Stevie's CTE video

[Sloppy Pockets]

Tony, I think you hit on it, that is, the fact the system works the same on all tables with a 2:1 ratio. There's numerous things about CTE I don't understand and likely never will. I do understand the system works perfectly pocketing balls when executed properly. But then, I don't demand to stick my hand up a cow's butt before I eat a steak either.

So the fact that the system works on all tables with a 2:1 ratio proves that the system works because of the 2:1 ratio? Circular reasoning at its finest. My logic professor would come back from the grave to haunt me if I accepted that explanation.

Every aiming system I am aware of works on all tables with a 2:1 ratio. Most all would work on tables without a 2:1 ratio as well. My new aiming system will allow me to drive an object ball to any point on a rail, or to break out a cluster in the rack area, not just into one of six pockets. How does cte address that issue if the system always takes you to a pocket?

And what about the perfect geometry of a system that leads you to "a slight overcut"? What is geometrically perfect about the word "slight"? How big is "slight"? And how does allowing for throw to actually thicken up that overcut have anything to do with geometric perfection? And what about all the variations in throw? Speed, angle, spin, ball surface, etc. all have profound effects on the amount of throw an object ball is subject to. How does cte account for all of these factors? That magic 2:1 ratio?

Sorry, no one expects you to stick your hand up a cow's butt before you eat a steak, but don't go sticking it up there and then try to convince reasoning folks that what you pull out is actually a porterhouse.

Now, go ahead and brand me as a cte HATER (gotta use caps to emphasize the magnitude of the crime of dissent), but I really just want a logical explanation. And if there is no logical explanation, just say so. I'm tired of lame conjecture.

 

[duckie]

Care to explain why the 2:1 ratio is required for CTE?

I mean a statement of fact has been made, so why does CTE need a 2:1 ratio to work?

What about the table ratio is needed in by CTE?

I can say ghost ball works because of the 2:1 ratio. Would you just accept my word?

 

[BeiberLvr]

So the fact that the system works on all tables with a 2:1 ratio proves that the system works because of the 2:1 ratio? Circular reasoning at its finest. My logic professor would come back from the grave to haunt me if I accepted that explanation.

Every aiming system I am aware of works on all tables with a 2:1 ratio. Most all would work on tables without a 2:1 ratio as well. My new aiming system will allow me to drive an object ball to any point on a rail, or to break out a cluster in the rack area, not just into one of six pockets. How does cte address that issue if the system always takes you to a pocket?

And what about the perfect geometry of a system that leads you to "a slight overcut"? What is geometrically perfect about the word "slight"? How big is "slight"? And how does allowing for throw to actually thicken up that overcut have anything to do with geometric perfection? And what about all the variations in throw? Speed, angle, spin, ball surface, etc. all have profound effects on the amount of throw an object ball is subject to. How does cte account for all of these factors? That magic 2:1 ratio?

Sorry, no one expects you to stick your hand up a cow's butt before you eat a steak, but don't go sticking it up there and then try to convince reasoning folks that what you pull out is actually a porterhouse.

Now, go ahead and brand me as a cte HATER (gotta use caps to emphasize the magnitude of the crime of dissent), but I really just want a logical explanation. And if there is no logical explanation, just say so. I'm tired of lame conjecture.

2:1 table and overcuts have all been discussed here, on DVD2, and on Stan's YouTube page.

Right now, you are just uninformed.

If you continue down the path of making posts like the one you made, the same as [he who shall not be named], then you might be branded as a "HATER"

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

I can say ghost ball works because of the 2:1 ratio. Would you just accept my word?

No, because everybody knows GB will work in the middle of a parking lot. By definition it is not bound by any specific surface geometry aside from being flat and level. That, in fact, is the beauty of the method.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

2:1 table and overcuts have all been discussed here, on DVD2, and on Stan's YouTube page.

Right now, you are just uninformed.

If you continue down the path of making posts like the one you made, the same as [he who shall not be named], then you might be branded as a "HATER"

I could give a rat's left tentacle if I'm branded as a HATER here, by Stan, you, or anyone else. I bought Stan's DVD, so I have every right to asking effen questions on a cte thread, even if they are never answered in a way that seems to embrace logic.

And don't compare me to that Ingrish dude, he's a thorn in everybody's backside. At least I've contributed plenty of content to this site. If you doubt that, just look at my last 100 posts and compare them to the last 100 you or Nobby have made and tell me how you made out.:wink:

 

[stan shuffett]

No, because everybody knows GB will work in the middle of a parking lot. By definition it is not bound by any specific surface geometry aside from being flat and level. That, in fact, is the beauty of the method.

Precisely, GB works everywhere.

REAL CTE works on a 2x1 table. The system takes the player to shotlines and that is why REAL CTE is different than any other system. There is no other system that connects directly to the right angles of a 2x1 table: zero angles, cuts and banks. CTE is comprehensive whereas other systems WILL break down.

Stan Shuffett

 

[BeiberLvr]

I could give a rat's left tentacle if I'm branded as a HATER here, by Stan, you, or anyone else. I bought Stan's DVD, so I have every right to asking effen questions on a cte thread, even if they are never answered in a way that seems to embrace logic.

And don't compare me to that Ingrish dude, he's a thorn in everybody's backside. At least I've contributed plenty of content to this site. If you doubt that, just look at my last 100 posts and compare them to the last 100 you or Nobby have made and tell me how you made out.:wink:

No need to get your panties in a wad.

I don't need to do any comparisons. I've contributed plenty in these forums and others. If you say you have, then I'll take your word for it. I have no problems with people questioning things. I do have a problem with people questioning things that have been answered multiple times in multiple settings, and failing to do any research on their own.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

No need to get your panties in a wad.

I don't need to do any comparisons. I've contributed plenty in these forums and others. If you say you have, then I'll take your word for it. I have no problems with people questioning things. I do have a problem with people questioning things that have been answered multiple times in multiple settings, and failing to do any research on their own.

I don't wear panties. At my age I'm more of a Depends sort of guy.

I've mostly stayed out of this senseless war between the cters and the non-cters, so sorry if I haven't made note of which questions have and haven't been answered here. Thankfully you have designated yourself as forum detective so we can have somebody police this site. God knows what we'd all do without volunteers like yourself.

Bottom line is I paid $50 for what was supposed to be the next great thing since sliced bread. I didn't think I'd still have to slice it myself. Now I find out that I have to watch endless YT videos and follow hundreds of tedious and spiteful Internet conversations just to clarify what should heave been clear on the DVD I purchased. Especially since this was the one that was supposed to rectify the confusion created from the first DVD. Personally, I have zero interest in watching umpteen videos created to clarify what should have been easy enough to explain in the first place.

BTW it has been stated (and noted by me) that many of the system users have very high IQs. and that may be part of my problem. Now, I did go back to school in my 40s and received a degree in molecular biology with a GPA of 3.65. I thought that might be enough, but apparently even some engineering professors repeatedly have trouble understanding the intricacies of cte, since I have seen many times where they were also told they were "uninformed". What chance would I have if these guys are stumped by it?

 

[cookie man]

Why not just lock it or delete it since that seems to happen to threads that poke holes into statement of facts made about CTE.

Care to add anything useful to the conversation?

 

[Neil]

I don't wear panties. At my age I'm more of a Depends sort of guy.

I've mostly stayed out of this senseless war between the cters and the non-cters, so sorry if I haven't made note of which questions have and haven't been answered here. Thankfully you have designated yourself as forum detective so we can have somebody police this site. God knows what we'd all do without volunteers like yourself.

Bottom line is I paid $50 for what was supposed to be the next great thing since sliced bread. I didn't think I'd still have to slice it myself. Now I find out that I have to watch endless YT videos and follow hundreds of tedious and spiteful Internet conversations just to clarify what should heave been clear on the DVD I purchased. Especially since this was the one that was supposed to rectify the confusion created from the first DVD. Personally, I have zero interest in watching umpteen videos created to clarify what should have been easy enough to explain in the first place.

BTW it has been stated (and noted by me) that many of the system users have very high IQs. and that may be part of my problem. Now, I did go back to school in my 40s and received a degree in molecular biology with a GPA of 3.65. I thought that might be enough, but apparently even some engineering professors repeatedly have trouble understanding the intricacies of cte, since I have seen many times where they were also told they were "uninformed". What chance would I have if these guys are stumped by it?

Can't help but wonder why you are so interested in the intricacies of CTE, but fail to mention the intricacies of any of the other several dozen aiming systems?? Maybe you should just go back and review the DVD you do have with an open mind and actually study it. Maybe then some of your questions will be answered.

How did you get the grade you did, unless you accepted certain things stated in your college courses? Why are you so unwilling to accept things in this learning endeavor? The goal here is supposed to be learning a new way to aim that works very, very well. I just don't understand you guys that want to dismiss the system because you don't like the way things are worded. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

 

[8pack]

Care to explain why the 2:1 ratio is required for CTE? I mean a statement of fact has been made, so why does CTE need a 2:1 ratio to work?

What about the table ratio is needed in by CTE?

I can say ghost ball works because of the 2:1 ratio. Would you just accept my word?

Was wondering that myself.
Could you imagine someone haveing a 4 x 8 1/2 table and getting a game with one of these cte'rs. Highway robbery...:grin:

I can't make a ball...what the heck is going on.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Can't help but wonder why you are so interested in the intricacies of CTE, but fail to mention the intricacies of any of the other several dozen aiming systems?? Maybe you should just go back and review the DVD you do have with an open mind and actually study it. Maybe then some of your questions will be answered.

How did you get the grade you did, unless you accepted certain things stated in your college courses? Why are you so unwilling to accept things in this learning endeavor? The goal here is supposed to be learning a new way to aim that works very, very well. I just don't understand you guys that want to dismiss the system because you don't like the way things are worded. Doesn't make a bit of sense.

Neil, I got the grades I got because at test time I spit out the answers they were looking for. 99.9% of the time I understood and agreed with what I was taught, but I had plenty of questions, and I wasn't a bit shy about asking them. I never encountered the kind of resistance to questioning the material being taught as I find here. In fact, the best professors actually encouraged it. My general chemistry prof even told me he could tell the depth of my understanding by the questions I asked more than by the answers I gave. I took that as a compliment.

I only remember a single instance where I was asked to just go with it and I would eventually "see the light". It had to do with integrating functions in calculus. I never did see the light, and I struggled throughout the course. A simple explanation might have saved me untold hours of anguish, but maybe the teacher didn't really know the answer. I got an "A" in the course, but I always felt like it was a "mercy A".

All that aside, I really do have an open mind. For example, I am open to the fact that there may still be physics at play in pool that hasn't been fully explored. The mere mention of this brings on waves of derisive comments from the cognoscenti. They are the ones with the closed minds IMO. What I cannot and never could do was to accept dubious ideas merely on faith alone. Faith is for religion, not science.

Funny, I remember one older student in my community college class who steadfastly refused to believe in evolution because it violated her faith. She graduated with a 4.0 and was valedictorian of the class. Obviously, she knew what to spit out on the test better than I did, but her religion blinded her from accepting the central paradigm of modern biology. That is close-mindedness to the nth degree. Asking why a 2:1 table ratio proves that cte works as claimed is merely curiosity.

Anyway, you might be interested to know that it was your own recent explanation about acquiring the correct cte perceptions that was the first thing I've read or heard that begins to make sense to me. Why it took ten years for someone to just come out with it remains a mystery to me, but I do listen when things make sense, especially when they are coming from a player I respect like yourself. But some of these other guys who have only been playing for a couple of years and are mere C players like myself, and yet feel free to come on here and pontificate about aiming, well, they should expect that no one not already in the fold will take them seriously.

 

[Timothy Rose]

Was wondering that myself.
Could you imagine someone haveing a 4 x 8 1/2 table and getting a game with one of these cte'rs. Highway robbery...:grin:

I can't make a ball...what the heck is going on.

you are wrong about that, i have used the system most likely longer than anyone on here except for stan.

 

[8pack]

you are wrong about that, i have used the system most likely longer than anyone on here except for stan.

I think Stan has mentioned it wont work on anything other than a regular table.
You must have a higher understanding of cte.

 

[cookie man]

I think Stan has mentioned it wont work on anything other than a regular table.
You must have a higher understanding of cte.

How about your pivot system Anthony. Does it work on odd shaped tables?

 

[8pack]

How about your pivot system Anthony. Does it work on odd shaped tables?

Why certainly.

 

[Neil]

Neil, I got the grades I got because at test time I spit out the answers they were looking for. 99.9% of the time I understood and agreed with what I was taught, but I had plenty of questions, and I wasn't a bit shy about asking them. I never encountered the kind of resistance to questioning the material being taught as I find here. In fact, the best professors actually encouraged it. My general chemistry prof even told me he could tell the depth of my understanding by the questions I asked more than by the answers I gave. I took that as a compliment.

I only remember a single instance where I was asked to just go with it and I would eventually "see the light". It had to do with integrating functions in calculus. I never did see the light, and I struggled throughout the course. A simple explanation might have saved me untold hours of anguish, but maybe the teacher didn't really know the answer. I got an "A" in the course, but I always felt like it was a "mercy A".

All that aside, I really do have an open mind. For example, I am open to the fact that there may still be physics at play in pool that hasn't been fully explored. The mere mention of this brings on waves of derisive comments from the cognoscenti. They are the ones with the closed minds IMO. What I cannot and never could do was to accept dubious ideas merely on faith alone. Faith is for religion, not science.

Funny, I remember one older student in my community college class who steadfastly refused to believe in evolution because it violated her faith. She graduated with a 4.0 and was valedictorian of the class. Obviously, she knew what to spit out on the test better than I did, but her religion blinded her from accepting the central paradigm of modern biology. That is close-mindedness to the nth degree. Asking why a 2:1 table ratio proves that cte works as claimed is merely curiosity.

Anyway, you might be interested to know that it was your own recent explanation about acquiring the correct cte perceptions that was the first thing I've read or heard that begins to make sense to me. Why it took ten years for someone to just come out with it remains a mystery to me, but I do listen when things make sense, especially when they are coming from a player I respect like yourself. But some of these other guys who have only been playing for a couple of years and are mere C players like myself, and yet feel free to come on here and pontificate about aiming, well, they should expect that no one not already in the fold will take them seriously.

Well, I'm glad the explanation helped someone. But, I have been stating the same thing now for several years on here.

As far as asking why a 2:1 table ratio proves cte works as claimed, I can't say any proponent of the system has worded it that way. We have said that cte works because of the 2:1 ratio though. But, that is a different claim than what you stated. CTE brings one to 90 degree angles. The pockets are at 90 degree angles on a 2:1 table. Now why it does that, no one really knows. We only know that it does at this time. Not why. That would fall in the math dept. that, quite frankly, I don't think there is math for it yet because it involves visual perception. Don't think they know how to put that into math yet.

But, there are many things in science that we know work, but really have no clue as to why they work. Gravity is one of them. We know it works, know how to use it, but can't explain what causes it. Electricity is another one. We know a lot about it, and have a pretty good handle on it, but there are still things with it that we just don't yet understand.

I look at CTE the same way. I can't explain all the "whys" of it. But I can use it and gain great benefit from it. Bottom line for me is, that's all I need from it.

 

[Neil]

Was wondering that myself.
Could you imagine someone haveing a 4 x 8 1/2 table and getting a game with one of these cte'rs. Highway robbery...:grin:

I can't make a ball...what the heck is going on.

Don't know where you would get a table like that. But, keep thinking that we would be run over. Just because we use cte on a regulation table, doesn't mean we don't also know other ways to aim. CTE is just another arrow in the quiver, a large arrow, but just another arrow among many.

 

[JB Cases]

I don't wear panties. At my age I'm more of a Depends sort of guy.

I've mostly stayed out of this senseless war between the cters and the non-cters, so sorry if I haven't made note of which questions have and haven't been answered here. Thankfully you have designated yourself as forum detective so we can have somebody police this site. God knows what we'd all do without volunteers like yourself.

Bottom line is I paid $50 for what was supposed to be the next great thing since sliced bread. I didn't think I'd still have to slice it myself. Now I find out that I have to watch endless YT videos and follow hundreds of tedious and spiteful Internet conversations just to clarify what should heave been clear on the DVD I purchased. Especially since this was the one that was supposed to rectify the confusion created from the first DVD. Personally, I have zero interest in watching umpteen videos created to clarify what should have been easy enough to explain in the first place.

BTW it has been stated (and noted by me) that many of the system users have very high IQs. and that may be part of my problem. Now, I did go back to school in my 40s and received a degree in molecular biology with a GPA of 3.65. I thought that might be enough, but apparently even some engineering professors repeatedly have trouble understanding the intricacies of cte, since I have seen many times where they were also told they were "uninformed". What chance would I have if these guys are stumped by it?

And other engineers and professors and professionals have been able to get it from the DVDs and from lessons and videos on YouTube. All that proves is that there is some disconnect you are having with the information as presented.

Maybe it's a bit of magic bullet expectation....I don't know. Anyway, sometimes I watch a video on youtube explaining how to do a technique in leather working and my eyes just glaze over.

 

[8pack]

Don't know where you would get a table like that. But, keep thinking that we would be run over. Just because we use cte on a regulation table, doesn't mean we don't also know other ways to aim. CTE is just another arrow in the quiver, a large arrow, but just another arrow among many.

I'm sure you got it all figured out Robin Hood.


Does the system work on a 3c billiard table?