Stan's Perception Curtain Video - My Version

mohrt said:
I just answered my own question about the curtains and perceptions. At least one pocket must be in view to obtain the CB/OB relationship with the 90 degree angles between the pockets. From that information, you can find the correct perceptions for a given CB/OB orientation.
Click to expand...

More then this needs to happen. Why in the world would you state such a thing.
A corner pocket only reveals the other 2 corners. Other then this your shit out of luck and believe me none of you want any part of the action. Come see me ..please. I will lose up to 2 grand to anyone of you. Serious cte'rs pm me, you got action.

You wanna say such BS..lets see it live. ;)
 
Patrick Johnson said:
No, they're not.

pj <- gimme a break
chgo
Click to expand...

You are right, I should draw out what I'm trying to convey before posting and see my error. My bad. So a better question: throw an object ball out on the table and draw a line to a specific pocket. Now, start drawing 15, 30, 45, degree lines from that line, find out where they route. This should be interesting. I'll see if I can get a drawing put together. [edit] they are not discreet angles. See below.

[edit] it is the 15/30/45 degree perceptions that lead to the pockets, not the mathematical angles. I noted in my original post. If I start with a specific perception and move from one to the next, they will usually connect with a pocket. Again, some perceptions don't lead to pockets practical to shoot at (3-z bank, etc.)

Here is an example. The 5-shot example to the corner pocket. All use a 15 degree perception with an inside sweep. If you take the same 5 shots and use an outside sweep instead, they all lead to the straight back bank shot. This I have verified on my own 9 foot table.
 
Last edited:
8pack said:
More then this needs to happen. Why in the world would you state such a thing.
A corner pocket only reveals the other 2 corners. Other then this your shit out of luck and believe me none of you want any part of the action. Come see me ..please. I will lose up to 2 grand to anyone of you. Serious cte'rs pm me, you got action.

You wanna say such BS..lets see it live. ;)
Click to expand...

If one pocket is in view, the other 90 degree angles to the other pockets are always congruent to these angles. The math will hold true. Not?

[edit] So you are saying Stan's video with 5 different shots from one location, with only one pocket in view is a fake?
 
Last edited:
I live in that world. I "strive to be technically correct" and you need to listen to my exact words to get their exact meaning. I have learned it doesn't work that way. People hear through a prism of their own experience and hear what they "think you mean" or "what you really mean". It is just the way of things.
 
To damage or benefit is in the eyes of the cd purchaser

JB Cases said:
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?
Click to expand...

Best point of the topic. Buying the cd is not a huge mistake and may indeed stimulate interest. I have many cds on pool. Some are better than others but it is all good from my perspective. Of course the cost of a cd does not affect my lifestyle.

As to people being that naive, did you see the post from the new player asking if anyone knew of a system which would always pocket the balls with the right amount of spin to give him perfect position or something close to that? :) What I think is funny is a bunch of us responded, even me!! ;) If there were just a pill we could take sigh....
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Well, except for the parts you can't explain in English - starting about where the fractional alignments end.


You mean instead of the real reasons like "the visual", "3D perception", "rotating edges", "aiming from another dimension", etc.?

lol

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

What fractional alignments? You mean the visual perceptions? What do mean by "end"?

Where do they begin Pat?

And yes the language Stan uses describe various specific parts of the method. Those of us who actually learn CTE know what those terms mean. Kind of like those who actually study physics know what physics terms mean.
 
8pack said:
More then this needs to happen. Why in the world would you state such a thing.
A corner pocket only reveals the other 2 corners. Other then this your shit out of luck and believe me none of you want any part of the action. Come see me ..please. I will lose up to 2 grand to anyone of you. Serious cte'rs pm me, you got action.

You wanna say such BS..lets see it live. ;)
Click to expand...

Come to OKC - I have $2000 right here if you can take it.

If you and your friends want to bet 10-20,000 I will get Stan, Gerry, Mohrt, and Dave here too and stake them all.
 
JB Cases said:
Come to OKC - I have $2000 right here if you can take it.

If you and your friends want to bet 10-20,000 I will get Stan, Gerry, Mohrt, and Dave here too and stake them all.
Click to expand...


My poolroom,my rules. Bring king kong if you like.
 
JB Cases said:
Those of us who actually learn CTE know what those terms mean. Kind of like those who actually study physics know what physics terms mean.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

Physics terms are defined consistently using normal language that even non-physicists can understand. CTE terms can't be understood except "experientially" - and those who allegedly "understand" them can't describe them intelligibly or even consistently.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Nonsense.

Physics terms are defined consistently using normal language that even non-physicists can understand. CTE terms can't be understood except "experientially" - and those who allegedly "understand" them can't describe them intelligibly or even consistently.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
Nope. Posted a lectures earlier that are full of terms not understood by non physics folks.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
I'm a Physical Education teacher and I can understand it. You have probably only watched the support videos on YouTube, which are only supposed to be used by someone that has watched the instructional videos.
 
My comment is not on CTE per se.

But what does a video with a curtain prove?

Some people claim that you don't need to know where the pockets are in order to pocket balls. I say this is the wrong way to put it.

IMHO what is proven is that you DO know where the pockets are, with just a minimum of perceptual cues. This happens when you train a lot, especially on one particular table.

On the Gold Crown in my club I don't look at the pocket to make long 1 rail diagonal banks. I don't really aim for diamonds on the rail either. I just know that if the shot is in the 1/2 ball or fuller range, if I slam it, it will go in the pocket or at least very close. I know where the pockets are from years of playing these banks at a particular speed. I don't know with ordinary shots, but I know with the banks because I often catch myself just plopping down and hitting it without really lookin at them. And I do mean not looking or hardly aiming at all other than subconsciously! They go in just fine... With a normal shot, you need to make a special effort with a curtain, not to look, so I never actually tried that. It would be a lot of work with no real educational value on my part. Like Dan said in his video, we all know how to hit the shots close to the rail, and I suspect most of us would make a very good educated guess on shots directly up and down the table as well. 2-railers are impressive, but I don't see what's so impossible about devoloping a similar feel on these shots? 3-railers are "natural" to an extent, especially for those of us who play billiards, so to me the 2-railers are more exotic and interesting.

It is still an impressive feat that requires a lot of practice, and perhaps a talent for spatial awareness. I don't really think you need to cheat, or be dishonest or anything like that. It's skill, plain and simple. When Stan says he uses CTE to make curtain shots, I believe him. I believe he lines the shots up that way at least.

Of course this "analysis" does not really disprove anything either. Just putting it out there.

ps: I know what system would REALLY kick ass on the curtain videos! Joe Tucker's aiming by the numbers. If you know the system, you'll understand why! I mean ordinarily you would need to see the pocket, if you are a beginner, to determine the number, but after a while you memorize the "tracks" much like many of us do with banks.
 
Last edited:
JB Cases said:
Any time you find yourself in OKC come to the shop and I will gladly go over each claim with you. On the table we can decide together whether you find truth in them or not.
Click to expand...

Lol, no doubt we would have a very productive conversation.:smile: Have you ever had a conversation regarding cte where you did not feel a need to prove your case at all costs? A need to be the know it all regarding the subject? A need to come out on top?


No John, I'm going to pass.


I have listened to what you and Stan have had to say and I dont like it. Not that I dont like you but no cte please.
 
(((Satori))) said:
Lol, no doubt we would have a very productive conversation. Have you ever had a conversation regarding cte where you did not feel a need to prove your case at all costs? A need to be the know it all regarding the subject? A need to come out on top?


No John, I'm going to pass.


I have listened to what you and Stan have had to say and I dont like it. Not that I dont like you but no cte please.
Click to expand...
It isn't about proving my point it is about demonstration on the table in person. That's where the rubber meets the road so to speak and a person can better decide if CTE aiming is worth pursuing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
Pidge said:
Doesn't stop people offering though, as if that's going to prove CTE correct. Lol. Ok, ok, my panties are back on.
Click to expand...
Well 8 pack is offering to bet that he can prove it doesn't work......

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top