PRO ONE for Dummies, using *GASP* a diagram.

[Colin Colenso]

Colin... it's a waste of time to discuss unless you study the DVDs. You're way behind. If this were feel based, the forum would be flooded with that perspective. Instead of playing the contrarian and having people explain it, study the DVD and then ask Stan or post based on what you learned.

This is the old path to nowhere.

I think you're right that most discussions between the proponents and the skeptics go nowhere, hence most of the skeptics, who believe the system incorporates feel or intuitive adjustments to adapt to variables, dare not discuss anything CTE related here.

It's a shame that often times animosity is generated, because we all have a similar interest and good intentions.

I have an interest in this system, mainly because have observed players like yourself, Gerry, Stan etc shooting well with it. I'm still trying to work out what is going on, how I might make it work better for myself and/or to be able to teach it to people in a way that makes sense to me.

Perhaps some of the head bumping will bring me or others a better understanding. Perhaps the DVDs will do the same for me. Based on Dr. Dave's review of first DVD, there was nothing new. Maybe the 2nd DVD has something in it that will illuminate.

 

[Colin Colenso]

So why would anyone entertain your posts when you can't fork out a few bucks for an education? If it's snake oil to you... then it'll be snake oil to you at the end of this thread as well. So why waste your time and the time of others who are here to learn and improve?

What's "weird" is the video you last posted of yourself doing your own potting test was sub par, yet those who learned this "snake oil" horse-fvcked the test into the ground.

Make a real honest attempt and do so with an open mind or....don't. The days of disproving CTE are long past...far too many players have jumped on the snake oil wagon and are claiming super results.

Maybe there should be a sub forum within the aiming forum where you and the 4 or 5 other guys who never get stuff can knock it while the rest of the world gets better.

Bloody hell...buy the DVD and practice the info for a few weeks and report back. Make a real effort!

Sent from my Galaxy S4

Dave,
I'm not trying to disprove CTE. I'm trying to make sense of it so that I can play well with it, or give up on it entirely. Ok, I'll get the DVD and work harder on it and see if that makes a difference.

Though I hate to be the type to make excuses, when I took the potting test that I devised, I did so as a courtesy, despite having cracked a rib 2 weeks previously which had kept me off the table, previous to which I'd been experimenting with CTE which had negatively affected my standard aiming.

If we ever get the chance to meet, and I hope we do, I'd be happy to play you for a couple of hundred. You'd be wrong to assume I haven't got a game. I'm no champ, but I have placed 3rd in our national 9 ball title.

 

[BeiberLvr]

I think you're right that most discussions between the proponents and the skeptics go nowhere, hence most of the skeptics, who believe the system incorporates feel or intuitive adjustments to adapt to variables, dare not discuss anything CTE related here.

It's a shame that often times animosity is generated, because we all have a similar interest and good intentions.

I have an interest in this system, mainly because have observed players like yourself, Gerry, Stan etc shooting well with it. I'm still trying to work out what is going on, how I might make it work better for myself and/or to be able to teach it to people in a way that makes sense to me.

Perhaps some of the head bumping will bring me or others a better understanding. Perhaps the DVDs will do the same for me. Based on Dr. Dave's review of first DVD, there was nothing new. Maybe the 2nd DVD has something in it that will illuminate.

Dr. Dave's a great guy with a wealth of knowledge, but I'll bet he never watched the DVD as much as the rest of us, nor put in the hours we have learning the system.

In your post before, you said you want to make it work for you. It's really simple, follow the directions exactly as prescribed on the DVD, and it'll work if you put in the time to really understand the system, which you obviously don't.

My copy of DVD2 will arrive soon, and I've got all the info on DVD1 down pat. You send me $45, and I'll gladly ship you my copy and then send your money to Stan (provided Stan has no objections).

 

[pablocruz]

Colin's not here to learn anything regarding CTE/Pro-One!! He started this
thread to ruffle some feathers and start a shit slinging contest.......

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin's not here to learn anything regarding CTE/Pro-One!! He started this
thread to ruffle some feathers and start a shit slinging contest.......

You're the one slinging!

My intention was to get some feedback from those who doubt the dogma and want to talk about alternative explanations of the benefits players find in this system. Obviously, due to the abrasive nature of people like yourself, such people have given up on going against the fashion.

I know that some of the very smartest people in the analysis of the game agree with me, but they've lost interest in being bullied by some of those in the faith.

 

[pablocruz]

Colin, since you posess a dry sense of humor as most Englishmen do, perhaps you could enlighten us all! I see your good at diagrams and your posts have all been to try and undermine Pro-One, even your little quote in your signature.
Could you diagram, measure, mathematically equate, express in numbers, and I will put this in English terms so I do not confuse you in any way!
1) A Quarter ball hit
2) A full Quarter ball hit

 

[Colin Colenso]

Dr. Dave's a great guy with a wealth of knowledge, but I'll bet he never watched the DVD as much as the rest of us, nor put in the hours we have learning the system.

In your post before, you said you want to make it work for you. It's really simple, follow the directions exactly as prescribed on the DVD, and it'll work if you put in the time to really understand the system, which you obviously don't.

My copy of DVD2 will arrive soon, and I've got all the info on DVD1 down pat. You send me $45, and I'll gladly ship you my copy and then send your money to Stan (provided Stan has no objections).

My understanding is that the 2nd DVD is an updated version of DVD1, or is it a part 2?

btw: When you say that I obviously don't understand the system, can you tell me something that I don't understand?

I don't need to be infinitely familiar with every type of shot to be able to attempt to execute a 3/4 ball left pot using the explanations given. I can stare at the shot until I'm blue in the face and the visual is nothing but a guess to me. I can guess it, and do the sweep and make the shot over and over, but its still just a guess to me... a guess I can practice and nearly perfect, but I don't see the point when I can just slide into the same shot and see how to pot it more accurately.

I obviously don't understand the mysterious eureka moment that exponent's seem to get, but can never explain in a way that makes any sense to me.

 

[pablocruz]

................................

 

[BeiberLvr]

My understanding is that the 2nd DVD is an updated version of DVD1, or is it a part 2?

btw: When you say that I obviously don't understand the system, can you tell me something that I don't understand?

I don't need to be infinitely familiar with every type of shot to be able to attempt to execute a 3/4 ball left pot using the explanations given. I can stare at the shot until I'm blue in the face and the visual is nothing but a guess to me. I can guess it, and do the sweep and make the shot over and over, but its still just a guess to me... a guess I can practice and nearly perfect, but I don't see the point when I can just slide into the same shot and see how to pot it more accurately.

I obviously don't understand the mysterious eureka moment that exponent's seem to get, but can never explain in a way that makes any sense to me.

The fact that you think users are guessing shows how little you understand the system. If I had an absolutely perfect stroke and never choked, I'd make every single shot. There is no guessing involved.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, since you posess a dry sense of humor as most Englishmen do, perhaps you could enlighten us all! I see your good at diagrams and your posts have all been to try and undermine Pro-One, even your little quote in your signature.
Could you diagram, measure, mathematically equate, express in numbers, and I will put this in English terms so I do not confuse you in any way!
1) A Quarter ball hit
2) A full Quarter ball hit

Glad you tasted the dryness of my humor Pablo...lol

My signature has been there for many years btw. It's more a reference to the system of BHE which I have developed in considerable detail in a very scientific way, taking into account swerve, throw, pivot points etc.

Yes I could diagram a quarter ball hit, and what I guess you mean by a full quarter ball hit, and express the various angles and positions. I'd have to guess what you mean by full though. I'm not sure what that would achieve though.

That doesn't mean that one needs to understand the math to make the shot. I'm not that anal. Much of this game is intuitive, but it all obeys the laws of nature.

The great divide between the proponents and the so called feather rufflers has long been the ruffler's belief that the methods, at certain parts such as establishing a visual, require intuition / feel / guestimation, in the same way that most players aim.

To admit that would take the (system takes you to every pocket) aspect out of CTE. Over eons, many bruises have been left in this epic battle.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The fact that you think users are guessing shows how little you understand the system. If I had an absolutely perfect stroke and never choked, I'd make every single shot. There is no guessing involved.

Can you explain then how you establish the visuals? Stan himself has said it requires experience. I can't see the difference between that and just learning a pot line visual via lots of experience.

btw: You'd still have to adjust for throw, and if you use side english, for squirt and swerve also. But sure, if one can get to the line of centers to the pocket, the game becomes much easier.

 

[pablocruz]

Glad you tasted the dryness of my humor Pablo...lol

My signature has been there for many years btw. It's more a reference to the system of BHE which I have developed in considerable detail in a very scientific way, taking into account swerve, throw, pivot points etc.

Yes I could diagram a quarter ball hit, and what I guess you mean by a full quarter ball hit, and express the various angles and positions. I'd have to guess what you mean by full though. I'm not sure what that would achieve though.

That doesn't mean that one needs to understand the math to make the shot. I'm not that anal. Much of this game is intuitive, but it all obeys the laws of nature.

The great divide between the proponents and the so called feather rufflers has long been the ruffler's belief that the methods, at certain parts such as establishing a visual, require intuition / feel / guestimation, in the same way that most players aim.

To admit that would take the (system takes you to every pocket) aspect out of CTE. Over eons, many bruises have been left in this epic battle.

You, You developed back hand english? Haha
For you to know so much about Pro-One, but
you can't diagram a simple shot which you
guys teach and say on a daily basis!!
Cmon Colin, I thought you were a better student
of the game!!

 

[Colin Colenso]

You, You developed back hand english? Haha
For you to know so much about Pro-One, but
you can't diagram a simple shot which you
guys teach and say on a daily basis!!
Cmon Colin, I thought you were a better student
of the game!!

I didn't say I invented BHE, but I've done a lot of testing on it, part of which is recorded on Dr Dave's site. I'm unaware of anyone who has experimented with it to the degree I have.

Well, it's a matter of opinion if my diagram is wrong. It's not meant to be comprehensive, it's a simplified diagram, which may assist a newcomer to the basic concept of CTEL, ETAL, the VISUAL and the SWEEP.

FWIW, I rarely teach, unless someone shows an interest in learning some of the things I enjoy sharing.. and in those cases, I've never charged. I get by on my own business in construction.

edit: You can see some of my work related to BHE in the throw charts I developed as shown in this thread: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=344783

 

[Neil]

Can you explain then how you establish the visuals? Stan himself has said it requires experience. I can't see the difference between that and just learning a pot line visual via lots of experience.

btw: You'd still have to adjust for throw, and if you use side english, for squirt and swerve also. But sure, if one can get to the line of centers to the pocket, the game becomes much easier.

I explained to you above what you are doing wrong with it. Yet, you totally disregard it and now seem bent on trying to prove it does not work as described. Well, newsflash for you, it does work as described. You just have to follow the steps correctly, which you aren't.

 

[JB Cases]

You can trot out the compensation argument all you want for shots directly to the pocket but when you get to banks, 2-3 and 4 rails there is no way that xte users are making those simply by staring at the balls harder than ever before.

I now nail banks from places I wouldn't have even considered attempting otherwise. In real money matches.

To me this puts it squarely into the realm of pure solid system and not subconscious adjustment. I can't subconsciously adjust into being able to pocket multi-rail banks consistently.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I explained to you above what you are doing wrong with it. Yet, you totally disregard it and now seem bent on trying to prove it does not work as described. Well, newsflash for you, it does work as described. You just have to follow the steps correctly, which you aren't.

Hi Neil,
Sorry I didn't respond earlier in more detail, but there were a flood of responses around the time you posted.

You wrote:

Colin, allowing for lack of visual perspective in your diagram, the edge to A and center to edge lines are fine. Your green line is way off. Which throws the whole system out of whack for you.

Once you have your A, B, or C line and center to edge line, or whatever you needed for the shot, without moving your head, you should be able to see that if you shot right down that line, you would either hit the ball to thick or to thin. That deduction determines what you need to do next. Now, once you have decided that, you forget the ob and just look at the cb.

Now, looking at the cb you can see the vertical center line of it. If you had determined that you would have hit the ob too thick, then you need an inside sweep. That means that you start from the inside and then sweep outward. You do this this way- you have your eyes on ccb, now, all you have to do is shift your eyes to the inside of the cb one half tip. You focus on that spot on the cb.

While getting down, you are placing your bridge hand on the line you determined to be 1/2 tip to the inside of ccb, and at the same time, you are sweeping your eyes to ccb and pivoting or sweeping your body around your bridge hand to align you to ccb. Now you are down, and dead on the shot line.

edit: One other thing, you said you don't like pivoting while you are down. Well, first off, you don't have to. You can pivot while geting down. Second, do you realize that unless you are using parallel english, everytime you put english on the cb you are actually pivoting to do so?

I got a little confused when I read the part when you said that if it seemed I would hit the OB too thick, that I'd have to use the inside sweep.

I'd thought that the system made the sweep determination prior to getting down to the shot.

It kind of makes sense, but I still can't grasp how the difference between a degree thick or thin can be solved by a sweep either direction which could alter the angle by several degrees.

You're info on shifting the eyes to 1/2 tip off CCB is appreciated. This hasn't been stated in the recent videos by Stan as far as I recall.

Not sure of the context regarding the not liking pivoting when I am down. I use BHE on all but elevated or on rail shots with english. I pivot heaps and am very comfortable with it.

 

[Colin Colenso]

You can trot out the compensation argument all you want for shots directly to the pocket but when you get to banks, 2-3 and 4 rails there is no way that xte users are making those simply by staring at the balls harder than ever before.

I now nail banks from places I wouldn't have even considered attempting otherwise. In real money matches.

To me this puts it squarely into the realm of pure solid system and not subconscious adjustment. I can't subconsciously adjust into being able to pocket multi-rail banks consistently.

Good point John, definitely food for thought!

Xin nian quai le, though it's a bit early for New Years celebrations in China.

Colin

 

[croscoe]

Well I have spent the money. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) Stan says Perception many times thought out the video. Perception is based on what one sees and and believes to be true.

2) Most shots will of coarse find a pocket using a hit of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, one two or three rails. Now add a variable of a tip of left or right a change of bridge length and one should be able to make most any shot. Oh ya lets not forget the all important vary the speed.

3) Some of Stan's examples are flawed in the presentation. One that stood out is on disk 2 in chap.4 approx.15:50. Explaining why two identical parallel shots do not give the same results with CTE on a rectangular surface. Note first shot is slower, it does hit the rail meaning it did not track to pocket
the shot was also hit thicker see point of impact on rail.
2nd shot was a little firmer and thinner. Had there been a rail there it would have hit rather similar in location.

This POST is NOT intended to BASH Stan's presentation of CTE yet to highlight the point that this aiming system TO ME appears as Stan many times stated is based largely on perception. So how you perceive the shot effects how the shot is preformed by the body and mind.
Stan has put time, effort and money into producing this video there is a monetary point to this and other systems like TOI. Stan has responded to every PM promptly and if location distance was less I would certainly entertain lesson.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Can you explain then how you establish the visuals? Stan himself has said it requires experience. I can't see the difference between that and just learning a pot line visual via lots of experience.

btw: You'd still have to adjust for throw, and if you use side english, for squirt and swerve also. But sure, if one can get to the line of centers to the pocket, the game becomes much easier.

In all your exhaustive studies of the system, apparently you missed these two videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKAP8iR3Lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Psy5hOJT0

You must have also missed the numerous posts and even videos by Stan that details how the system isn't actually a center pocket system, but instead overcuts the object ball slightly to allow for throw.

Side spin? Well, you can easily just use BHE that you're so awesome at using.

My offer to ship you DVD1 has now gone up to $50. But you can continue to be lazy and cheap, and try to have a debate with people that are much more informed and experienced than you on the subject if you'd like.

 

[stan shuffett]

Well I have spent the money. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) Stan says Perception many times thought out the video. Perception is based on what one sees and and believes to be true.

2) Most shots will of coarse find a pocket using a hit of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, one two or three rails. Now add a variable of a tip of left or right a change of bridge length and one should be able to make most any shot. Oh ya lets not forget the all important vary the speed.

3) Some of Stan's examples are flawed in the presentation. One that stood out is on disk 2 in chap.4 approx.15:50. Explaining why two identical parallel shots do not give the same results with CTE on a rectangular surface. Note first shot is slower, it does hit the rail meaning it did not track to pocket
the shot was also hit thicker see point of impact on rail.
2nd shot was a little firmer and thinner. Had there been a rail there it would have hit rather similar in location.

This POST is NOT intended to BASH Stan's presentation of CTE yet to highlight the point that this aiming system TO ME appears as Stan many times stated is based largely on perception. So how you perceive the shot effects how the shot is preformed by the body and mind.
Stan has put time, effort and money into producing this video there is a monetary point to this and other systems like TOI. Stan has responded to every PM promptly and if location distance was less I would certainly entertain lesson.

You will likely be mostly alone in your assertion of flaws in my new DVD.

Stan Shuffett