PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[Patrick Johnson]

As soon as you learn to use the words, "visual intelligence", and start learning the details of the system, will your ideas be accepted by the users.

Why would I use two words ("visual intelligence") when one ("feel") describes the same thing? And "the users" will never "accept" my ideas. It's literally against their religion.

Your insistence on down playing the system with the catch all phrase, "feel"

I don't "downplay" the system when I say it involves feel - CTE users do that. You're doing it right here by assuming that feel is some kind of insult toward aiming systems. I've pointed out many times that everybody aims by feel, including me.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Scottjen26:
Hard for me to just post "it works" or "it doesn't work" and leave it at that.

That's why you get respectful replies from me. The question has never been about whether or not CTE "works", but how players work with it. Those (on either side) who oversimplify the discussion are the main reason for all the polarization.

pj
chgo

 

[jwpretd]

I love when people start typing like college professors. Then you KNOW it's serious. Or maybe you are a professor!

No, but I lived with a whole bunch of them for a very long time. I learned very early on the value of attempting to be precise. Unfortunately, precision generally takes a lot of words, not all of them short.

 

[Mikjary]

It's not that simple. As I've said several times -- if performed robotically, Stan's CTE is a discrete aiming method ("x-angle system" in pj's terms) rather than a continuous aiming method. That means, on paper, that it offers only a limited number of cut angles for any given distance between the CB and OB. If the CB-OB distance changes, you get another set of cut angles.

In use, however, I believe many players actually convert it into something more flexible (more cut angles) by slightly modifying something either before or after the pivot, based upon their knowledge of where the pocket is. I think those "feel" adjustments can become so routine and ingrained that the method starts to seem like a continuous method (unlimited cut angles at any CB-OB distance).

I'll say again what has been said many times about why it is an "x-angle" system. Let's say we're talking about cuts to the left. Stan's method calls for sighting the CB center to the OB right edge. That's the CTEL. Now, we have a secondary alignment line and a pivot direction to choose. But the menu offers only 6 choices for these: A with right pivot, A with left pivot, B with right pivot, B with left pivot, 1/8 to 1/8 with right pivot, and 1/8 to 1/8 with left pivot.

Assume the CB and OB are 3 feet apart. Place them anywhere on a flat surface. Forget about any pocket for now. Stan's method, if performed robotically for the two balls 3 feet apart, offers just 6 ways to align yourself, i.e., 6 ways to determine the final direction of aim of the cue stick. You could run through the entire menu of 6 ways to cut the OB to the left, replacing the two balls identically each time. You'll get 6 different lines of travel for the OB, i.e., 6 actual cut angles. Repeat the drill as many times as you want to with a 3-foot separation between the balls. You have only 6 menu items or 6 sets of instructions. If you do each of them the same way each time, you'll get the same cut angle each time for each of the 6 alignment-menu selections.

Now transfer the two balls to a pool table, but keep them 3 feet apart. You have the same 6 menu items or sets of instructions. If you perform them the same way, you should get the same 6 cut angles. But now, you have an intended pocket for the OB. This, at last, means you must choose just one of the 6 menu items for alignment. If you choose the best of the 6, and perform your alignment exactly as you did on the flat surface with no pockets, you should get the same cut angle that you did on the flat surface with no pockets. That actual cut angle may or may not be the cut angle necessary to pocket the shot. What increases the likelihood that the shot will be pocketed is that the player now knows precisely where the pocket is. His "visual intelligence," as some have called it, allows him to slightly modify something in his visuals, or in his stance, or in his approach to the table, or in his offset, or in his pivot, or ... in something. And that adjustment, be it conscious or subconscious, converts the 6-angle system into a more continuous system (far more cut angles for that 3-foot CB-OB distance).

This is a logical post. No whining or name calling. Just facts and possible paths to research.

Best,
Mike

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If the data doesn't fit the theory, you make a conscientious effort to find out why there's a discrepancy.

You mean like the data that doesn't support the claim that CTE is "exact"?

... since the only data we have isn't in accord with your "logically obvious answer"

What data (excluding bald assertions, which aren't "data") isn't in accord with aiming by feel?

I grant that personal testimony isn't the best data we could ask for

We don't have "personal testimony"; we have bald assertions that contradict the real data we do have.

but it is all that we have.

Not even close.

What I find odd is the reluctance those who don't accept the data presented by CTE/ProOne users to themselves conduct physical experiments to gather data they trust.

You consider "it works for me" to be more credible data about how CTE works than the undeniable geometry?

I also note that acceptance of the "logically obvious answer" kept people believing that the sun rotates around the earth for quite a long period of time.

Cute, but I think our understanding of the geometry of aiming today might be a little more advanced than our understanding of astronomy in the 17th century. At least most of us.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

Now transfer the two balls to a pool table, but keep them 3 feet apart. You have the same 6 menu items or sets of instructions. If you perform them the same way, you should get the same 6 cut angles. But now, you have an intended pocket for the OB. This, at last, means you must choose just one of the 6 menu items for alignment. If you choose the best of the 6, and perform your alignment exactly as you did on the flat surface with no pockets, you should get the same cut angle that you did on the flat surface with no pockets. That actual cut angle may or may not be the cut angle necessary to pocket the shot. What increases the likelihood that the shot will be pocketed is that the player now knows precisely where the pocket is. His "visual intelligence," as some have called it, allows him to slightly modify something in his visuals, or in his stance, or in his approach to the table, or in his offset, or in his pivot, or ... in something. And that adjustment, be it conscious or subconscious, converts the 6-angle system into a more continuous system (far more cut angles for that 3-foot CB-OB distance).

While I think it's true that with any ob cb placement you can produce 6 different cut angles with at least one of them sending the object ball into a pocket, however any different ball placement( ob or cb ) also produces 6 different cut angles. Everytime a cb or ob changes location the angle to the pocket changes and while your still sighting the ctel and reference line your producing a different angle. Visual intelligence has little to do with feel or adjustments. You use your visual intelligence to accurately sight the ctel and reference lines.

 

[dr_dave]

... I think it's true that with any ob cb placement you can produce 6 different cut angles with at least one of them sending the object ball into a pocket ...

... only if you choose the correct alignment and pivot (of the 6 choices), and only if the cut angle created by the selected alignment and pivot (for the given CB-OB distance) happens to be close to the cut angle required to pocket the ball.

Please don't take any offense at my reply ... none is intended.

Regards,
Dave

 

[LAMas]

Will those that are competent with their version of Hal's CTE convert or revert after trying CTE/Pro-1?

 

[LAMas]

At some distance between the CB and OB and bridge behind the CB:

On cuts to the left, while aiming the left edge of the CB to the aim point, say "A" on the OB, and say the 1/2 tip offset to the left, achieves a 22 degree cut angle after pivoting right.

On cuts to the left, while aiming the left edge of the CB to the aim point, say "A" on the OB, and say the 1/2 tip offset to the right, achieves a 14 degree cut angle after pivoting left.

On cuts to the left, while aiming the left edge of the CB to the aim point, say "A" on the OB, then with no tip offset achieves a 17 degree cut angle with no pivot. This cut angle lies between the 22 degrees and the 14 degrees.

Is this a viable way to increase the number of cut angles?

:thumbup:

 

[AtLarge]

... IMO, this is the best description and summary to date of the crux of the matter concerning all fractional-ball or align-and-pivot aiming systems, including Stan's version of CTE. FYI, I've added your quote to my CTE resource page.

Thank you. Here's a bit more of what I said 10 days ago about this (you've been on posting hiatus!), including reference to another aiming system:

Here's an analogy. The "quarters" system -- or SAM or something similar -- is an x-angle system. Many players use these systems with high proficiency -- snooker players included, apparently. But we know that a relatively small number of cut angles is not enough to play at a high level. So the user develops a keen sense of needing to go a little thinner or a little thicker off of each of the reference cut lines, thereby converting the x angles into many more. This way of adjusting becomes ingrained, natural, automatic -- almost systematic, yet it can also be labeled "feel."

With Stan's manual CTE, it's harder to understand what's going on for the adjustments. The multiple visual alignment lines and the pivoting complicate the analysis. It has often been said in the past that CTE just gets the user in the ballpark and then he adjusts as needed. That's just one way of adjusting. I think it can also become built-in to the alignment process -- shade something a little here or there, wind up at a slightly different cut angle.​

 

[JoeyA]

It seems that some of the disussionists are suggesting that CTE/Pro One is an aiming and alignment system that when you use this system it gets you so close to the correct aiming line to pocket the ball, that a little experience and the shooter does an auto correct for shots that reportedly don't go.

IFthat is the case, then the shooter must most certainly be doing his adjusting BEFORE he places his hand on the table. BECAUSE, there is no adjustment after pivoting or moving to the center of the cue ball, the exception being"adjusting for speed and spin.

IF CTE/Pro One can do all of the miraculous things, it must be one hell of an aiming and alignment system.

I've been using contact point to contact point aiming for a long, long time and while I don't claim to be an extraordinary shooter, I have to really guess very hard at some shots. It seems that most top players use some form of contact point to contact point aiming system and instinctually aim correctly at the shot using feel.

Now if you agree with that assumption, then you're saying that CTE/Pro One helps a player do exactly that which the top players accomplish by hitting a million balls. Or do you still need to hit that million balls so that you have the experience to know when to adjust for those angles that the shot reportedly doesn't go?

Anyway that you cut it, CTE/Pro One seems to be the way to go if you're serious about playing better pool.

More information flowing in from across the pond. Apparently, MORE TOP PROFESSIONAL players are using CTE/Pro One to pocket balls, even making exclamations about how CTE/Pro One helps their banking game. Those snooker guys are pretty spiffy with their shooting as I recall.

I guess the belittling of CTE/Pro One and the users is going to continue to shrink as more and more people "get it". It's too bad that the Naysayers haven't got off their arse and learned how to use it effectively because they then could answer their own questions. Even so, the weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth has slowed to just a reluctant munch and that's nice too.

Keep up the good work guys. Hope someone figures out why CTE/Pro One works so well, soon.

JoeyA

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JoeyAds:
CTE/Pro One seems to be the way to go if you're serious about playing better pool.

At least it seems that way for six people on AzB.

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

At least it seems that way for six people on AzB.

pj
chgo

Do you contend that CTE/Pro One doesn't help a person play better pool, or are you one of the six people on AZB who does believes it helps improve their pool game?

I just want to "hear" you say it.

JoeyA

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Do you contend that CTE/Pro One doesn't help a person play better pool, or are you one of the six people on AZB who does believes it helps improve their pool game?

I just want to "hear" you say it.

JoeyA

Can you speak up a little?

pj
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

Can you speak up a little?

I guess he's scared....
JoeyA

 

[jwpretd]

... I wonder if the relationship of the offset position to the CTE line or some other visual or geometric part of the system is auto-adjusting for those angles in between the finite 6 positions? Or our brains are just that good at interpreting seamlessly between them? Or there's something else at work that I don't currently understand?

Currently, I'm inclined to the first (offset to the CTE line), abetted by the second (other visual or geometric part).

I don't distinguish much between the "visual" and "geometric" parts. The geometry of the alignment, bridge placement, and pivot-to-center-CB process is based solely on what the player sees (and visualizes).

As for other interpretations of the visual data, humans are (or can learn to be) fairly good at distinguishing small angles. In the context of manual CTE, the question would then be "To what extent, if at all, does the visual difference between a 16-degree cut and a 29-degree cut affect (perhaps subconsciously) the way in which the player initially aligns themselves to visualize the CTE and secondary aim lines?" (Those two angles were chosen because their prescribed alignments are the same.) For example, would it cause the player to approach the CTE line at 35 degrees instead of 30 degrees? At the moment, I have no idea, though I'd be a bit surprised if was no influence whatsoever.

Is there something else at work which isn't understood? If CTE is like most things, the answer has to be "probably - that's one of the things we're trying to find out".

 

[jwpretd]

You mean like the data that doesn't support the claim that CTE is "exact"?

What data? Are you considering calculations to be "data"? I also don't believe I've seen, from anybody, a definition of "exact" in this context.

What data (excluding bald assertions, which aren't "data") isn't in accord with aiming by feel?

Is that the standard? That whatever data might support CTE as being a working aiming system, sufficiently "exact" (whatever that might mean) for its purposes, must also demonstrate that the same level of exactness can't be accomplished by "feel", however the latter might be defined?[/QUOTE]

We don't have "personal testimony"; we have bald assertions that contradict the real data we do have.

So the statements of Ekkers, Stan, Landon, and Stevie Moore (all of whose actions can be seen) as to what they are doing are "bald assertions" rather than personal testimony as to what they're physically doing? Or is it that they don't know what they're physically doing?

You consider "it works for me" to be more credible data about how CTE works than the undeniable geometry?

When that geometry can't be shown to exactly model the system in question, yes, I do. (Note that this is actually testable.)

... I think our understanding of the geometry of aiming today might be a little more advanced than our understanding of astronomy in the 17th century. At least most of us.

When that geometry involves three vanishing point perspective and human perception, I'm not at all certain I would agree with that.

 

[jwpretd]

Originally Posted by cookie man:
... I think it's true that with any ob cb placement you can produce 6 different cut angles with at least one of them sending the object ball into a pocket ...

... only if you choose the correct alignment and pivot (of the 6 choices), and only if the cut angle created by the selected alignment and pivot (for the given CB-OB distance) happens to be close to the cut angle required to pocket the ball.

Do we know that as the player approaches the table to obtain his "visuals" his angle to the CB-OB line must be the same for all cut angles within a given range? As an example:

For cut angles 16 to 29 degrees (I'm avoiding boundary conditions) is the angle of the player's body/eyes supposed to be constant with respect to, e.g., the CB-OB line? (I don't remember Stan saying that and I don't have a note to that effect, but that doesn't mean much.) If that angle is not required to be constant over that range, then there seem to be three questions worth asking:

1. For the given range of cut angles, is there a range of angles with respect to the CB-OB line at which the player may stand and obtain the correct CTE and CBEdge to AimPoint "visuals"?

2. If the answer to (1) is yes, does changing that angle influence the player's perception of the positions, with respect to the CB-OB line, of the CTE and CBEdge to AimPoint lines?

3. If the answer to (2) is yes, then does that alter the cut angle(s) for which the nominally same visual alignment will work?

 

[cookie man]

... only if you choose the correct alignment and pivot (of the 6 choices), and only if the cut angle created by the selected alignment and pivot (for the given CB-OB distance) happens to be close to the cut angle required to pocket the ball.

Please don't take any offense at my reply ... none is intended.

Regards,
Dave

Common sense tells us we have to choose the correct visual and pivot, and when we do the cut angle created is not only close it is right on to pocket the ball. Truth is most shots can be shot into 2 different pockets with cte/pro-one by using a different reference line. Stevie shoots the same ball alignment into 3 different pockets. Really surprised you havn't spent the time at the table to understand cte/pro-one, you've had the dvd for awhile right? Feel is for speed and spin.

 

[eezbank]

Obviously they're not made by the system; they're made by you (yep, by feel).

Is this really the best you can come up with after all this discussion?

pj
chgo

P.S. 87 degrees does not equal 87 cut angles.

Yes, this is the best I can do. I'm light years ahead of you because I took the time to learn how to pocket balls with the system. It's funny to watch you try to wordsmith and posture yourself as an expert on a subject you obviously can't understand. Until you put some time in on the table your contribution on the subject of PRO ONE is limited. I don't know why any of us even bother to respond to you or the questions you keep asking.