CTE/PRO ONE video--CANCELLED

I learned the PRO ONE aiming system from Stan Shuffett about 1 year ago. I successfully used PRO ONE in the 2008 Derby City Classic 9-Ball division getting a top 10 finish. I recently used the system getting wins at 2 Seminole Florida Pro Tour events. .

Stevie Moore
2008 Winner of the Florida Pro Tour Steve Mizerak Championship





Before I took instruction from Stan I totally went by feel when I was aiming my shots. During my foundation course with Stan, I learned this amazing aiming system--PRO ONE. The pressure that I once felt with aiming has disappeared. PRO ONE has given me the confidence to pocket balls more easily. I feel like everything I shoot at is supposed to go. I recommend PRO ONE to any player who is serious about winning!

Matt Krah 2006 UPA Tour Rookie of the Year
Blaze 9-Ball Tour Player of the Year





Hi Stan,
Just wanted to let you know that I took first place in a tough Blaze event in New Jersey yesterday. I won twice against a very strong player, 7-2, 7-1, in the finals. Amazingly this was my first event I played in since working with you and applying the things you showed me!! I cant thank you enough for the things you taught me. I have been using PRO ONE with ease and everyone is telling me how disciplined I look on the table. Also, my break is working wonderfully and really making my run outs much easier.

Thanks again. Talk to you soon!

Matt Krah

----------------------------------------

Taken from Stan's Website. Here are two professional players - one arguably one of the top players in the world and the other a top regional player on his way up.
 
CreeDo said:
\Joey: We're on the same page there. CTE guys have trouble admitting this and that's always bugged me. It claims exactness where exactness isn't really possible.

Hu: I understand the nature of trying to do video proof of something, I've often made the same argument. If I see a guy pivot before shooting... maybe the pivot helped and maybe it's clicking your heels.

I remember you saying you tried something like quarters but the perception issues made it no use to you. But even if doesn't work for you, it can be geometrically proven. I don't buy the theory that "just because it works on paper, doesn't mean it will work in the pool hall". If it doesn't work in the pool hall, some part of it was wrong on paper. There are tricks you can do to take human error out of the system. Beam a carpenter's level at your halfball hit, then freeze a 2nd ball on it so that its edge splits that thin red beam. Smack a cue ball into the 2nd ball and the halfball hit goes where it's supposed to (usual throw disclaimers apply).

The same halfball hit can be backed up by physics. A crapload of math has already been done to show where balls go when they collide. The math says the OB departure will be around 30 degrees (or whatever it is) and then a real life halfball hit will mirror that.

CTE has the same perception errors as the rest... but I don't see a diagram or physics or video that makes sense to back it up. I haven't seen too many things that made me think "yeah, that makes sense on paper" ...and then my experience in the pool hall doesn't match it. I'd be very surprised if you could make a fake system that fools non-gullible players into thinking it's valid when they see it on paper.

Koop: noted, but do we have non-anecdotal evidence of this? Something that isn't just I-heard-from-a-friend? A link on the internet, a line in a book?
Click to expand...

Ah but that is where you are caught. If you could see the fractional aiming overlaps from a shooter's perspective you wouldn't need to put a second ball there or use the carpenter's laser toy. I haven't ever seen anyone agree to let their opponent do any of these things in a gambling or tournament match.

In truth with fractional aiming you learn how the balls react with hits at certain overlaps and then you have to learn how these overlaps actually appear at various distances. They don't necessarily appear as overlaps at all. Fractional systems are actually a variation of the HAMB system, one way of trying to shorten the learning curve. Nothing wrong with that but when someone claims it is an exact system as it is applied on the pool table in an actual game I have to say that simply isn't true. It is an exact system on paper in two dimensions, it is an exact system when you can put a second ball against the object ball, it becomes an inexact system when you have to judge an imaginary overlap of two vastly different sized balls that may not even touch.(from your perspective)

Fractional aiming is perhaps the most exact system out there if you are eventually able to break the balls up into enough fractions and visualize these fractions and their overlap. Does "exact" and "visualize" really fit in the same sentence though?

I'm not against any aiming system that works for somebody. However, none that I have seen pass the test of standing up to hard scientific scrutiny. Could a machine be built to mimic the human perspective and use the system in the manner described without modifications? I haven't seen an aiming method or system yet that the answer to that question was a flat yes.

I designed and built things for a living for awhile and gaps couldn't exist. All of these aiming systems have gaps at some point in them. Visualizing the overlap, deciding where to put the bridge, on and on. Pool really wouldn't be much fun if we could take the human element out of it but each person decrying the flaws in other systems while ignoring the flaws in their favorite sacred cow system seems a little short sighted. Ultimately experience and a fudge factor at some point are critical parts of all of these systems.

The HAMB system is all knowledge and fudge factor and may be the best "system" of all although I agree the million ball number is just a way of saying hit enough balls to know how to shoot shots. When I played hours a day for over ten years somewhere I made a jump in understanding and knew how to control the cue ball and object ball in situations I hadn't encountered before. To me that is when you have achieved the HAMB solution. I lost it during a twenty year layoff from pool and I'm not back there yet, suspect I'll never be again.

Hu
 
AtLarge said:
I can confirm that Stevie Moore is a CTE/Pro One user. I have watched him closely in person and have spoken to him about it.

I am also aware of reports that Gerda took lessons from Stan, but I watched some of her play two months ago when she won the San Diego Classic, and I saw no evidence of CTE/Pro One -- no initial sighting of the CTE line, no sort of "creeping up" to the shot sighting that line, no pivoting on the table or in the air. In fact, she often walked around to sight the object ball straight into the pocket, which is normally done to find a contact point. So she may now know CTE/Pro One, but I am not yet convinced that she is using it.
Click to expand...

You know i have her title win recorded on DVR and that was the thing i was watching for also, to see if she was pivoting and i couldn't see it at all. But then they show a shot on the four ball i believe and they show her from behind down shooting the shot. And i if watched in slow motion she does a pivot and with little movement as you couldn't actually see it if you blink. Now im not saying she was doing this on every shot, cause im a CTE aimer and i catch myself not pivoting on every shot. Some shots i can just see that im already in the correct alignment to make the shot. But trust me she did pivot on that one shot.
 
Koop (and others): fair enough. Can't argue with that. Looks like some bonafide pros are using CTE.

Joey: let me rephrase. You believe all systems need feel, estimation and adjustments.
I believe the same thing.

But some of the public faces of CTE have claimed it does NOT need those things. I can dig for the posts if you really want but this is like the fourth CTE thread I've read tonight and I'm tired.

CTE advocates don't have to prove anything to anyone: ok, sure, nobody HAS to prove anything. It's the internet. Anyone can claim whatever they want and are under no obligation to prove it. I just ran a thousand in straight pool.

Why waste my breath: Because fantastic claims have been made, and for some reason it bothers me that they apparently don't have to be backed up. Or, that people have tried but failed. This is a serious question: why doesn't it bother you?

...I also sweat the small stuff and keep hammering away at it because I do harbor that small hope it's real, and works as advertised. And like Dr. Dave, I'm one of those guys who likes to know how and why things work. Having results only without knowing would be nice, if I personally were getting those results. But absent those, I'd like to know the mechanics. Maybe understanding the mechanics could lead TO the results.

...I also waste my breath because discussing pool-related things is a nice way to pass the time. As those nearing 10,000 posts should know :D
---

Hu: I see your point about the difference between an exact system on paper vs. an exact system when you're actually at the table. I don't wanna jinx myself by saying it, but I think we're on the same page here (that always backfires).

When at the table, there is no system that gives zero-guesswork visual aids to help you make balls. The laws of light and physics and whatever don't just cheerfully work out in a way that allows you to judge every shot using easily-spotted clear-cut points like the center of ball A or the edge of ball B. Why should it work out like that? If it did, I'd start hitting church daily.
 
AtLarge...THANK YOU for noticing that. I have been reading this thread, and others, about Gerda's CTE/Pro One usage. Like you, I watched the San Diego matches closely, several times, and saw no evidence of Pro One, or any type of CTE aiming. I knew I couldn't be the only one that saw this.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

AtLarge said:
I am also aware of reports that Gerda took lessons from Stan, but I watched some of her play two months ago when she won the San Diego Classic, and I saw no evidence of CTE/Pro One -- no initial sighting of the CTE line, no sort of "creeping up" to the shot sighting that line, no pivoting on the table or in the air. In fact, she often walked around to sight the object ball straight into the pocket, which is normally done to find a contact point. So she may now know CTE/Pro One, but I am not yet convinced that she is using it.
Click to expand...
 
CreeDo said:
Koop (and others): fair enough. Can't argue with that. Looks like some bonafide pros are using CTE.

Joey: let me rephrase. You believe all systems need feel, estimation and adjustments.
I believe the same thing.

But some of the public faces of CTE have claimed it does NOT need those things. I can dig for the posts if you really want but this is like the fourth CTE thread I've read tonight and I'm tired.

CTE advocates don't have to prove anything to anyone: ok, sure, nobody HAS to prove anything. It's the internet. Anyone can claim whatever they want and are under no obligation to prove it. I just ran a thousand in straight pool.

Why waste my breath: Because fantastic claims have been made, and for some reason it bothers me that they apparently don't have to be backed up. Or, that people have tried but failed. This is a serious question: why doesn't it bother you?

...I also sweat the small stuff and keep hammering away at it because I do harbor that small hope it's real, and works as advertised. And like Dr. Dave, I'm one of those guys who likes to know how and why things work. Having results only without knowing would be nice, if I personally were getting those results. But absent those, I'd like to know the mechanics. Maybe understanding the mechanics could lead TO the results.

...I also waste my breath because discussing pool-related things is a nice way to pass the time. As those nearing 10,000 posts should know :D
---

Hu: I see your point about the difference between an exact system on paper vs. an exact system when you're actually at the table. I don't wanna jinx myself by saying it, but I think we're on the same page here (that always backfires).

When at the table, there is no system that gives zero-guesswork visual aids to help you make balls. The laws of light and physics and whatever don't just cheerfully work out in a way that allows you to judge every shot using easily-spotted clear-cut points like the center of ball A or the edge of ball B. Why should it work out like that? If it did, I'd start hitting church daily.
Click to expand...

can you see the hidden 3D figure in those .. apparently random collections of pixels... that were really popular in the 90's?

I think that a lot of "faith based" aiming systems rely on creating a useful optical illusion..

some see it... some don't it's that simple... I think CTE is a tad to convoluted.. for my taste.. I have a hard enough time sticking to my much simpler pre shot routine...

but if you can create the illusion reliably enough you can make it usefull..

you see terms like "outermost edge"

some understand that, some don't ..more importantly

some can SEE it.. and some can't..

can you see the 3D picture in the mess of ink or not??

take my word for it.. the picture is spider man swinging through a long street of skyscrapers..

if all you see is blurry red ink... that does not make me a liar..
 
I don't think Hal nixed the deal as he is extremely sharing. If you can get to his place in Pa. he will share info and stories with you for days. When I met him in So. Calif he was planning on writing a book and I am sure that he would have progressed eventually to video. I think the Stan probably re-examined the economics of his decision.

I think that even if Mr. Shuffet had produced the video he would have still had as many students as he could handle as we all know that video is good but one on one instruction is the best path to learning.

As far as the economics of a video we all know that there has been a video sold with the aid of this very forum that sells for $80.00 and purportedly has sold very well.

If JB Cases decides to put out a video of this system I for one will order immediately. I agree with John that this info doesn't need to be hidden. Hal has never tried to hide any of his systems, and he seems to know many!
 
John, it would be really great if you could do something with this. Maybe get Hal on video explaining everything or work with Stan. Maybe Stan doesn't have the funds to step away from his other interests but I think someone should at least get Hal on tape if it hasn't been done before. I know I would purchase a DVD on this if for nothing but the enjoyment of viewing it but also because it could honor Hal. My opinion!

--Jeff


JB Cases said:
Maybe so but this information is something that really truly can help a lot of players improve. Hal gave it away for free. Hal and I also talked about getting it down on video a few times.

It's not just about animosity and emotion for me. It's about wanting to share something that is truly worthwhile.

Someone somewhere came up with the Ghost Ball method. I have no idea when it first appeared in print but I first saw it in Robert Byrne's book, the Standard Book of Pool and Billiards. (I believe that this is where I first saw it).

No offense to Mr. Byrne because I think that his books have helped millions to become better players but on this point I think that Ghost Ball aiming has at the same time held millions back from becoming even better.

I really think that there are a lot of players like me out there who consumed all things Byrne and similar and who floundered with Ghost Ball and shifted english guessing.

The other night I am watching Borana and OMGWTF and I was thinking over and over and over that CTE would have helped both of them.

It's ridiculous to me to see two passionate players totally struggling when they have all the other skills, the stroke, the stance, the heart and they just don't line up right. If I could have just reached in and tweaked their alignment a little then they would have been pocketing far more shots and not been agonizing over them.

This last round of CTE/Systems fighting has left me drained. I don't know WHY Stan has decided against going forward but I am seriously considering doing something.

I am setting up a primitive sort of studio here in my workshop for the purpose of doing short videos anyway.

The thing is that CTE is not complicated. All the fragmented information has made it seem much more complicated than it is.

Anyway, I am just totally bummed that Stan has decided against this and I feel that those of us who know CTE somehow have a duty to clear it up once and for all. I really felt that because of Stan's stature as an instructor and the fact that he has several professionals who state that they use his Pro1/CTE version that he was the best one to produce the video.

So we will see what happens. As I told another friend I won't be teaching CTE to anyone until I do feel that I have thoroughly mastered it and am able to explain it in simple terms.

I just made the SICKEST shot in the world 30 minutes ago. I wish I had had the camera on it. Everyone should be able to do shots like these without having to pound the rails a million times.
Click to expand...
 
Masirib5 said:
John, it would be really great if you could do something with this. Maybe get Hal on video explaining everything or work with Stan. Maybe Stan doesn't have the funds to step away from his other interests but I think someone should at least get Hal on tape if it hasn't been done before. I know I would purchase a DVD on this if for nothing but the enjoyment of viewing it but also because it could honor Hal. My opinion!

--Jeff
Click to expand...

Actually I don't have the resources or the time to get Hal on tape. Dave Segal would be much better suited to that than me.

All I want to do is figure out how to show what I am doing accurately and then leave it open for discussion. I have a definite idea about how this works physically and that idea comes not only from me but from others as well.

I am certain that given the right amount of care and attention that CTE can be shown and taught over video. But it's not something that is going to happen with a lackadaisical effort.

I just shot 30 minutes of myself shooting with CTE. It's almost impossible to see that I am doing the exact same pre-shot steps on EVERY SHOT.

I am never not once getting down on the ball and fidgeting or thinking a little to the left or right but you can't see that on camera.

I am going to have to think about this a lot. Next month I hope to have the time to go shopping for a good overhead camera. I want one that points straight down on the table and gets the whole table.

To me there is a big learning curve ahead with figuring out the best way to present this information. I feel that if I do it wrong then it harms the message.

I have access to many professional videographers as well. But it's a waste of time if I hire them and don't have my presentation down.

One way or the other though I will get this information presented correctly. I have to for my own sense of sanity.
 
I cancelled or postponed because of a very uncertain legal hurdle. Should that change then I will proceed with a very high quality professional video production covering all aspects of CTE from a players perspective.

As far as detecting a cte/pro one user. You can't, unless they want you to see it.

Landon uses this every shot and has for years. Gereda is incredibly smooth with CTE and she can use it undetected. She will tell you the same. Whether she uses it now, I do not know.

I will likely see her in the near future and she will be brought up to speed with the exactness of cte/pro one.


Stan
 
Last edited:
lfigueroa said:
wow. Stealth CTE. Cool.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...


Lou, CTE is not complicated. If it was complicated, players could not, would not use it. CTE/PRO ONE is a visual driven system and yes it is as stealthy as a player wants it to be. That's the nature of the system.

Stan
 
we did seem to get there!

CreeDo said:
Koop (and others): fair enough. Can't argue with that. Looks like some bonafide pros are using CTE.

Joey: let me rephrase. You believe all systems need feel, estimation and adjustments.
I believe the same thing.

But some of the public faces of CTE have claimed it does NOT need those things. I can dig for the posts if you really want but this is like the fourth CTE thread I've read tonight and I'm tired.

CTE advocates don't have to prove anything to anyone: ok, sure, nobody HAS to prove anything. It's the internet. Anyone can claim whatever they want and are under no obligation to prove it. I just ran a thousand in straight pool.

Why waste my breath: Because fantastic claims have been made, and for some reason it bothers me that they apparently don't have to be backed up. Or, that people have tried but failed. This is a serious question: why doesn't it bother you?

...I also sweat the small stuff and keep hammering away at it because I do harbor that small hope it's real, and works as advertised. And like Dr. Dave, I'm one of those guys who likes to know how and why things work. Having results only without knowing would be nice, if I personally were getting those results. But absent those, I'd like to know the mechanics. Maybe understanding the mechanics could lead TO the results.

...I also waste my breath because discussing pool-related things is a nice way to pass the time. As those nearing 10,000 posts should know :D
---

Hu: I see your point about the difference between an exact system on paper vs. an exact system when you're actually at the table. I don't wanna jinx myself by saying it, but I think we're on the same page here (that always backfires).

When at the table, there is no system that gives zero-guesswork visual aids to help you make balls. The laws of light and physics and whatever don't just cheerfully work out in a way that allows you to judge every shot using easily-spotted clear-cut points like the center of ball A or the edge of ball B. Why should it work out like that? If it did, I'd start hitting church daily.
Click to expand...

We did seem to get to where we understand each other. Vision itself is incredibly complex and isn't nearly as straight line as we think it is. An incredible amount of brain power goes into what we see. When we rely on vision to do more than the simplest things the brain can lie to us about what we are seeing. That can be to our advantage or disadvantage.

Off subject but an interesting illustration concerning vision. I was backing a twenty foot trailer into position the other day. Because of angles the mirrors on my truck were useless and I had to turn my head to see someone signaling. I have twenty-twenty vision in both eyes. However when I twisted my head I could only see the head and shoulders and the hands above his head of the person signaling with my weak eye. Try as I might, I could see his hands waving but I couldn't tell which way he was indicating I needed to direct the trailer. The weak eye alone wouldn't give me that information and the bridge of my nose blocked the vision of my dominant eye. I can see signals fine in the mirror or when I can use my dominant eye. Come to think of it, this may be relevant and explain why I can't get Perfect Aim to work for me!

Working from memory here but to put it in terms of a mechanical device the way our vision works is that many many sensors pick up light signals, we transport the signals to the microprocessor and there the signals are assembled and are converted into images. We don't see an image as a whole with our eyes and that image goes to our brains intact. Because of this two people literally can see the same thing differently. I do think this brings us back to why some aiming systems work better for some people than for others.

Hu
 
stan shuffett said:
Lou, CTE is not complicated. If it was complicated, players could not, would not use it. CTE/PRO ONE is a visual driven system and yes it is as stealthy as a player wants it to be. That's the nature of the system.

Stan
Click to expand...


Stan, if CTE is not so complicated, why has so much bandwidth been wasted -- over 10-15 years of internet discussion -- trying to describe it without success.

And here we are, still talking about it.

Lou Figueroa
 
softshot said:
can you see the hidden 3D figure in those .. apparently random collections of pixels... that were really popular in the 90's?

I think that a lot of "faith based" aiming systems rely on creating a useful optical illusion..

some see it... some don't it's that simple... I think CTE is a tad to convoluted.. for my taste.. I have a hard enough time sticking to my much simpler pre shot routine...

but if you can create the illusion reliably enough you can make it usefull..

you see terms like "outermost edge"

some understand that, some don't ..more importantly

some can SEE it.. and some can't..

can you see the 3D picture in the mess of ink or not??

take my word for it.. the picture is spider man swinging through a long street of skyscrapers..

if all you see is blurry red ink... that does not make me a liar..
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this.

Some of you will know this. Take a ball and put it close to the rail by the pocket about a diamond away. Put the cueball about two feet away on an angle that is about 90 degrees. Now line up with your ghost ball or whatever and try to shoot it. Most people will miss the whole ball or hit it way to full. Now do it again and close one eye before you shoot - I don't remember which one so try them one at a time.

When you close one eye you can cut this seemingly impossible shot into the pocket. Why does that work? It works and I know some of you older guys know this shot. It was shown to me by and old guy in the poolroom in the 80s.

Viusal cues don't have to be geometrically perfect. It's pretty much a given that most of us don't see things the same way.

I say that something is ten feet long and you say it's 8 and Bob says it's 12 feet. Bob can read a street sign clearly from 50 feet and all I see is a blur. When I tell Bob to line up to the edge then you could take a string from his nose and it would run right by the edge of the object ball into infintity, my string might veer off by a half tip.

No one can do anything about the visual acuity that they were born with other than to correct it as best they can. People who don't have good depth perception and spatial awareness can improve those things with practice.

I wasn't born to be a diver and a trampolinist. I had to work hard to develop my spatial awareness so I didn't break my neck. Some of my team mates seemed to have a lot more coordination than I did. I had to work twice as hard as them to compete and preserve my spot.

I wholeheartedly believe that an optical illusion fits into this somehow. And I believe that it can be created at will through the steps involved. I might be wrong here as well but there is no dneying that a wide range of shots can be made consistently using the same approach every time. Specifically the approach outlined by CTE.
 
lfigueroa said:
Stan, if CTE is not so complicated, why has so much bandwidth been wasted -- over 10-15 years of internet discussion -- trying to describe it without success.

And here we are, still talking about it.

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

Lou, Yes, I agree. What you say is true. What you present also served as my original prompt to create a video. I am still hopeful that it can happen. I can clear up much of the misinformation that exist about CTE.

Stan
 
Stan,

Many of us truly appreciate your effort and anxiously await the video if you are able to produce it. I know first hand of your passion to teach the game to the very best of your ability.

I personally hold you in the highest regard as an individual as well as a teacher. Thank you for the time and dedication that you have put into learning and teaching this game. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Your friend and student.. JK
 
Stan I sincerely hope that you can work it out and produce this video. It is sorely needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top