Why CTE/Pro One Works

Stan can you give your line ups for all 6 shots.
Just want to check something out.Thanks

Anthony
 

Attachments

  • Drill cte.jpg
    Drill cte.jpg
    85.1 KB · Views: 1,427
It wasn't finished processing - should work on mobile now too.

Gerry


Tried to view, Gerry, but you are not set to mobil.

Glad you got it!

Stan Shuffett[/QUOTE]
 
Lol - yes it is. He is playing the piano upstairs :)

Nice catch…
[
QUOTE=BeiberLvr;4178378]Is that your kid practicing "Mary Had a Little Lamb"?[/QUOTE]
 
scottjen26 said:
No, what he's saying is that when you graduate from manual pivots to visual pivots or "sweeps", you must "groove your move", so to speak, so that your visual sweep mimics the action of the manual 1/2 tip pivot. That's why, as DTL described, you practice the visual sweep moves on simple shots to begin with so that you can visually verify that the sweep is ending up in the same place as the previously practiced manual movement.

To answer your previous question, Stan showed where to point the cue on DVD 1, but admittedly it was not called out as much as it should have been. It has since been discussed here multiple times, and Stan recently put out a support video that leaves no doubt about this area of the system. Since it's already out there, and even though I don't think you understand the full system, I'll reiterate it.

You align using the proper visuals. You end up with a fixed cue ball as Stan described. Once you have that fixed cue ball, you now move into the shot directly toward that fixed cue ball, with your tip ending up 1/2 tip offset from center. Your tip does not point at a specific spot - CTE line, A, etc. - but rather you move into an offset position from the center of the acquired fixed cue ball.

How this works mathematically I gave up worrying about a long time ago, it just works. From all positions, all distances, all normal shots from 0 - 90 degrees and including banks. Would love to see some enhanced geometry to support it, but that's not necessary. And despite everyone arguing the point constantly, there is a challenge in transforming 3D visual information into a simplified 2D drawing and trying to prove or disprove the system. I believe it could certainly be done, just not by a lay person using pencil and paper, probably not without some sort of computer assisted help that would take into account the reduction in visual size as distance increases between the cue ball and object balls, as this has a large impact on how our eyes perceive the lines and ultimately the fixed cue ball.
Scott
Click to expand...
Scott,

Thanks for taking the time. As an "enemy combatant here" anything offered up is appreciated all the more. I think I'll need to search out some of the discussion concerning the specifics of the alignment, but I think what you said, and in retrospect, what DTL and Stan said, does shed some light on it.

I have to disagree, though, that it works mathematically, assuming that for the span of cut angles covered by one of the reference lines, you always line up in exactly the same way (random variations don't count) and use the same bridge length to pivot. Do you agree that's an impossibility?

The equation for mapping a 3-D layout onto a 2-D image plane, using a pinhole camera model, is actually very simple. It can't provide proof of the system given the above assumption - the law of identity precludes that (no?) - and could only yield the size of the resulting errors if the alignment procedure is well defined. (I'm not yet too sure of the latter.)

Jim
 
Thanks Stan and Gerry,for a minute I thought you 2 was going to come up with something different.:smile:

The same shot by belv,,,,
All 3 of you called the shots the same .These 2 shots are very close to being like 1 and 5 on my on my picture.The 2 balls share the same but are placed different on the table.
Why the change in alinement now?

I will have a video up later doing the drill with I think is pro1 .

Also the same by belv started on c and mine starts on a ..this dont sound rite.

Anthony
 

Attachments

  • 2cte.jpg
    2cte.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 500
  • 3cte.PNG
    3cte.PNG
    24 KB · Views: 489
  • 4cte.PNG
    4cte.PNG
    29.6 KB · Views: 493
  • 1cte.PNG
    1cte.PNG
    8.7 KB · Views: 474
Last edited:
8pack said:
Thanks Stan and Gerry,for a minute I thought you 2 was going to come up with something different.:smile:

The same shot by belv,,,,
All 3 of you called the shots the same .These 2 shots are very close to being like 1 and 5 on my on my picture.The 2 balls share the same but are placed different on the table.
Why the change in alinement now?

I will have a video up later doing the drill with I think is pro1 .

Also the same by belv started on c and mine start on a ..this dont sound rite.

Anthony
Click to expand...

Please note that shots 1-3 as left A can be interchanged exactly with outside B.

Stan Shuffett
 
Anthony - what so you mean by 'Why the change is alignment now?'

Not sure what you are comparing…those 2 shots on the 1 and 2 ball both go with C right sweep…but the 2 ball is approaching a B.

Gerry
 
stan shuffett said:
Please note that shots 1-3 as left A can be interchanged exactly with outside B.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

The point is there not the same and you guys called them the same .(belv 2 shots):)
How can my 1 and 5 be any different ?.
 
8pack said:
Thanks Stan and Gerry,for a minute I thought you 2 was going to come up with something different.:smile:

The same shot by belv,,,,
All 3 of you called the shots the same .These 2 shots are very close to being like 1 and 5 on my on my picture.The 2 balls share the same but are placed different on the table.
Why the change in alinement now?

I will have a video up later doing the drill with I think is pro1 .

Also the same by belv started on c and mine start on a ..this dont sound rite.

Anthony
Click to expand...


Actually, they're quite different.

My #1 and Your #1

qirBpahwLTogk_Pft1bX.png

u80VUGSZjOXDVpDNA3Y_.png




My #5 and Your #5

BoZu6I4mygieQoYOFx-L.png

uu0qDLh57geS1-ZM_cuH.png



It was a good try though. I'm no expert, but I know that while the same visuals can be used on different cut angles, there is a point where different visuals/sweeps must be used instead.
 
8pack said:
The point is there not the same and you guys called them the same .(belv 2 shots):)
How can my 1 and 5 be any different ?.
Click to expand...

The original 2 are the same.

The 1 and 5 are 2 completely different shots.
What you are trying to and will eventually see is at the core of CTE.

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
Gerry Williams said:
Anthony - what so you mean by 'Why the change is alignment now?'

Not sure what you are comparing…those 2 shots on the 1 and 2 ball both go with C right sweep…but the 2 ball is approaching a B.

Gerry
Click to expand...

Gerry there not the same and what bothers me is that Stan calls it a center pocket system which is wrong according to his line ups.
Do you realize that you reference the shots out so there for you know the shots.
When playing the game we dont have that luxury.

Anthony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top