I'm still sweeping in from left to right.
I promise you it works. Maybe it's not Pro One, but it uses Pro One visuals.
Pro One: No more sweeps.
- Thread starter BeiberLvr
- Start date
I'm still sweeping in from left to right.
I promise you it works. Maybe it's not Pro One, but it uses Pro One visuals.
CTE PRO ONE is a PROFESSIONAL aiming system. The visuals of CTE PRO ONE are objective and they're repeatable.
The VISUALS of CTE can allow any player, whether amateur or pro, play from an objective, repeatable offset that represents an initial connection to table geometry. Almost every single pro lines up to an offset and then sweeps to the CCB. WHY DO SOMETHING ELSE??
Since there are only a few visuals and primarily 2/3 that the game is mostly played with, then the repetition can soon dial any player in to the correct visual alignments. ()I personally shoot a few thousand shots each week so my visual intelligence has no problem working with a little objectivity that can handle a zillion shots.)
Yes, you are right, seeing the visuals at first requires that one go through a learning curve, but because of objectivity the accuracy of seeing the CTE PRO ONE visuals is self refining from day one. A few weeks to a few months of learning something that can be so profound is a small price to pay. Why keep looking at NOTHING when there is SOMETHING real to look at that connects to the table when followed with a simple, natural rotation to the CCB.
Stan Shuffett
I couldn't agree more - I have recently had yet another breakthrough with Pro One as it pertains to the outside sweeps. It does happen sometimes where I sweep in and I feel like I am not on the correct path - so I reset and it usually works out fine. The sweep allows me to focus on the CCB and not concern myself with the OB - for me this has increased my shot making for sure!
I have been at this pretty hardcore since November and I did spend a day with Stan which never hurt but the system is the nuts and requires no modifications in my mind.
I have been at this pretty hardcore since November and I did spend a day with Stan which never hurt but the system is the nuts and requires no modifications in my mind.
I don't consider what I am doing a modification. I'm still sweeping into CCB, but I'm letting my cue guide me instead of my just my eyes.
I'd appreciate it if you could shoot some shots using the tip/shaft alignments I provided in the op.
And yes, the system is the nuts :thumbup:
It doesn't offer me any additional value - quite the opposite because I would be trying to aim using specific points with my cue. I would use the quarters system if I wanted to do that.
I just see the visuals and shoot - you cannot make it any easier for me. If I were you I would trust Stan as he has spent way more time studying this than any of us - this may set you back. Don't be swayed by short term results.
All the best.
Gerry
I just see the visuals and shoot - you cannot make it any easier for me. If I were you I would trust Stan as he has spent way more time studying this than any of us - this may set you back. Don't be swayed by short term results.
All the best.
Gerry
Hello. Could you make a video of yours shooting balls with cb - ob distance about 4,5 - 5 diamonds ? Straight ins and " spot shots " from 20 to 50 degrees ? If this works for you and make these shots, then you are ok. But I think that cb - ob distance can change things......
Thanks for reading
Sure thing!
I understand you have a routine which you follow but to say people are looking at nothing is a false statement.(maybe if your blind):smile:
You spun away from what I was really curious about,cue aiming.
Btw is pro1 set up for a over cut for all shots?
Anthony
Hey Anthony,
Stan may reply but Pro One allows you to see objective OB points - A/B/C and 1/8 - easy to visualize even over distance. You CANNOT visualize a single contact point with near the accuracy - it's that simple.
Yes - Pro One is a slight over-cut which accounts for Cut Induced Throw.
Stan may reply but Pro One allows you to see objective OB points - A/B/C and 1/8 - easy to visualize even over distance. You CANNOT visualize a single contact point with near the accuracy - it's that simple.
Yes - Pro One is a slight over-cut which accounts for Cut Induced Throw.
With Pro One the eyes lead and the body (and cue) follows. You can't do this the other way around. A specific alignment/sweep (such as B/inside) can make a range of shots. This means every CB/OB/Pocket relation has a unique perception. Aligning the cue tip to a spot on the object ball will severely limit the system, as this can be slightly different on every shot. Why bother? Let your eyes lead you to the shot line. It already works perfectly.
BieberLvr, I know exactly what you are talking about. I spent some time with it. (several months) At first, I thought it was a great double-check. And, on some shots, it is just that. However, it does not work for all shots, as I found out the hard way. CTE/Pro 1 DOES work on all shots, and I found myself actually lining up correctly, then shifting a hair to align with the dbl. check shaft method. All it would do is make me miss some shots that didn't need to be missed at all. Tried the same thing with the shadow method. Great on some shots, not so great on others when lining up with CTE visuals. (although both may work very well inividually for some users)
Believe Stan and the others when they say to just stick with one method. Whichever method that is. Using several on the same shot will be wrought with peril for you. Now, I will admit that I do shift back and forth from CTE/Pro 1 and 90/90. They are similar systems, and for close shots I prefer 90/90. BUT, use only one system on each shot.
Believe Stan and the others when they say to just stick with one method. Whichever method that is. Using several on the same shot will be wrought with peril for you. Now, I will admit that I do shift back and forth from CTE/Pro 1 and 90/90. They are similar systems, and for close shots I prefer 90/90. BUT, use only one system on each shot.
After reading people's thoughts I practiced "my method" some more tonight and came to a few conclusions.
1. Despite using the Pro One visuals as a foundation, this is so far from being related to Pro One at all.
2. The visuals/pivots that I use might not be the same as Pro One for certain shots, and there is a bit of a learning curve (just as in any aiming system) using trial and error. For example there are shots that use CTE/A or C visuals in Pro One, but I actually align ETB (half ball hit) and go from there. All of the shots I use, however, have some sort of Pro One visual. Then I decide if the shot needs to be hit thick or thin and align my tip or shaft edge to a specific part of the OB (edge, A, B, or C)
3. It definitely works to pocket balls (direct and banks) extremely well.
Below is a diagram of some shots I practiced tonight, along with the visuals that I used. As well as the tip/shaft alignments. I had no problems pocketing these shots multiple times in a row. Balls 1-4 represent CB locations, and the CB is the OB.
(1) ETB (Tip aimed at "A")
(2) ETB (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(3) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(4) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at left OB edge)
I won't make any more comparisons to Pro One other than the slight similarity in the visuals used. I will just add one more time that what I am doing has personally worked wonders for me. I am certain that without the knowledge of Pro One, I probably never would have stumbled upon this.
1. Despite using the Pro One visuals as a foundation, this is so far from being related to Pro One at all.
2. The visuals/pivots that I use might not be the same as Pro One for certain shots, and there is a bit of a learning curve (just as in any aiming system) using trial and error. For example there are shots that use CTE/A or C visuals in Pro One, but I actually align ETB (half ball hit) and go from there. All of the shots I use, however, have some sort of Pro One visual. Then I decide if the shot needs to be hit thick or thin and align my tip or shaft edge to a specific part of the OB (edge, A, B, or C)
3. It definitely works to pocket balls (direct and banks) extremely well.
Below is a diagram of some shots I practiced tonight, along with the visuals that I used. As well as the tip/shaft alignments. I had no problems pocketing these shots multiple times in a row. Balls 1-4 represent CB locations, and the CB is the OB.
(1) ETB (Tip aimed at "A")
(2) ETB (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(3) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(4) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at left OB edge)
I won't make any more comparisons to Pro One other than the slight similarity in the visuals used. I will just add one more time that what I am doing has personally worked wonders for me. I am certain that without the knowledge of Pro One, I probably never would have stumbled upon this.
Exactly, because pro one is not a robotic system that utilizes the same exact ingredients for different shots. If it did we would see something like this:
Precise objective visual + precise sweep equal to precisely 1/2 tip = The same shot line every time those two factors are added together.
The above would allow you to check the shot line by comparing where the stick is lined up on the ball.
Pro one however uses a formula such as this:
Visuals that while not exactly the same every time, do line you up pretty close to what you are looking for + sweep into the shot that is not equal to 1/2 tip as advertised, but instead relies on the subconscious mind for minute adjustments = a system that will allow you to use what you think are the same ingrediants that get you to a different shot line.
Because pro one uses subconscious adjustments during the aiming process and the ingrediants are not precise, I'm going to have to, for the first time ever, agree with Stan. You cant equate each visual + sweep to one shot line.
Good try at twisting the words around to what YOU want CTE PRO ONE to be.
What Mohrt said was objectively, exactly correct and is nothing new concerning what has already been stated with CTE PRO ONE.
Again, you do not understand CTE but you step into this thread to continue your negative jabs at CTE PRO ONE. You have ONE purpose and most are aware of what it is.
Stan Shuffett
Last edited:
All 4 of those shots go with a C visual in Pro One.
After reading people's thoughts I practiced "my method" some more tonight and came to a few conclusions.
1. Despite using the Pro One visuals as a foundation, this is so far from being related to Pro One at all.
2. The visuals/pivots that I use might not be the same as Pro One for certain shots, and there is a bit of a learning curve (just as in any aiming system) using trial and error. For example there are shots that use CTE/A or C visuals in Pro One, but I actually align ETB (half ball hit) and go from there. All of the shots I use, however, have some sort of Pro One visual. Then I decide if the shot needs to be hit thick or thin and align my tip or shaft edge to a specific part of the OB (edge, A, B, or C)
3. It definitely works to pocket balls (direct and banks) extremely well.
Below is a diagram of some shots I practiced tonight, along with the visuals that I used. As well as the tip/shaft alignments. I had no problems pocketing these shots multiple times in a row. Balls 1-4 represent CB locations, and the CB is the OB.
(1) ETB (Tip aimed at "A")
(2) ETB (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(3) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at "A")
(4) 1/8 Overlap (Right edge of shaft aimed at left OB edge)
I won't make any more comparisons to Pro One other than the slight similarity in the visuals used. I will just add one more time that what I am doing has personally worked wonders for me. I am certain that without the knowledge of Pro One, I probably never would have stumbled upon this.
That is absolutely correct! Gerry. C with a CTE visual....all 4 shots have the same objective visuals.
It is GREAT to have such a range of shots that share the same visuals.
It's the unique perceptual nature of CTE that makes it possible for the 4 shots to have C/CTE.
Stan Shuffett
You are close except to assume that the system relies on subconscious adjustments. It instead relies on perceptions. If you take a specific CB/OB/P setup and line up the alignments, it won't be exactly the same for other setups sharing the same alignments. It's a perceptual thing, not exactly explainable in math terms (yet), but easily verified at the table.
I think whatever works to help an individual pocket balls -- that's the move for them.
Technically speaking, the original post could never be "correct" due to CB/OB distance changes. I put that in quotes because the logic of which will break down. However, it clearly helps this guy pocket better --- so good for him and have at it
Some of you guys might know Mirza - he emailed me a few weeks ago with a similar discovery -- I believe he was always stick-aiming to center OB after his pivot. He was doing so while slightly stroking across his sight, which immediately sounded "off." I went to the pool hall expecting to hit everything dead-straight-on, and surprisingly a bunch of balls went. It's not for me at all, but my point is -- everyone is different and everyone clearly sees different things so experimentation isn't a bad thing.
I'm a believer that CTE/Pro1 is a perfect system. I also believe that there's a line of perfection that stems from the core of what Stan teaches. Meaning, Hal would tell me that his pivot was mega-small, maybe a quarter-tip offset. When I play, I play with a 1/2 ball offset, always manually pivoting from the left. What's the difference --- nothing.
The cue's angle of attack into the face of the CB is proportional to the tip's offset. I know Hal used to tell me stories of messing around with people and pivoting from WAY off of the edge of the CB into center ball and still making the shot. The offset doesn't matter as long as the cue's angle is adjusted in kind and the arc of your pivot is maintained (which is way more crucial for longer pivots than shorter ones).
Knowing the above, you can eliminate 1/2 of the pivots with a few adjustments. I don't think that's going outside of the system, it's merely using your knowledge to make it better fit your style. I've never been a "sweeper" since I've always manually pivoted, however, you can certainly eliminate half of those movements with adjustments to your visuals. Is that recommended -- probably not for 90% of the players out there, but it might help a few guys out of a 100. Do you lose connection w/ the table if you do that --- only if you don't do it perfectly (this is WAY harder to do perfectly). But hey - one guy out there might be able to do it WAY more perfectly because maybe their sight is shit out of one eye.
My point is this: there's a range of correctness within this system, some limits fit one style of play better than others. Even when you have the knowledge portion of this stuff down pat, you might still be forced to go outside of the known confines of the system just due to how you see / perceive due to dominant eyes. For me, I'm forced to use a slight adjustment when cutting to the right----- I'm left eye dominant when playing pool, but I'm actually right-eye dominant - if that makes sense. Only my left eye perceives center ball. Goofy, eh? If I were to figure everything on the center of my vision, I would miss a good % of my right-cut shots. Is that the system or me? It's me, obviously.
We all perceive differently, we all see differently and we all play differently. The promised-land for this (or any system) is taking the time to learn more about yourself, how your eyes work, and where your strengths/weaknesses lie. Is it easier to shift your head a little differently to fix a perception problem or is it better to accept it and simply adjust for it?
I don't think there's a right answer for everyone.
Technically speaking, the original post could never be "correct" due to CB/OB distance changes. I put that in quotes because the logic of which will break down. However, it clearly helps this guy pocket better --- so good for him and have at it
Some of you guys might know Mirza - he emailed me a few weeks ago with a similar discovery -- I believe he was always stick-aiming to center OB after his pivot. He was doing so while slightly stroking across his sight, which immediately sounded "off." I went to the pool hall expecting to hit everything dead-straight-on, and surprisingly a bunch of balls went. It's not for me at all, but my point is -- everyone is different and everyone clearly sees different things so experimentation isn't a bad thing.
I'm a believer that CTE/Pro1 is a perfect system. I also believe that there's a line of perfection that stems from the core of what Stan teaches. Meaning, Hal would tell me that his pivot was mega-small, maybe a quarter-tip offset. When I play, I play with a 1/2 ball offset, always manually pivoting from the left. What's the difference --- nothing.
The cue's angle of attack into the face of the CB is proportional to the tip's offset. I know Hal used to tell me stories of messing around with people and pivoting from WAY off of the edge of the CB into center ball and still making the shot. The offset doesn't matter as long as the cue's angle is adjusted in kind and the arc of your pivot is maintained (which is way more crucial for longer pivots than shorter ones).
Knowing the above, you can eliminate 1/2 of the pivots with a few adjustments. I don't think that's going outside of the system, it's merely using your knowledge to make it better fit your style. I've never been a "sweeper" since I've always manually pivoted, however, you can certainly eliminate half of those movements with adjustments to your visuals. Is that recommended -- probably not for 90% of the players out there, but it might help a few guys out of a 100. Do you lose connection w/ the table if you do that --- only if you don't do it perfectly (this is WAY harder to do perfectly). But hey - one guy out there might be able to do it WAY more perfectly because maybe their sight is shit out of one eye.
My point is this: there's a range of correctness within this system, some limits fit one style of play better than others. Even when you have the knowledge portion of this stuff down pat, you might still be forced to go outside of the known confines of the system just due to how you see / perceive due to dominant eyes. For me, I'm forced to use a slight adjustment when cutting to the right----- I'm left eye dominant when playing pool, but I'm actually right-eye dominant - if that makes sense. Only my left eye perceives center ball. Goofy, eh? If I were to figure everything on the center of my vision, I would miss a good % of my right-cut shots. Is that the system or me? It's me, obviously.
We all perceive differently, we all see differently and we all play differently. The promised-land for this (or any system) is taking the time to learn more about yourself, how your eyes work, and where your strengths/weaknesses lie. Is it easier to shift your head a little differently to fix a perception problem or is it better to accept it and simply adjust for it?
I don't think there's a right answer for everyone.
Gerry I am with you. 1 and 2 with "c left" , 3 and 4 with " c right" ? I think this way I would play them. But they share the same visuals because of cb-ob distance. Is that correct ?
Panagiotis