cte/pro1

[JB Cases]

I remember the video,Spidey just don't miss.He need's no aiming system.:smile:

Except that he says he does and is a better player for it.

Regarding Dr. Dave's CTE information. I feel that he is not being fully "scholarly" in his approach to this method of aiming.

I think he has injected a fair amount of mocking and a little venom into it. And by him picking whatever "versions" he finds on the web and pasting that to his site he is increasing the confusion rather than clearing it up.

He knows full well that Stan has put in a ton of hours understanding this method and yet won't bother to call Stan and work it out. He allows for tons of critical comments by people who have never even tried for one second to learn CTE. And by that I mean not one second of just duplicating the motions. Yet Dave publishes on his site, which IS taken as a authority reference, OPINIONS from the rabid anti-system people and includes his own mocking of it.

Everywhere else on his site the information is great and presented in a nice technical, slightly dry, method that is easy to follow and understand. But on the subject of CTE aiming and Hal Houle in general Dave has fallen far short of the scholar's mark in my opinion.

It's unfortunate that Dave has drawn this line in the sand and prefers to pollute rather than help to clean up the available information on a fantastic method of aiming.

 

[nobcitypool]

One of your shorter and better posts. LOL I agree and would add that I for one would like to see Dr Dave, and perhaps Bob Jewitt, invest some time in understanding Stan's CTE/Pro One. Then, provide a technical explanation of why it works. I've seen enough to feel certain it is a viable aiming system and will work if applied properly.

To my knowledge, no one has been able to or taken the time to attempt to break it down and explain why it works from a pool and table geometry point of view. I would think this system would be right up Dr Dave and Bob Jewitt's alley as it is the one system that involves zero feel. I believe those that have taken the time to learn CTE/Pro One knows it works, I'd also be interested in understanding the why and the how of it. To be clear, however, the fact that it clearly works is most important.

Except that he says he does and is a better player for it.

Regarding Dr. Dave's CTE information. I feel that he is not being fully "scholarly" in his approach to this method of aiming.

I think he has injected a fair amount of mocking and a little venom into it. And by him picking whatever "versions" he finds on the web and pasting that to his site he is increasing the confusion rather than clearing it up.

He knows full well that Stan has put in a ton of hours understanding this method and yet won't bother to call Stan and work it out. He allows for tons of critical comments by people who have never even tried for one second to learn CTE. And by that I mean not one second of just duplicating the motions. Yet Dave publishes on his site, which IS taken as a authority reference, OPINIONS from the rabid anti-system people and includes his own mocking of it.

Everywhere else on his site the information is great and presented in a nice technical, slightly dry, method that is easy to follow and understand. But on the subject of CTE aiming and Hal Houle in general Dave has fallen far short of the scholar's mark in my opinion.

It's unfortunate that Dave has drawn this line in the sand and prefers to pollute rather than help to clean up the available information on a fantastic method of aiming.

 

[8pack]

Except that he says he does and is a better player for it.

Regarding Dr. Dave's CTE information. I feel that he is not being fully "scholarly" in his approach to this method of aiming.

I think he has injected a fair amount of mocking and a little venom into it. And by him picking whatever "versions" he finds on the web and pasting that to his site he is increasing the confusion rather than clearing it up.

He knows full well that Stan has put in a ton of hours understanding this method and yet won't bother to call Stan and work it out. He allows for tons of critical comments by people who have never even tried for one second to learn CTE. And by that I mean not one second of just duplicating the motions. Yet Dave publishes on his site, which IS taken as a authority reference, OPINIONS from the rabid anti-system people and includes his own mocking of it.

Everywhere else on his site the information is great and presented in a nice technical, slightly dry, method that is easy to follow and understand. But on the subject of CTE aiming and Hal Houle in general Dave has fallen far short of the scholar's mark in my opinion.

It's unfortunate that Dave has drawn this line in the sand and prefers to pollute rather than help to clean up the available information on a fantastic method of aiming.

I've yet to hear a clear explanation on why I(anyone)can come up with a potting angle in between the visuals. I wonder why so many people are having trouble.If you buy into something and its not working for you should we just assume its are own fault?(not enough practice)I knows there's a lot of bickering back and forth but I think it tends to bring more of an understanding of the topic to the surface.

Anthony

 

[8pack]

right sweep, contact point will be from A to the middle of A-B. Its always around there when shooting an inside C shot <<<<<

So the sweep is from right to left?It looked like in the video he was going left to rite.

 

[LAMas]

Are these visuals a starting point?

 

[LAMas]

are you talking about eye position Lamas?

The picture tells the story.:smile:

 

[8pack]

Yep, right to left. I personally don't really even see him sweep at all lol I know what he is doing by the angle of the shots he is trying. There all inside C shots.

Whats inside c shots mean.


Anthony

 

[LAMas]

I personally believe my left eye leads me into all shots, it doesn't matter if its a cut to the left or right. I am at a level with the system now that i can walk into a shot and just drop pretty much without paying much attention to the lines. I can actually just drop my bridge strait down on the correct line without sliding my hand into position also.

I have been shooting this system since day one and learned it all on my own off dvd 1 with no phone calls or lessons from stan or anyone. fail was not an option for me, I was determined to learn it and posted up pro1 videos a couple years ago :thumbup:

Kudos.:thumbup:
You must have a fabulous memory to recall the visuals from only the left eye for cuts to the right which is a different visual for cuts to the left...by definition.

 

[8pack]

I personally believe my left eye leads me into all shots, it doesn't matter if its a cut to the left or right. I am at a level with the system now that i can walk into a shot and just drop pretty much without paying much attention to the lines. I can actually just drop my bridge strait down on the correct line without sliding my hand into position also.

I have been shooting this system since day one and learned it all on my own off dvd 1 with no phone calls or lessons from stan or anyone. fail was not an option for me, I was determined to learn it and posted up pro1 videos a couple years ago :thumbup:

The way a person uses his eyes to pick up the lines in the early stages of the system may change when he hits an advanced users level with the system, i am thinking. The system evolves the more experienced you get at it.

You cant do that,there are rules (guidlines)to follow.

 

[JB Cases]

One of your shorter and better posts. LOL I agree and would add that I for one would like to see Dr Dave, and perhaps Bob Jewitt, invest some time in understanding Stan's CTE/Pro One. Then, provide a technical explanation of why it works. I've seen enough to feel certain it is a viable aiming system and will work if applied properly.

To my knowledge, no one has been able to or taken the time to attempt to break it down and explain why it works from a pool and table geometry point of view. I would think this system would be right up Dr Dave and Bob Jewitt's alley as it is the one system that involves zero feel. I believe those that have taken the time to learn CTE/Pro One knows it works, I'd also be interested in understanding the why and the how of it. To be clear, however, the fact that it clearly works is most important.

They have made their position very clear as to why they think it works. Subconscious Adjustment. Their view is that CTE gets close and your brain makes up the difference guiding your bridge hand to the shot line.

To which i say that this might be possible but the application of the method certainly feels like no adjustment. And so if you are on autopilot then you do not need to care about angles.

But i think that there has to be more to it than this. It simply too strong a method in my opinion to leave it under the magical umbrella of subconscious adjustment.

Tony said no one explained it to him how it can be to get to the shot line but i put a theory out on here showing the exit lines at the back of the cb and no one even bothers to look at it.

So if no one cares to really get into the mechanics from all angles the it will be forever shrouded in some mystery as to why it works.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

 

[LAMas]

You cant do that,there are rules (guidlines)to follow.

He has created, morphed a new aiming system...DVD on the way?

 

[LAMas]

I use my right eye also but always lead with the left I believe. I don't own a table so i am just thinking about it I honestly never worried about what eye does what when I was learning cte/pro1. All i new was i had to try and pick up both lines from behind the shot lol

Then nevermind. Nothing to learn here...move along.

 

[8pack]

You would be surprised at how fast of a pace I can just shoot manual cte at.

Nothing surprises me anymore.:smile:
Since Gerry hasn't answered my question.He said he repeated the same process on all four shots.Did the sweep he was doing create a thicker hit on the ball or create a thinner hit on the ball?He said the sweep was the same.

 

[nobcitypool]

Absolutely absurd. I guess that is easier and less humbling than to say "I apparently have no clue how this works." John, while it would take more work to actually figure out the math and geometry to explain how it works at a higher level of abstraction, one could easily work out the angles with some graph paper. You could take whatever sample size you decide you have the time for and graph it out for that many shots at various points of the table. One can certainly determine the aim line for the OB to the pocket. From there, it is easy to determine the theoretically correct line of the CB to the OB necessary to pocket the shot. Obviously, that yields the line of the cue stick through CCB. Now just work backwards by reversing the pivot and seeing if that line backs into the visuals.

We should put together a pool for people to donate to in order to raise $1000 or so. We then contact the Math Department at a technical or engineering school. Offer the $1000 as a scholarship to one of their students that can describe the math and geometry. First one correctly submitted wins. I would predict it would take less than 5 days to get a correct answer back.

They have made their position very clear as to why they think it works. Subconscious Adjustment. Their view is that CTE gets close and your brain makes up the difference guiding your bridge hand to the shot line.

To which i say that this might be possible but the application of the method certainly feels like no adjustment. And so if you are on autopilot then you do not need to care about angles.

But i think that there has to be more to it than this. It simply too strong a method in my opinion to leave it under the magical umbrella of subconscious adjustment.

Tony said no one explained it to him how it can be to get to the shot line but i put a theory out on here showing the exit lines at the back of the cb and no one even bothers to look at it.

So if no one cares to really get into the mechanics from all angles the it will be forever shrouded in some mystery as to why it works.

Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2

 

[LAMas]

Absolutely absurd. I guess that is easier and less humbling than to say "I apparently have no clue how this works." John, while it would take more work to actually figure out the math and geometry to explain how it works at a higher level of abstraction, one could easily work out the angles with some graph paper. You could take whatever sample size you decide you have the time for and graph it out for that many shots at various points of the table. One can certainly determine the aim line for the OB to the pocket. From there, it is easy to determine the theoretically correct line of the CB to the OB necessary to pocket the shot. Obviously, that yields the line of the cue stick through CCB. Now just work backwards by reversing the pivot and seeing if that line backs into the visuals.

We should put together a pool for people to donate to in order to raise $1000 or so. We then contact the Math Department at a technical or engineering school. Offer the $1000 as a scholarship to one of their students that can describe the math and geometry. First one correctly submitted wins. I would predict it would take less than 5 days to get a correct answer back.

You must be wrong. Advanced users do not use tip offsets or the pivot and just go into the shot based on vaguely described visuals.

I watched Stevie Moore shoot at the Swanee and saw no pivot. He dropped into the shot with the cue addressed with the english required to get the desired shape for the next shot...like the other shooters in the tourney. He also had DVDs for sale.:wink:

 

[nobcitypool]

You must be wrong. Advanced users do not use tip offsets or the pivot and just go into the shot based on vaguely described visuals.

I watched Stevie Moore shoot at the Swanee and saw no pivot. He dropped into the shot with the cue addressed with the english required to get the desired shape for the next shot...like the other shooters in the tourney. He also had DVDs for sale.:wink:

Are you joking? I can't tell if this is sarcasm. I'm saying Pro One is exactly the same as CTE with the sole difference being the manual pivot in CTE is replicated with the "sweeps" or "inside/outside movements" in Pro One. I can't imagine a high level professional utilizing CTE with manual pivots. The point in my post was the math could be determined with CTE because you have objective points to look at. You could see the CTE line, you could assume a 12" bridge for example and then also determine where the half tip pivot moved the cue line to.

 

[BeiberLvr]

You must be wrong. Advanced users do not use tip offsets or the pivot and just go into the shot based on vaguely described visuals.

I watched Stevie Moore shoot at the Swanee and saw no pivot. He dropped into the shot with the cue addressed with the english required to get the desired shape for the next shot...like the other shooters in the tourney. He also had DVDs for sale.:wink:

1. The pivot is extremely subtle. That's pretty much common knowledge now, so why you were wasting your time looking for one is beyond me.

2. Coming down into the shot with the english applied is also pretty common in Pro One. Stan covers it in the DVD, but I'm guessing you'd have to actually watch it to know.

 

[JB Cases]

Absolutely absurd. I guess that is easier and less humbling than to say "I apparently have no clue how this works." John, while it would take more work to actually figure out the math and geometry to explain how it works at a higher level of abstraction, one could easily work out the angles with some graph paper. You could take whatever sample size you decide you have the time for and graph it out for that many shots at various points of the table. One can certainly determine the aim line for the OB to the pocket. From there, it is easy to determine the theoretically correct line of the CB to the OB necessary to pocket the shot. Obviously, that yields the line of the cue stick through CCB. Now just work backwards by reversing the pivot and seeing if that line backs into the visuals.

We should put together a pool for people to donate to in order to raise $1000 or so. We then contact the Math Department at a technical or engineering school. Offer the $1000 as a scholarship to one of their students that can describe the math and geometry. First one correctly submitted wins. I would predict it would take less than 5 days to get a correct answer back.

I will donate $100 toward the "math prize" for the equation to CTE. Only problem is that I would have zero clue as to the validity of any equation put forth.

Let me share a few that have been helpful (not) to me over the years. I keep these as powerpoints on my laptop whenever I meet anyone who could use some tips on how to play pool.

I can't find the one that was done for Ghost Ball, someone posted what they said was the exact formula that governs Ghost Ball. I have saved it somewhere and when I find it I intend to make a poster of it that I hope will hang in every pool room in the world.

Here is what it ALL boils down to for me.

If I tell a person that they should imagine a ball to aim to and they start making everything they shoot at then I find that to be awesome. Neither they nor I needs to know any more about the details of why this works.

If I tell a person to start with the edge and pick one of three secondary points and slide into the shot and this works for them then I find that to be awesome and neither of us needs to know any more about why this works.

Every person is the same and every person is different. I can ask you to tell me how long a board is and you might say it's 4ft and another person might guess 3 feet. Then I ask for the middle to be marked and people can be off by more than an inch.

However if I put a tiny almost imperceptible dot right in the center then the margin of error decreases tremendously because the viewer has something objective to orient to.

Since as far as we know math rules the universe then of course math rules how we can start with a fixed cue ball and have two different angles to the pocket and end up on the shot line for either shot using the exact same steps for both shots. But we as shooters don't need to know that math. We simply follow the directions and shoot the white ball straight and the object ball falls in.

As we advance as players or as we decently advanced players figure out that this does really work and we place our trust in it then we figure out the little nuances and times when we would WANT to deliberately adjust. To give a little juice here, account for cloth conditions there, cheat the pocket a little here, cinch the shot.....etc.... But the method gives us a rock solid way to get on the shot line we feel comfortable with.

Now, some people will never get it. They will never be able to let go of the real need to understand the math or have some hard explanation of why it works. Using terms like visual intelligence and rotating centers and visual sweeps is too imprecise for them. They view the world in terms of either that which is measured and that which is estimated. That's just how some people are. They can't let go and follow directions and try to experience it through doing.

I am 50/50 on the fence. It drives me absolutely nuts that I don't have a better explanation of WHY Hal's/Stan's methods work. I have been plagued by this for ten years. But, they work and work freaking awesomely.

That's why I am so disappointed that Dr. Dave does not treat this with the same amount of diligence that he has done with all the other aspects of pool.

Maybe it's because the effects of crashing pool balls and sticks striking balls are easy to film and observe but it's not feasible to get into a person's mind and see what is going on when they are simply standing and looking at a shot. It's possible to image the brain activity of a CTE user and Ghost Ball user but that won't explain the mechanics.

However what Dave COULD do is film a diehard and expert CTE user from multiple angles approaching and shooting many reference shots to break down the exact mechanics. He could move the balls a few inches and record what the shooter does and thus at see IF there is a detectable difference that makes a difference.

But we won't see that happening any time soon if ever. Unfortunately.

 

[JB Cases]

Lol - ok here are 4 shots that I use the exact same visuals and movements on. Are they the same angle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gmz3XSiw_s&feature=youtu.be

Thank you. I think that after a while you look at a shot and immediately it's like c, a , b, right, left....and then it gets so automatic that you don't even consciously say it anymore. You pick up the visuals immediately and drop into the shot line dead perfect.

I did a similar one using the CTE I knew at the time in response to a challenge that it's not possible to use the same aiming on parallel shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb9e6NuNteE&list=PLSKV5CK_fziXC5F0oQJJ-yV7pAtT334y9&index=10

Here I shoot 12 different shots from three fixed cueball/object ball positions and I challenge anyone to show me where I did any thing different on any of these shots. To me it felt like I looked at each shot the same way, that I put my bridge hand down with the tip addressing the edge of the cue ball the same way each time and that I pivoted (settled) into the shooting position at center cue ball the same way each time.

Forgive the music, the shop was very loud so I put music in instead.

 

[JB Cases]

Well if there are know adjustments why is that on a shot that is 45 degree's
and a shot that is 50 degree's, Neither angle is known to you but you make them both with the same movements.I would think you would come up 5 degree's short.
Explain to me where the 5 degree's came from .Is knowing where the pocket is influencing the shot in some way.

Dammit sounds like i wanna argue but I don't.:grin-square:

Anthony

My opinion is because visually both shots are the same. This is why angles are nonsense in my opinion. I think that they are not at all relevant to the discussion. And the reason I think this is for the exact point you made, there is no way to know without a protractor what is 45 and what is 50 degrees other than estimation. The only two shots on the table which are truly known as to the angle is the straight in (0 degrees) and the spot shot from the first diamond at a half diamond in (30 degrees). Every other shot is an estimation and as such bears no relevance to aiming in my opinion. I think that talking in terms of angles confuses the discussion.

Go here and play with it. http://pool.bz/Aiming-Calculator.php

You will find some interesting things. For example with some fixed CB positions to get a degree change from 45 to 50 degrees is a movement of about two ball's width while for another CB position the movement is about a ball or less. Angles are misleading and talking about shots in terms of their angles is just a red herring to the discussion I think.

I think we are beyond angles with CTE. With ProOne there is a formula that absolutely works for every individual shot to align and aim. All possible shots directly to a hole can be correctly aligned to using the CTEL and one of four choices. Why this works for me is because when the shot is 45 degrees you look at it and see the proper choice and go instantly into shooting position. When I move the object ball to 50 degrees you don't stay down, you stand up and move your entire body to face the new shot and you see which choice is the proper one and go instantly to the shooting position.

Every shot is it's own task.