and portray him as charlatan who performs sleight of hand tricks to sell dvds. Yet it's you who is doing the trick.

You see if you were sincere, you would have pointed out that Stan has MANY curtain videos, some with shots marked out and some with random balls thrown out. You would have acknowledged that the video you were emulating was the third part of a series. You would have acknowledged that you DO NOT KNOW how CTE works yet.

Instead you wanted to make a "see me too" video where you make a couple shots under the curtain and act as if this is something anyone can do with the same level of consistency.

I don't think you can.

But let's see how if you can.

You have all weekend to duplicate ALL of Stan's videos where he does curtain shots with no fixed positions.

For each one where you successfully make all the shots that Stan did in the same amount or less tries I will donate $100 to the Billiard Education Fund.

Ready, Go.

 

[JB Cases]

Good video. I wanted to do the same a while back but got too lazy to make a curtain setup.

You can get what you need from Amazon for $40.

You got the SAME action. Every one of Stan's curtain videos that you duplicate in the same or less tries than Stan I will donate $100 to the BEF.

Should be easy for you.

 

[cookie man]

Those shots were pretty straight forward except the two nice bank shots.

You keep missing the point, though. I could just as easily tell you or some newcomer to the game that I used CTE to pocket those blind shots. Video cannot show the method in my head that allowed me to pocket the balls.

You guys don't realize that you are your own worst enemy in this. If Stan went on Shark Tank and asked for $100,000 for a 25% equity in his CTE Pro1 company he would get laughed out of the room. Why? Because the method of instruction is not ready for prime time. Maybe the new book will have something in it that changes that, but from what I've seen so far I doubt it.

Listen, I'm not saying anything you haven't heard before from skeptics who are now labeled haters. If Stan's system really works then he is REALLY his own worst enemy. As I've said many times before, he really needs to figure out a better way to explain the "magic" step that so many of us have a problem with. You guys always ignore this statement, but if that step were made clear you'd have all of us on the bandwagon.

But you've never taken a lesson or watched the dvd from Stan, so you really have no idea how he explain's CTE.

 

[(((Satori)))]

What I'm taking from this video: you are able to pocket shots after you have memorized the cuts. I can attest that shooting *random* shots under a curtain is very difficult to do just by eyeballing the shot. Stan has plenty of videos where he shows fairly random placing of balls. Stan is also willing to demonstrate curtain shots to anyone that wants to visit his facility. I haven't seen any "live" online demonstrations, but that would be interesting to see if it ever became a reality.

So really, the only clear "proof" that the system is being used to pocket balls and not shot setup is by either visiting Stan (or other CTE proponent) for a live demonstration, a live online stream, or realizing yourself through learning the system. I have one video out there where I put balls out in arbitrary locations, although I purposely try to show different perceptions and a couple banks.

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

Take a good look at the path the two and three ball take before going under the wall and try to match the angle after going under the wall a little better when you edit next time. #morebelievable


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob7nx4BAJb0

 

[mohrt]

Probably not your intention, but one could read your post and think that having the OB in view during a sweep is necessary for making subconscious adjustments.



My only point was that by not seeing the OB, it limits what adjustments can be made.



I actually think that if CTE is done without any adjustments, then a CTE user would fair much better than someone using a different method in the test I've proposed.

If you go from ball address to full stance perfectly, you don't *need* the OB in view. If you are even slightly off, this can be determined and tweaked using the full circle info Stan mentioned in a recent video. That requires looking across the CB at the OB. In the game of pool you have the OB in view and no curtain, so I think it's completely valid to use the OB as a confirmation that everything was done accurately.

 

[mohrt]

The 2 and 3 ball were obviously edited. LOL @ you people.



#liesanddeception

WTF are you talking about? No editing. If you mean I changed where I placed the balls, it's because I didn't want a straight in shot, and one was to show a B category shot.

 

[mohrt]

Take a good look at the path the two and three ball take before going under the wall and try to match the angle after going under the wall a little better when you edit next time. #morebelievable


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob7nx4BAJb0

Well you are full of sh*t, that video is unedited. Sorry for the exclamation, but I don't like being falsely accused. I'm as honest as you get.

[edit] go ahead and lay a line on the video where the ball goes under and comes out. As the camera was on a tripod it should be perfectly straight. Also I don't see how the video could be edited and have ZERO frame skip in the rest of the shot.

 

[skipbales]

Not to take sides but the fact is I do understand Dan's point. I don't think he is saying Stan is not real or the system doesn't work. He is saying no system can make a new player a pro just by learning a system. That is, at least , what I am hearing.

It is similar to CJ Wiley's TOI. CJ can do a thousand things I can't do. TOI doesn't make me his equal. TOI is his way and he sees it clearly and it works for him but he is a naturally gifted player. The same is true for Stan. Neither system will keep me from missing shots they can make in their sleep.

Either system can be a great advantage for some players but I have friends who can not consistently hit a two foot straight in shot. Nothing is going to help them until they can master the basics.

I tried CTE and TOI and can't say I use either to any extent. I like TOI for almost straight in shots where I need a tiny degree of cut to avoid over cutting and that is about it. Oddly what I do use is a total misunderstanding of CTE. I just aim cuts by lining up a portion of my cue stick relative to the edge of the object ball. Before I watched Stan's videos I thought that WAS the system. No harm no foul guys, there is no perfect way for us all.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Well you are full of sh*t, that video is unedited. Sorry for the exclamation, but I don't like being falsely accused. I'm as honest as you get.

If you say so. I have trouble trusting anyone associated with CTE these days. Been lied to too many times by you guys.

 

[mohrt]

At the very least your video is not proof of anything.







It's certainly not proof that you are using cte and its not even proof that you made all of the shots.

What does that have to do with accusing me of editing the shot? And yes I think it's clear I made the shots. I positioned the camera in view of the pocket for that purpose.

 

[mohrt]

If you say so. I have trouble trusting anyone associated with CTE these days. Been lied to too many times.

So you in turn make up something to validate your claim? Since you have trouble trusting, you assume I must be deceiving and you make a completely false assumption? You think this helps anyone trust you?

 

[(((Satori)))]

So you in turn make up something to validate your claim? Since you have trouble trusting, you assume I must be deceiving and you make a completely false assumption? You think this helps anyone trust you?

People shouldn't trust me. They can make up their own minds.

 

[Dan White]

If you say so. I have trouble trusting anyone associated with CTE these days. Been lied to too many times by you guys.

Understandable to a point, but by all accounts mohrt is one of the level headed guys. It would be easier to execute those shots than to seamlessly edit the video. Cameras introduce distortion. Just watch any pool match and see how often it looks like the shooter is aiming wrong, yet the ball goes in.

 

[Dan White]

Post #33

Morht: would you mind taking a minute to respond to my question in post number 33?

 

[Dan White]

Not to take sides but the fact is I do understand Dan's point. I don't think he is saying Stan is not real or the system doesn't work. He is saying no system can make a new player a pro just by learning a system. That is, at least , what I am hearing.

It is similar to CJ Wiley's TOI. CJ can do a thousand things I can't do. TOI doesn't make me his equal. TOI is his way and he sees it clearly and it works for him but he is a naturally gifted player. The same is true for Stan. Neither system will keep me from missing shots they can make in their sleep.

Either system can be a great advantage for some players but I have friends who can not consistently hit a two foot straight in shot. Nothing is going to help them until they can master the basics.

I tried CTE and TOI and can't say I use either to any extent. I like TOI for almost straight in shots where I need a tiny degree of cut to avoid over cutting and that is about it. Oddly what I do use is a total misunderstanding of CTE. I just aim cuts by lining up a portion of my cue stick relative to the edge of the object ball. Before I watched Stan's videos I thought that WAS the system. No harm no foul guys, there is no perfect way for us all.

That's pretty much it. I stated clearly that if you like the sound of Stan's method then by all means purchase it. My target audience is the guy who buys a new pool table for his kid and sees Stan's curtain video, and then becoming convinced that he's just witnessed a miracle compliments of CTE Pro1. I asked people not to read anything more into it, but I kind of knew that wasn't going to happen.

Thanks for receiving it as it was intended.

 

[JB Cases]

If you say so. I have trouble trusting anyone associated with CTE these days. Been lied to too many times by you guys.

;-) Lied to? In what way?

 

[mohrt]

Morht: would you mind taking a minute to respond to my question in post number 33?

I'm away from home and my phone won't bring up that video. I can only assume it is the 5 way shot video where only the bottom two rails are visible. So, there must be enough information for the perceptions. I have not tried this but it is probably a safe assumption that if you covered everything but the rail under you such that you can't tell how you are oriented on the table, the perceptions would not work. I'll try some experiments at home when I find some time.

 

[JB Cases]

That's pretty much it. I stated clearly that if you like the sound of Stan's method then by all means purchase it. My target audience is the guy who buys a new pool table for his kid and sees Stan's curtain video, and then becoming convinced that he's just witnessed a miracle compliments of CTE Pro1. I asked people not to read anything more into it, but I kind of knew that wasn't going to happen.

Thanks for receiving it as it was intended.

So um you think that this hypothetical naive person is going to immediately run out and buy Stan's dvd because of seeing Stan explaining concepts that are gibberish even to experienced players???

Come on Dan, you can really do better than that.

But let's say that this hypothetical person did go ahead and seek out WHERE to buy Stan's dvd because NO WHERE in Stan's you tube videos does he mention that there is a dvd FOR SALE, never does mention a price and never does he mention his own website. He doesn't even try to sell lessons. But let's say that this person goes and buys the dvd and gets his kid interested in learning it. What's wrong with that?

After all the dad and his kid have about 100 support videos on youtube to draw on, they have Stan's phone number, his email, can find him on facebook, and they have a whole community of CTE users to talk to.

So your "advice" is what exactly? Don't be fooled by this "trick" and buy into CTE as some magical aiming system? (yes I know you said buy it if you like it......which is the same as saying look I told you not to but go ahead if you insist)

I have to say, you are either incredibly sincere, in which case I apologize, or you are amazingly disingenuous in which case you deserve the criticism.

Paul, in a comment on your video, said it best;