PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[LAMas]

Earlier, I posted my solution to my visual problem:

"I have ordered the solution to my problem from Toshiba who has invented the stereoscopic monocular so that I can keep perfect simultanious visual feed back from both aim lines with my dominant eye."

Notice that the "stereoscopic monocular" is placed over one eye, but one eye cannot see stereoscopically even with this oxymoron.

April Fool.:thumbup:

What Mike (mikjary) has been saying is that one stands behind the CB and OB on the CTEL and moves his stance until the left eye looking for the secondary point on the OB with the left edge of the CB and versa visa.

One then should place the cue between both eyes to plant the bridge hand, effect the 1/2 tip shift to the side of the center of the CB and then pivot by moving one's stance, a bit, to get the tip aimed at the center of the CB in one's normal stroking position.

If your eyes are 2.25 inches apart, and you are stroking between both eyes, you will be stroking the cue 1.125 inches from that eye with the other eye looking near the CTEL.

For large separations between the CB This is a convenient position for that 1.25" offset is close to 1/2 ball and puts the cue tip , conveniently, close to the center of the CB. If you try to stroke under the dominant eye that is looking at the edge of the CB, you will find that you need to contort your stance to acieve the 1/2 tip offset and pivot - this turned me off and looked (pun) funny at the table.

This was shared by Mike and brings CTE/Pro 1 closer to being geometrically diagrammed.

a, 12" bridge separation to the CB.

b, Secondary aim line from the eye closest to the edge of the CB to the edge and to the secondary aim point on the OB.

c, The pre-pivot aim line is 1.125" to the side of the secondary aim line.

D, Pivot the cue at the bridge to the center of the CB - stroke line to the GB.

This is what I have been diagramming in ACAD and have extracted the cut angles form the CTEL to the pocket/target for 1/8, 1/4 "A", 1/2 "B" 3/4 "C" and the other side 1/8. I can graph these results like jal does so well. I can diagram 1/16, 3/16, 5/16 etc. and add these resulting angles to the graph and arrive at a curved line that intersects these points so one can look up any cut angle.

I believe that Mike has this memorized, or can, to accomplish all of the cut angles +/- human error. Others can use the graph to move the llearning process along. If one sees a cut angle between "A" and "B" then one can aim for a secondary spot on the OB between them etc.

It has been pointed out to me that the cut angle should be measured not from the CTEL, but from the center of the GB back the the CB. I used the CTEL for I presume that the student can see that and cannot accurately visualize the GB or he would aim at it instead of using CTE/Pro 1.

I did not achieve the cut angles that I diagrammed because I was hitting the CB center with stun which was resulting in cut angles less than my diagrams. I then compensated for the stun results with a little outside BHE english or follow or draw depending on where I wanted the CB togo after impact with the OB - to get closer to my diagram results.

An April Fool.:thumbup:

 

[Mikjary]

That's consistent with the interpretation of CTE as a pre-shot routine.

pj
chgo

It's that and more. After setting up correctly visually, his eyes are dialing in from competency with the Cte system. They know where to be to effect the correct physical alignment no matter what system is used.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
That's consistent with the interpretation of CTE as a pre-shot routine

.
Mikjary:
It's that and more. After setting up correctly visually, his eyes are dialing in from competency with the Cte system. They know where to be to effect the correct physical alignment no matter what system is used.

That sounds right, but I don't see how it's more than a pre-shot alignment routine like mine, except more complicated and, frankly, more obfuscating.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

That sounds right, but I don't see how it's more than a pre-shot alignment routine like mine, except more complicated and, frankly, more obfuscating.

pj
chgo

I think CTE/Pro One is very simple once you have used it for a while.

At first, it may seem like a lot of gyration but it's really not much at all and when you move to Pro One it is a simple movement to the correct aim line, using the two sets of aiming coordinates. The alignment aspect of CTE/Pro One alone is golden. When you combine that with the increased focus and hitting the cueball closer to the center of the cue ball, it puts together a far more attractive package than other aiming systems in my opinion.

Anyway, it's not going to make anyone a champion by itself but it can sure get you in the right position to excelling at your best. At least, I think that's what it has done for me.


JoeyA

 

[AtLarge]

...
a, 12" bridge separation to the CB.

That's different from what Stan recommends for his manual CTE.

b, Secondary aim line from the eye closest to the edge of the CB to the edge and to the secondary aim point on the OB.

If the head is angled to the CB, the same eye may well be closer to both sides of the CB than the other eye is.

c, The pre-pivot aim line is 1.125" to the side of the secondary aim line.

The secondary alignment line is through the side of the CB. 1 1/8" inside of that is back to the center of the CB. If the pre-pivot stick line is already at center, there would be no pivot to get to center.

... This is what I have been diagramming in ACAD and have extracted the cut angles form the CTEL to the pocket/target for 1/8, 1/4 "A", 1/2 "B" 3/4 "C" and the other side 1/8. I can graph these results like jal does so well. I can diagram 1/16, 3/16, 5/16 etc. and add these resulting angles to the graph and arrive at a curved line that intersects these points so one can look up any cut angle.

I believe that Mike has this memorized, or can, to accomplish all of the cut angles +/- human error. Others can use the graph to move the llearning process along. If one sees a cut angle between "A" and "B" then one can aim for a secondary spot on the OB between them etc. ...

Are you saying that the CTE user should memorize a bunch of cut angles and an array of secondary alignment lines (more than just to A/C or B) that will produce those angles? If so, again, that's not what Stan says to do on the DVD. And do you believe that those cut angles would be the same for each such secondary alignment line regardless of CB-OB distance?

 

[AtLarge]

I think CTE/Pro One is very simple once you have used it for a while.

At first, it may seem like a lot of gyration but it's really not much at all and when you move to Pro One it is a simple movement to the correct aim line, using the two sets of aiming coordinates. The alignment aspect of CTE/Pro One alone is golden. When you combine that with the increased focus and hitting the cueball closer to the center of the cue ball, it puts together a far more attractive package than other aiming systems in my opinion.

Anyway, it's not going to make anyone a champion by itself but it can sure get you in the right position to excelling at your best. At least, I think that's what it has done for me.


JoeyA

Joey, I agree with you that these sorts of objections -- it's too complicated, or it requires too many gyrations, or it requires a pivot after you're down that throws off good mechanics -- would not be significant to me in deciding whether to use the method. However, other reasons might be.

 

[pablocruz]

That's different from what Stan recommends for his manual CTE.



If the head is angled to the CB, the same eye may well be closer to both sides of the CB than the other eye is.



The secondary alignment line is through the side of the CB. 1 1/8" inside of that is back to the center of the CB. If the pre-pivot stick line is already at center, there would be no pivot to get to center.



Are you saying that the CTE user should memorize a bunch of cut angles and an array of secondary alignment lines (more than just to A/C or B) that will produce those angles? If so, again, that's not what Stan says to do on the DVD. And do you believe that those cut angles would be the same for each such secondary alignment line regardless of CB-OB distance?

I'm sure LAMas does not have the DVD nor has he viewed it!!

 

[LAMas]

I'm sure LAMas does not have the DVD nor has he viewed it!!

You are correct sir.

 

[LAMas]

That's different from what Stan recommends for his manual CTE.

I don't have the DVD, but months ago Spidy Dave confirmed that distance for his version of CTE.

If the head is angled to the CB, the same eye may well be closer to both sides of the CB than the other eye is.

I don't see the utility of angling the head to put one eye closer to to both aim lines. Some say not to be square to the shot but to angle the head, and that helps to see both aim lines. This might infer that the cue is not 1.125" to the side of the secondary aim line eye - this complicates my diagramming for the distance between my eyes would be thus less than 2.25". How much less? I can't/won't diagram all of the possibilities.

The secondary alignment line is through the side of the CB. 1 1/8" inside of that is back to the center of the CB. If the pre-pivot stick line is already at center, there would be no pivot to get to center.

I said at large separations between the CB and OB for the tip offsets can be as small as 1/10 of the tip diameter or zero if the secondary aim line puts you on the GB line - it happens in my diagrams.

Are you saying that the CTE user should memorize a bunch of cut angles and an array of secondary alignment lines (more than just to A/C or B) that will produce those angles? If so, again, that's not what Stan says to do on the DVD. And do you believe that those cut angles would be the same for each such secondary alignment line regardless of CB-OB distance?

I don't know what the DVD says to do to achieve every cut angle besides the 1/8/L&R, A/L&R, B/LorR etc. - how many are there for a cut to the right or a cut to the left - not enough. How does one fill in the legion of the other angles? The student must cheat the pivot or increase the fractional aim points on the OB or....you tell me.

What those that have the DVD haven't been able or inclined to divulge how one accomplishes the almost infinite cut angles - Mike comes the closest to revealing his method in a cogent manner - to me.

As one can memorize cut angles to the pocket/target, one can memorize the secondary aim points on the OB to effect those angles. If not, then what - cheat the offset or adjust the bridge length behind the CB? I choose and have diagrammed the most comfortable for me and that is to change the offset and to increase the fractional aim points on the OB until those that have the DVD can or will divulge the answer to the riddle of how to achieve all cut angles - what the yay-sayers have yet to proffer.

I am a mechanical engineer who needs data points and not - "It works, but I don't know how."

A post April fool.:wink::thumbup:

 

[ThePoliteSniper]

Joey, I agree with you that these sorts of objections -- it's too complicated, or it requires too many gyrations, or it requires a pivot after you're down that throws off good mechanics -- would not be significant to me in deciding whether to use the method. However, other reasons might be.

What other reasons?

 

[Mikjary]

That's different from what Stan recommends for his manual CTE.



If the head is angled to the CB, the same eye may well be closer to both sides of the CB than the other eye is.



The secondary alignment line is through the side of the CB. 1 1/8" inside of that is back to the center of the CB. If the pre-pivot stick line is already at center, there would be no pivot to get to center.



Are you saying that the CTE user should memorize a bunch of cut angles and an array of secondary alignment lines (more than just to A/C or B) that will produce those angles? If so, again, that's not what Stan says to do on the DVD. And do you believe that those cut angles would be the same for each such secondary alignment line regardless of CB-OB distance?

LAMas has morphed into a version of Cte that works for him. Rather than rely on a visual setup to adjust for each shot angle, he has incremented positions on the object ball for reference ponts for each shot solution.
These points are in between the A,B,C lines given in the dvd.

I understand his need for precise reference points (engineers are made that way ) although this is done for me automatically by my visuals. I don't have to think about this, but it is really what is happening as I set up my stance. My eyes give me information and I use this feedback to get on the correct alignment.

Visual information is not "feel". It is the first mechanical thing a user does on each shot. It can take a nano second or ten seconds. You physically move your eyes to gather the information needed to pocket the ball. The next mechanical movement involves your head to faclitate this movement, followed by your body into the stance/approach.

LAMas does not like to relinquish control of this approach to his subconscious mind until he fully understands what he is actually doing. Although for most players, the mind is using this type of process unseen to guide the alignment. Our brains are capable of this quick adjustment better than our conscious minds are, hence the center pocket accuracy of the system. It wows the first time user when they start to hit more accurately in the pockets. No amount of careful aiming can produce what the mind does effortlessly. When we are in dead stroke, we don't even remember half of the shots because we've released control to this part of our mind. LAMas is determined to figure out the mechanical portion of Cte and he gets closer everyday. Thank you Big E for your efforts!:thumbup:

Best,
Mike

 

[swest]

No amount of careful aiming can produce what the mind does effortlessly.

I contend that this statement contravenes the basic need that CTE and its ilk purport to fill; and further, this statement falls right in line with what the so-called naysayers have been saying all along.

 

[Mikjary]

I contend that this statement contravenes the basic need that CTE and its ilk purport to fill; and further, this statement falls right in line with what the so-called naysayers have been saying all along.

As a representative for the "Ilk" group, thank you for your opinion and contribution to the discussion. I assume you are completely familiar with using pivot systems and from experience are enlightening us. Kind of like a public service message because it's obvious how much you care about people you don't even know. ;-)

Best,
Mike

 

[swest]

As a representative for the "Ilk" group, thank you for your opinion and contribution to the discussion. I assume you are completely familiar with using pivot systems and from experience are enlightening us. Kind of like a public service message because it's obvious how much you care about people you don't even know. :ignore:

Best,
Mike

ilk
1    /ɪlk/ Show Spelled[ilk] Show IPA
–noun
1.
family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.


No need to quote "ilk", as if it were some kind of insult. It wasn't.

You made a statement to which I responded. If you take issue with my assertion, then you should simply dispute it, right?

 

[swest]

As a representative for the "Ilk" group, thank you for your opinion and contribution to the discussion. I assume you are completely familiar with using pivot systems and from experience are enlightening us. Kind of like a public service message because it's obvious how much you care about people you don't even know. :ignore:

Best,
Mike

ilk
1    /ɪlk/ Show Spelled[ilk] Show IPA
–noun
1.
family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.


No need to quote "ilk", as if it were some kind of insult. It wasn't.

You made a statement to which I responded. If you take issue with my assertion, then you should simply dispute it, right?

p.s. The "ilk" to which I referred were the other variations of CTE, not the proponents of those variations.


OOPS... sorry, didn't mean to re-post this. I thought I was editing it.

 

[Mikjary]

ilk
1    /ɪlk/ Show Spelled[ilk] Show IPA
–noun
1.
family, class, or kind: he and all his ilk.


No need to quote "ilk", as if it were some kind of insult. It wasn't.

You made a statement to which I responded. If you take issue with my assertion, then you should simply dispute it, right?

p.s. The "ilk" to which I referred were the other variations of CTE, not the proponents of those variations.


OOPS... sorry, didn't mean to re-post this. I thought I was editing it.

Thanks for the info.

Ilk is actually a pretty cool word if you think about it. It has now become the new spring vogue for pivot systems. We'll have to figure out what the individual letters stand for so our membership can identify with it. "I" would probably have to stand for, "International", as Joey A is emphasizing when he talks about Cte's popularity. What about the L and the K?

Help me out here, guys! I've developed a hinder binder in the area where I do most of my thinking. :grin-square:

Best,
Mike

The K will, under penalty of a foot in the a$$, not be used for the word Klan.

 

[AtLarge]

Joey, I agree with you that these sorts of objections -- it's too complicated, or it requires too many gyrations, or it requires a pivot after you're down that throws off good mechanics -- would not be significant to me in deciding whether to use the method. However, other reasons might be.

What other reasons?

Here's how I stated my current view of CTE a few days ago: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=2935085&postcount=584.

I don't want to base my play on a discrete aiming system when a simple, continuous system is available. And, as I said in the post cited above, to make CTE work with great proficiency at all cut angles for all CB-OB distances takes considerable experience to ingrain the needed "feel" adjustments, to make it subconscious, to make it continuous. I'm not sure I see sufficient potential benefit in it for my game to try to do that.

 

[jwpretd]

Thanks for the info.

Ilk is actually a pretty cool word if you think about it. It has now become the new spring vogue for pivot systems. We'll have to figure out what the individual letters stand for so our membership can identify with it. "I" would probably have to stand for, "International", as Joey A is emphasizing when he talks about Cte's popularity. What about the L and the K?

L --> Lacedaemonian

I had some hope for "kuisti" but I can't think of any way to justify it.

 

[Mikjary]

L --> Lacedaemonian

I had some hope for "kuisti" but I can't think of any way to justify it.

I knew the first reference from writing long, fact filled English papers in college. It is appropriate given the climate and perfection necessary to get an inch in these threads. :wink:

The second one, kuisti, was a toughie. Glad I didn't get that one on a spelling bee. I googled it and can honestly say it contributed to my word knowledge base. As a general contractor, I have to be familiar with many types of obscure references to building material and architecture, archaic or cutting edge.

It's another cool word, though it would be hard to justify in this context. How about this for a disarming, completely innocent sentence..."I'm going to jump up and down on your kuisti"! :grin-square: That would get my attention!

International...In honor of AZB's own, Joey A
Lacedaemonian...credit John Pierce (nobody would've thought of this!)
K ? Anybody? After Lacedaemonian, this will be a tough act to follow! :wink:

Best,
Mike

 

[3RAILKICK]

I knew the first reference from writing long, fact filled English papers in college. It is appropriate given the climate and perfection necessary to get an inch in these threads. :wink:

The second one, kuisti, was a toughie. Glad I didn't get that one on a spelling bee. I googled it and can honestly say it contributed to my word knowledge base. As a general contractor, I have to be familiar with many types of obscure references to building material and architecture, archaic or cutting edge.

It's another cool word, though it would be hard to justify in this context. How about this for a disarming, completely innocent sentence..."I'm going to jump up and down on your kuisti"! :grin-square: That would get my attention!

International...In honor of AZB's own, Joey A
Lacedaemonian...credit John Pierce (nobody would've thought of this!)
K ? Anybody? After Lacedaemonian, this will be a tough act to follow! :wink:

Best,
Mike

K for ...Kit or kaboodle?/kaste(fka caste)?..or kanondrum?

-korrect spelling should not be a Kriteria-

just tryn to help a brother out

-Morn-en, Mike.