Why CTE/Pro One Works

[BasementDweller]

I don't agree - if you honestly think that he was delivering his message in a non confrontational style then you should read it again.

It came across as very arrogant - like he was more educated than the rest of the forum which I guarantee is not the case. If the questions had been posed in a polite manner with true intention of learning there would have been no issue. Instead it was a very condescending attitude. He immediately went on the attack although it was wrapped around his superior understanding of intelligence.

Gerry,

I reread it and I see what you’re saying regarding his initial post. However, in the big scheme of things it was still fairly mild -- this is the internet after all. It's clear he understands this concept of intelligences, which is clearly different than what I think of when I hear the word "intelligence" used (although I'm not an educator and I'm not familiar with the concept of the different intelligences).

The way I read things he was simply trying to offer some assistance to Stan. Stan could have simply said thanks but no thanks. Instead he got all defensive and this has become his MO. Anyone with even a mild criticism of Pro One or his teaching style is automatically hit with some sort of attack as if they were PJ undercover or something. There are a lot of pool players in the world and they come from all different walks of life. I’ve found I can learn a thing or two from many of them. It appears as if some people have come to the conclusion that they can't learn anything else from anybody.

 

[Se7en6ix]

Woah!.. such lively thread....
intelligence battle... hehe

I believe for sure that CTE Pro 1 can be explained by numbers WITH the FACTOR of visual intelligence.

One Can't learn CTE Pro 1 by understanding perception/object lines and at the same time debunking it with numbers.... Learn CTE first then analyse it later with numbers once you're proficient in it.

It's like a C++ programmer learning C#(Csharp) and at the same time saying C++ is better without even nearing 80% of knowledge of the C# programming language.

 

[nobcitypool]

The guy comes on here as a D player, he's never seen Stan's DVD, never met or had a lesson from Stan yet feels compelled to offer critique. He then won't let it go and keeps arguing. He touts his credentials as a MA in Education (which there are tens of thousands of) and coaches disc sports (whatever that is -frisbee?). He goes on to say he plans to play pro level in another 3.5 years. He also made insulting remarks about Stan as a person and his teaching ability.

Yeah, nobody should have said a thing to the guy.

 

[Neil]

Gerry,

I reread it and I see what you’re saying regarding his initial post. However, in the big scheme of things it was still fairly mild -- this is the internet after all. It's clear he understands this concept of intelligences, which is clearly different than what I think of when I hear the word "intelligence" used (although I'm not an educator and I'm not familiar with the concept of the different intelligences).

The way I read things he was simply trying to offer some assistance to Stan. Stan could have simply said thanks but no thanks. Instead he got all defensive and this has become his MO. Anyone with even a mild criticism of Pro One or his teaching style is automatically hit with some sort of attack as if they were PJ undercover or something. There are a lot of pool players in the world and they come from all different walks of life. I’ve found I can learn a thing or two from many of them. It appears as if some people have come to the conclusion that they can't learn anything else from anybody.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he should do some more studying on how to communicate better. Right off the bat, this "better educator than anyone on here" did nothing more than upset a bunch of people trying to "educate" us. Yet, he doesn't have enough common sense to even realize what a fool that makes him look like.

He is so full of himself that he even bragged about getting some grants. Yet, he isn't knowledgeable to even be able to "empty his cup" to learn something new. He even goes on to say that because Stan is older, his knowledge isn't up to date. WOW! Just what generation does he think "invented" the knowledge he learned?? He made it quite clear that he is all about the money, not education. And, he doesn't have a clue about pool, or making money in it.

Yes, people do use different ways or intelligence's to learn things. Some learn easier by seeing something done, some need to read how to do something, and some hands on experience to learn quickly. What he doesn't understand, is that Stan set out to learn something himself, and once he did, he was gracious enough to pass it on to others at a low enough cost to break even. Stan never set out to find a "get rich quick plan".

Stan's "system" is not for everybody. It is for those that truly want to learn. Those that truly want to learn something do not limit themselves to just one way of learning. They study until they "get it". Those type of people are then rewarded with a great tool for playing the game. And, once they do learn it, they can easily go back and see that everything is exactly as Stan described it. It's really that simple. It's so simple, and so precise, that many can't understand it because they simply can't follow simple directions. They aren't willing to learn enough and don't want it bad enough to simply follow the directions verbatim, and let go of what they think they already know.

And, no matter how much math would be included, no one is going to understand it until they learn to do that one little thing that has been stressed- let go and learn.

 

[Neil]

Woah!.. such lively thread....
intelligence battle... hehe

I believe for sure that CTE Pro 1 can be explained by numbers WITH the FACTOR of visual intelligence.

One Can't learn CTE Pro 1 by understanding perception/object lines and at the same time debunking it with numbers.... Learn CTE first then analyse it later with numbers once you're proficient in it.

It's like a C++ programmer learning C#(Csharp) and at the same time saying C++ is better without even nearing 80% of knowledge of the C# programming language.

Yes, mathematically it does work. Problem is, NO ONE had yet been able to figure out how to put into math what we see. Let alone how to factor in the little fact that we all actually see things a little bit differently. Which is why you see a number of proficient users of pro one explaining the visuals a little bit differently from each other. You have to have the end goal in mind, then work backwards with the knowledge of the system to get that AHA moment. That AHA moment is when you finally get yourself into the correct position for YOU to see the visuals correctly.

Everything one needs to know, Stan shows. However, for each of us, there are small "tweaks" to initially getting the visuals that will work for us. (no tweaks once you have the visuals, the system itself is accurate). I've talked to Stan, and we had a "disagreement" about one part. Well, what I learned, is that we were both right. We were both right according to how we actually see things. Where he stands one way to get his visuals, my way is close to his, but a little different. Most are not willing enough to learn to get past that point, and they give up and say it doesn't work. What doesn't "work", is those that won't put in the time to actually make it work for them.

So, because we all do see slightly differently, I don't see where the "math" would have any benefit in learning the system anyways.

 

[Gerry Williams]

Good summary Neil.

The insults were numerous in his posts but then again that was truly his intention.

Very disrespectful to a fine gentleman that has given so much back to the game.

Gerry

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he should do some more studying on how to communicate better. Right off the bat, this "better educator than anyone on here" did nothing more than upset a bunch of people trying to "educate" us. Yet, he doesn't have enough common sense to even realize what a fool that makes him look like.

He is so full of himself that he even bragged about getting some grants. Yet, he isn't knowledgeable to even be able to "empty his cup" to learn something new. He even goes on to say that because Stan is older, his knowledge isn't up to date. WOW! Just what generation does he think "invented" the knowledge he learned?? He made it quite clear that he is all about the money, not education. And, he doesn't have a clue about pool, or making money in it.

Yes, people do use different ways or intelligence's to learn things. Some learn easier by seeing something done, some need to read how to do something, and some hands on experience to learn quickly. What he doesn't understand, is that Stan set out to learn something himself, and once he did, he was gracious enough to pass it on to others at a low enough cost to break even. Stan never set out to find a "get rich quick plan".

Stan's "system" is not for everybody. It is for those that truly want to learn. Those that truly want to learn something do not limit themselves to just one way of learning. They study until they "get it". Those type of people are then rewarded with a great tool for playing the game. And, once they do learn it, they can easily go back and see that everything is exactly as Stan described it. It's really that simple. It's so simple, and so precise, that many can't understand it because they simply can't follow simple directions. They aren't willing to learn enough and don't want it bad enough to simply follow the directions verbatim, and let go of what they think they already know.

And, no matter how much math would be included, no one is going to understand it until they learn to do that one little thing that has been stressed- let go and learn.

 

[ChrisWoj]

The guy comes on here as a D player, he's never seen Stan's DVD, never met or had a lesson from Stan yet feels compelled to offer critique. He then won't let it go and keeps arguing. He touts his credentials as a MA in Education (which there are tens of thousands of) and coaches disc sports (whatever that is -frisbee?). He goes on to say he plans to play pro level in another 3.5 years. He also made insulting remarks about Stan as a person and his teaching ability.

Yeah, nobody should have said a thing to the guy.

Please read my first two posts and tell me where I critiqued anything that had to do with billiards itself. I was offering a bit of constructive criticism to Stan regarding one thing and one thing only: the way he defined and utilized "multiple intelligences." That was it. That one tiny point. One eensy little addition to the conversation. Read my first three posts and tell me where I insulted Stan at all. One time. One spot. One comment. Anywhere. Please. Do so. I insist. Because you're not going to find anything insulting. Because all I did was offer one comment on the way he was using multiple intelligences. Further to respond to this...

He is so full of himself that he even bragged about getting some grants. Yet, he isn't knowledgeable to even be able to "empty his cup" to learn something new. He even goes on to say that because Stan is older, his knowledge isn't up to date. WOW! Just what generation does he think "invented" the knowledge he learned?? He made it quite clear that he is all about the money, not education. And, he doesn't have a clue about pool, or making money in it.

I was referring specifically and VERY specifically to Stan's background in education. I never said anything about "because Stan is older." I specifically stated that if his Masters is more than 20 years old, and he has not continued to maintain professional advancement, which I don't think he has as he hasn't been an educator for a decade, then his information is out of date. This is not me forming an opinion, this is a fact and a part of the world of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It is completely common knowledge that the entire teaching profession was in woeful shambles prior to the early-mid 1990s. The entire profession has been flipped on its head since that point in time, and so the information gleaned as an educator training to prior to that point in time is quite literally out of date in many ways, specifically concerning the methodology regarding the use of the information available. Use of things like Gardner's multiple intelligences and even the basic Blooms Taxonomy were tools that people were seemingly incapable of using in a coherent manner at the time.

At no point did I say Stan is wrong because he is old.
At no point did I ever use the phrase "better educator than anyone on here."
At no point did I mention not wanting to use Stan's system. I BOUGHT STAN'S DVD.
At no point did I reference myself as a D... according to what I've read I'm C bordering B.
I said I planned to be pro level in 5 years total, I've done it before in other skill games. But I also said my career got in the way, and acknowledged already that that was a pipe dream.

So again: I came on here with a minor correction to his obvious misuse and misunderstanding of the way multiple intelligences are used in education, and he all but acknowledged that he didn't understand it through his statements. A minor critique of a minor point that should not have resulted in all of this ridiculousness. Each of you has put words in my mouth that I never contemplated saying or putting in the context you've decided I intended. I don't understand why all of you are making a big deal over a tiny little point, and insisting that I am something that I am not. I am a borderline B player looking to be a top level shooter that has purchased Stan's DVD and is looking to learn from it and use it to help me succeed within the game. I made one minor critical point. It was done, if you read my first posts, within an entirely constructive framework with no personal shots or insults.

I don't know who or what you think I am, but what you're implying I am is complete and utter bollocks. I am on this site to learn how to take my game to a new level, and am taking the steps to do that. However I do have an area of expertise that you all do not. I'm sorry but that IS a fact. There ARE tens of thousands of masters of education out there. Are any of you one? No. I'm sorry that I have expertise in the field and as such am capable of critiquing a very minor point in a very minor and constructive way, I don't know how that threw you all into such a tizzy, but it is driving me insane because I want to continue to use this site to learn, and each of you is throwing words into my mouth and intentions atop me that are driving me to not want to use this site at all - which again: is a PAIN because I desire to learn from the best, and some of the best are right here - INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY PEOPLE LIKE STAN.

However this DOES NOT make him a God, and occasionally even the best at one thing can use a tip or critique on a topic they may not be up to speed on! AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING I DID AND INTENDED TO DO. Make ONE minor point on ONE minor mistake he made that could turn away potential learners - this is a recognized FACT in the field of education. Potential students, of all ages, are turned away when someone tells them that they are learning incorrectly. You can NOT train yourself to a strength in an alternative intelligence. It is, again the responsibility of the educator to provide a bridge between the mathematical mind and the visual in order to give the learner the ability to shift into a mindset he or she is not particularly strong in. It is not the responsibility of a learner to find that bridge. This was my entire point! WHY has this turned into some big thing with you guys telling me I'm such a terrible person over it? WHY has it turned into you all telling me I'm unwilling to learn? WHY have you decided to throw so many words into my mouth that I never said?

Why did I waste my lunch on this... yeesh.

 

[Neil]

Please read my first two posts and tell me where I critiqued anything that had to do with billiards itself. I was offering a bit of constructive criticism to Stan regarding one thing and one thing only: the way he defined and utilized "multiple intelligences." That was it. That one tiny point. One eensy little addition to the conversation. Read my first three posts and tell me where I insulted Stan at all. One time. One spot. One comment. Anywhere. Please. Do so. I insist. Because you're not going to find anything insulting. Because all I did was offer one comment on the way he was using multiple intelligences. Further to respond to this...

I was referring specifically and VERY specifically to Stan's background in education. I never said anything about "because Stan is older." I specifically stated that if his Masters is more than 20 years old, and he has not continued to maintain professional advancement, which I don't think he has as he hasn't been an educator for a decade, then his information is out of date. This is not me forming an opinion, this is a fact and a part of the world of primary, secondary, and post-secondary education. It is completely common knowledge that the entire teaching profession was in woeful shambles prior to the early-mid 1990s. The entire profession has been flipped on its head since that point in time, and so the information gleaned as an educator training to prior to that point in time is quite literally out of date in many ways, specifically concerning the methodology regarding the use of the information available. Use of things like Gardner's multiple intelligences and even the basic Blooms Taxonomy were tools that people were seemingly incapable of using in a coherent manner at the time.

At no point did I say Stan is wrong because he is old.
At no point did I ever use the phrase "better educator than anyone on here."
At no point did I mention not wanting to use Stan's system. I BOUGHT STAN'S DVD.
At no point did I reference myself as a D... according to what I've read I'm C bordering B.
I said I planned to be pro level in 5 years total, I've done it before in other skill games. But I also said my career got in the way, and acknowledged already that that was a pipe dream.

So again: I came on here with a minor correction to his obvious misuse and misunderstanding of the way multiple intelligences are used in education, and he all but acknowledged that he didn't understand it through his statements. A minor critique of a minor point that should not have resulted in all of this ridiculousness. Each of you has put words in my mouth that I never contemplated saying or putting in the context you've decided I intended. I don't understand why all of you are making a big deal over a tiny little point, and insisting that I am something that I am not. I am a borderline B player looking to be a top level shooter that has purchased Stan's DVD and is looking to learn from it and use it to help me succeed within the game. I made one minor critical point. It was done, if you read my first posts, within an entirely constructive framework with no personal shots or insults.

I don't know who or what you think I am, but what you're implying I am is complete and utter bollocks. I am on this site to learn how to take my game to a new level, and am taking the steps to do that. However I do have an area of expertise that you all do not. I'm sorry but that IS a fact. There ARE tens of thousands of masters of education out there. Are any of you one? No. I'm sorry that I have expertise in the field and as such am capable of critiquing a very minor point in a very minor and constructive way, I don't know how that threw you all into such a tizzy, but it is driving me insane because I want to continue to use this site to learn, and each of you is throwing words into my mouth and intentions atop me that are driving me to not want to use this site at all - which again: is a PAIN because I desire to learn from the best, and some of the best are right here - INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY PEOPLE LIKE STAN.

However this DOES NOT make him a God, and occasionally even the best at one thing can use a tip or critique on a topic they may not be up to speed on! AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING I DID AND INTENDED TO DO. Make ONE minor point on ONE minor mistake he made that could turn away potential learners - this is a recognized FACT in the field of education. Potential students, of all ages, are turned away when someone tells them that they are learning incorrectly. You can NOT train yourself to a strength in an alternative intelligence. It is, again the responsibility of the educator to provide a bridge between the mathematical mind and the visual in order to give the learner the ability to shift into a mindset he or she is not particularly strong in. It is not the responsibility of a learner to find that bridge. This was my entire point! WHY has this turned into some big thing with you guys telling me I'm such a terrible person over it? WHY has it turned into you all telling me I'm unwilling to learn? WHY have you decided to throw so many words into my mouth that I never said?

Why did I waste my lunch on this... yeesh.

And yet, you seem to suffer from the same problem you accuse Stan of having, only you seem to have it in spades. So much for the "education" you have learned.

 

[ChrisWoj]

And yet, you seem to suffer from the same problem you accuse Stan of having, only you seem to have it in spades. So much for the "education" you have learned.

I responded in kind. Please show me where I was confrontational in my posts. Please show me where I stated that I was "a better educator than anyone here." Please back up what you said with evidence - I'm just looking for somewhere where you can back up anything you've said, Neil. Please go over those initial posts, before I started responding to people flinging accusations at me, and tell me where I was confrontational and not in any way matter-of-fact, or throwing praise Stan's way? I made one minor point, one minor critique, and was blown up for it. I'm not going to let this go until you give me some evidence.

I am asking you to please show me where I was wrong, so that I can do better in the future. And you're responding with :eyeroll:

You tell me I'm exactly what I said Stan was (angry and confrontational) because I'm asking you to clarify. I just don't see the correlation. Please, show me.

 

[8pack]

Yes, mathematically it does work. Problem is, NO ONE had yet been able to figure out how to put into math what we see. Let alone how to factor in the little fact that we all actually see things a little bit differently. Which is why you see a number of proficient users of pro one explaining the visuals a little bit differently from each other. You have to have the end goal in mind, then work backwards with the knowledge of the system to get that AHA moment. That AHA moment is when you finally get yourself into the correct position for YOU to see the visuals correctly.

Everything one needs to know, Stan shows. However, for each of us, there are small "tweaks" to initially getting the visuals that will work for us. (no tweaks once you have the visuals, the system itself is accurate). I've talked to Stan, and we had a "disagreement" about one part. Well, what I learned, is that we were both right. We were both right according to how we actually see things. Where he stands one way to get his visuals, my way is close to his, but a little different. Most are not willing enough to learn to get past that point, and they give up and say it doesn't work. What doesn't "work", is those that won't put in the time to actually make it work for them.

So, because we all do see slightly differently, I don't see where the "math" would have any benefit in learning the system anyways.

When you can manually pivot with exactness you'll realize something must change.
If your routine is just a visual, you are nothing but trying your best to come to the right conclusion .:wink: You'll never see the truth, again the table doesn't lie.
Not saying you cant get good at it, but the routine falls short,(of being exact)but with practice and letting go after the connection all can be well.:wink:

Anthony

 

[Neil]

I responded in kind. Please show me where I was confrontational in my posts. Please show me where I stated that I was "a better educator than anyone here." Please back up what you said with evidence - I'm just looking for somewhere where you can back up anything you've said, Neil. Please go over those initial posts, before I started responding to people flinging accusations at me, and tell me where I was confrontational and not in any way matter-of-fact, or throwing praise Stan's way? I made one minor point, one minor critique, and was blown up for it. I'm not going to let this go until you give me some evidence.

I am asking you to please show me where I was wrong, so that I can do better in the future. And you're responding with :eyeroll:

You tell me I'm exactly what I said Stan was (angry and confrontational) because I'm asking you to clarify. I just don't see the correlation. Please, show me.

If you are really being serious here, I'm sorry, but your education has totally failed you.

 

[ChrisWoj]

If you are really being serious here, I'm sorry, but your education has totally failed you.

Neil,

You've done nothing but denigrate and insult and provided nothing constructive at all. Again: please read my first posts and tell me where I was not constructive and show me where I deserved to be attacked. If you can not do so, you're without a leg to stand on in this conversation. You've repeatedly evaded any attempt to get any explanation from you, and outright lied about what I said within your posts.

 

[Neil]

Neil,

You've done nothing but denigrate and insult and provided nothing constructive at all. Again: please read my first posts and tell me where I was not constructive and show me where I deserved to be attacked. If you can not do so, you're without a leg to stand on in this conversation. You've repeatedly evaded any attempt to get any explanation from you, and outright lied about what I said within your posts.

Chris, I am not foolish enough to think that anything I say is going to change your mind on your years of "education". So, I see no point in going point by point over it with you. It would just be a waste of time. You have already shown that you just don't get it. And I see no reason that whatever I say is going to change your mind on how you see things. That you are still asking those questions is proof enough for me. You have an education, maybe in time you will also attain the wisdom to make that education worthwhile.

 

[nobcitypool]

60-65 NAPA does not translate to a C/B, not even close. Your narcissistic disorder is preventing you from seeing things clearly. You're a legend in your own mind.

 

[nobcitypool]

Here's the very first sentence from your first post on this thread. In fact, it is one of the first posts you made on this entire forum.

Just making my way through this thread - and you're using these phrases incorrectly. Just a point so that you can move forward successfully.

Perhaps you're education should have extended into the English language. Perhaps it's just everybody else and with you being such an incredible genius, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Do you think those words, directed at a man that has invested thousands of hours into perfecting his system, are appropriate, tactful and diplomatic? Are you truly too stupid to see how that might have put you in a poor light right from the very start?

Here is from your second post:

on here you come across as combative, disagreeable, and often angry. It could be a matter of a very brusque typing style. But I say this as someone that likes your videos: your attitude here on a thread-by-thread basis turns me off from wanting to learn from you.

Your third post:

You come across very disagreeable and combative, not like someone that would like to maximize your own income.

And it goes downhill from there dude.

Unfortunately pal, it appears nobody is nearly as impressed with you ... as you. LOL

 

[ChrisWoj]

Chris, I am not foolish enough to think that anything I say is going to change your mind on your years of "education". So, I see no point in going point by point over it with you. It would just be a waste of time. You have already shown that you just don't get it. And I see no reason that whatever I say is going to change your mind on how you see things. That you are still asking those questions is proof enough for me. You have an education, maybe in time you will also attain the wisdom to make that education worthwhile.

Neil,

Thus far you've shown me nothing but personal attack after personal attack. You're quite obviously incapable of backing up anything you have to say at all. I keep asking you to back up word one, and stop lying and making up things, for example: stating that I said I was a better educator than anyone here. Which was an out and out lie. I did say that I know the world from the perspective of an educator better than the others here, and thus far no one has chimed in to say otherwise. But that is miles and miles from saying I'm a better educator than anyone here.

Plain and simple I've repeatedly praised the people here, and said I am here to learn and you have no desire to do anything but denigrate me for nothing more than the sake of being a troll.

 

[ChrisWoj]

60-65 NAPA does not translate to a C/B, not even close. Your narcissistic disorder is preventing you from seeing things clearly. You're a legend in your own mind.

Then the things I'm reading are incorrect. I'm going off of the things people say on here and other places. Like I said: "according to what I've read." If I am incorrect I am more than happy to be corrected. I don't see why you're not acknowledging that I've repeatedly used phrases stating that I would like to be corrected. If I was wrong, I understand. Then apparently I am a banger? Cool. But if so - let me know.

 

[ChrisWoj]

Here's the very first sentence from your first post on this thread. In fact, it is one of the first posts you made on this entire forum.

Perhaps you're education should have extended into the English language. Perhaps it's just everybody else and with you being such an incredible genius, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Do you think those words, directed at a man that has invested thousands of hours into perfecting his system, are appropriate, tactful and diplomatic? Are you truly too stupid to see how that might have put you in a poor light right from the very start?

Because he was wrong. Please go to Pearson and buy an overpriced educational psychology book, or do a wikipedia search regarding Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. I'm sorry, but in that post regarding what he was bringing up: he was wrong. Plain and simple. How hard is it to understand that a person can be wrong about a relatively minor point. Most people appreciate correction on minor points. I did not assault his entire belief structure, nor his system which I've spent the money on and bought and support.

Here is from your second post:

Just facts. I'm a potential customer. I assumed at first glance maybe he was a businessman. I'm sorry that I have experience working with profitable sponsors through sport, and understand what they sound like and how they act, as well as what a successful business model is and what running successful events is like. You may not be aware of this: but there is a world outside of billiards, many groups and social circles within which people develop successful lives and careers and through that they can provide advice and critique from an outside perspective without having a deep expertise within the direct "aiming" world.

Your third post:



And it goes downhill from there dude.

Unfortunately pal, it appears nobody is nearly as impressed with you ... as you. LOL

All of which is a reiteration of the second post. And were facts regarding independent perspective from a customer with no dog in these "aim war" fights, whatever those are. I as an independent customer was pointing out that Stan was disagreeable and seems angry and brusque in his posting mannerisms. I'm sorry that that was taken the wrong way, but if his desire is not to make a profit, I get that now. I'm sorry that I assumed he cared at all about that. If Stan, as a public figure in the billiards world, can't handle a critique or customer review, maybe he shouldn't be placing himself in such a public spotlight. This is not my problem. Stan has every right to respond or not respond as he so chooses, but if a customer dislikes a public figure's comments he has every democratic right to say so.

 

[nobcitypool]

Kewl Mr. Narcissus. Nice spin but unfortunately kid, my real intelligence kind of blows yours away and I don't fall for that kind of crap. Did you happen to forget the post where you said you were done responding? LMAO I thought so. Perhaps you should write your own pool instructional book, you could title it "Thoughts From a Narcissistic Banger".

 

[nobcitypool]

Just facts. I'm a potential customer. I assumed at first glance maybe he was a businessman. I'm sorry that I have experience working with profitable sponsors through sport, and understand what they sound like and how they act, as well as what a successful business model is and what running successful events is like. You may not be aware of this: but there is a world outside of billiards, many groups and social circles within which people develop successful lives and careers and through that they can provide advice and critique from an outside perspective without having a deep expertise within the direct "aiming" world.

Actually, I have a bit of a clue kid. I have a BSME from Rose Hulman Institute of Technology and own a multi-million dollar Construction Business with offices in 3 states. That's why I find a puffed up narcissistic kid all full of himself like you fairly humorous. Label me "unimpressed" with your resume. You may now return to your disc sports pal.