@Renegade: You've been quick to dismiss and ridicule people like me who find CTE a puzzle and yet whatever method it is that you've been using is radically and fundamentally different from what Stan teaches. I had one other CTE proponent tell me they use CTE, but then they followed that statement by saying they use their own version of CTE. It seems you are doing that, too. How can you follow along with DVD1 as you did and come away so far off? If you compare your ball positions to where Stan says they should be, how have you been able to pocket anything if you are following Stan's instructions? The only logical answer is that you are not using CTE as Stan teaches, as you say in your disclaimer. What does it suggest if you think you are pocketing balls using CTE Pro1, but you really are not using CTE Pro1? It isn't even in the ballpark of being remotely similar to CTE Pro1 if the ball positions on your table are a real indication of where the ob goes.
denwhit is trying to learn CTE Pro1, so it might be a good idea for you to let others who actually use Pro1 help him.
Disclaimer: This is not a knock on CTE. It is a strong suggestion that denwhit get instruction from people who are actually using and are well versed on the information presented in DVD1.
Just sayin'.
Well I don't see what you have offered in the way of help to Dennis, and I don't see how you can say my method is not even in the ballpark. I also don't see how you can say I don't use Pro 1. For one thing, I can do what I do, as in the 1st picture I posted and repeat it, using perceptions to the ball positions and sweeps as in Pro 1. I can also do as stan says and get the result stan recommends, as evidenced in the 2nd picture I posted, so I can do it. What I don't see, and realized 2 years ago when I started with pro 1 is why I need 2 perceptions that do the same thing, and another that leaves a gap in the angles as demonstrated by the 5 and 6 ball in the 2nd image, so I did this very experiment 2 years ago and figured out what a 30 degree perception with an outside sweep would look like to ME that results in an even array of angles to choose from to make balls. The hardest part of this system is the perception part, which is I'm sure the hardest part for Stan to teach. But the thing about perception is that we all have one,,,,,,, this is the way I have taught myself to use mine. I could actually do this same test with fractional aiming and show you some frightening facts about that as well. I see what Stan is saying, I just happen to like the results I get a little better with MY perception on a couple of shots. The rest is Pro 1, and all of it is because of Pro 1. The fact that I can repeat it makes it useful. and I never have to try and see a contact point at 3/8 of ball and such. The fact that I understand it well enough to alter it to suit my perception should be evident that I can and do use it. It could be I know more than you think I do.
I didn't come on here arguing with Spidey or Stan about some perceived flaw in Pro 1, that likely is due to how I see it. I altered it to work for me. I also bought a snapper lawn mower a few years back that had a regular blade on it but a mulching chute. Damn thing cuts like hell, but left a trail of cut grass just outside the cut that made the yard look bad when cut. Guess what I did, I bought another spreader that dispurses the grass more evenly across the yard,,, I made it work better for me,,,,,,, so is it no longer a Snapper mower because I altered it from it's original design? I use Pro 1, in whatever form I use it, because it's dependable and repeatable.
Tell you what Dan, why don't you do a video of the drill I posted in a video in post 36, find a 10 ft snooker table, with 3 3/16" pockets and use regular 2 1/4 in balls and run out using that fractional system you tout. I'd bet money you can't do it. That was using Pro 1 with manual pivots, which by the way I have said repeatedly is the first part of Pro 1 a beginner should get proficient at.