Another CTE question

[scottjen26]

I never did understand that part, even after talking to Stan. I did try some things, and got some of the "quarter" alignments to work, as he briefly shows in the DVD. Not much explanation, but from talking to Stan made some sense, basically reverse engineering the straight in shot and sweep.

I don't get how the standard 15/30 degree perceptions can be used to make random combos. Especially when the system is set to take the OB to a pocket. So for instance, if I have a pretty straight combo where a 15 degree perception and outside sweep sends the ball to the pocket, but I need to send it a few degrees left or right of the pocket to make the second ball, how would I aim that? It would seem that I would only be able to choose the same 15 degree perception with the inside pivot, which would send it only in a specific direction. Anything in between would require a manual adjustment.

Perhaps that's what Stan is doing, recognizing the paths that are taken with the various alignment options and picking the one that is closest then adjusting. Would love to know more if that's the way it's done and especially if not. I have played with the reverse quarter ball type concept in Pro1 and SEE, that seems to come the closest for me, but would be nice if there was some "trick" to the 15/30 degree perceptions that worked as well.

Scott

 

[stan shuffett]

I never did understand that part, even after talking to Stan. I did try some things, and got some of the "quarter" alignments to work, as he briefly shows in the DVD. Not much explanation, but from talking to Stan made some sense, basically reverse engineering the straight in shot and sweep.

I don't get how the standard 15/30 degree perceptions can be used to make random combos. Especially when the system is set to take the OB to a pocket. So for instance, if I have a pretty straight combo where a 15 degree perception and outside sweep sends the ball to the pocket, but I need to send it a few degrees left or right of the pocket to make the second ball, how would I aim that? It would seem that I would only be able to choose the same 15 degree perception with the inside pivot, which would send it only in a specific direction. Anything in between would require a manual adjustment.

Perhaps that's what Stan is doing, recognizing the paths that are taken with the various alignment options and picking the one that is closest then adjusting. Would love to know more if that's the way it's done and especially if not. I have played with the reverse quarter ball type concept in Pro1 and SEE, that seems to come the closest for me, but would be nice if there was some "trick" to the 15/30 degree perceptions that worked as well.

Scott

In that section I clearly stated in TEXT that tweaking or slight adjustments may be necessary.

CB OB OB relationships will almost always create a hit with CTE PRO ONE visuals. Often the combos can be made without adjustment because of pocket size.

What can be good is knowing that the visuals and a sweep can at least get you to a tweak away from making many combos.

Stan Shuffett

 

[scottjen26]

I only watched DVD2 once and breezed through some chapters, but yes I remember now that you had some text overlay to that effect. Makes sense, the visualizations would be very strong along the often repeated 15 and 30 degree perceptions, allowing you to possibly "see" some reference lines from which to adjust, vs. normally trying to hit to a ghost ball position by pure visualization. Some people are better at that than others, for those that aren't some reference lines are useful.

If the combos are easy and/or the object ball is close to a pocket - and usually those are the ones we try shooting - then I agree the tweaks in perception will be minor. For crazier off-angle combos, I've had some success using the quarter ball method and trying to strictly replicate movements as if I was shooting a straight in shot but at the GB position instead of the pocket. Not every time, but much better than by feel. If I played more 8 ball or straight pool I would play with this more to hone it, as it is they rarely come up.

Thanks for clarifying.
Scott

 

[mohrt]

This kind of got me thinking to the "1 shot 6 solution" videos stan and Gerry put out there on youtube. I recall during one of Stan's video that he mentions it is rare a pocket doesn't have a solution with CTE.

So, if you just have a Cue ball, an Object ball and a surface; you can't see the rails and the pockets but they are there, and it's a 2x1 table. I would think that if you try every CTE combination possible (A inside, A outside, B inside, etc.), at one point or an other you will make the ball in one or more pockets.

This is impossible to test as the rail under you will always give you some sort of reference, but I think it could work.

I think they all technically do connect to pockets, but some of them can be rather impractical. Example, a 4-rail z-bank into the side pocket. By the time you hit the shot hard enough to get there, the bank has been altered too much by other influences. There is also no practical purpose for a shot like that.

 

[UpMySleeves]

I didn't feel like posting an other CTE thread, so I'll just add to this one as it somewhat relates to the subject.

I am incorperating CTE Pro one everytime I go practice now (still waiting my DVD!) and so far I am getting good results. I make cuts straight in the pocket without any focus on the pocket.

One funny situation that happened a few times: I was playing a friendly 9-ball match with my brother and when I had side banks, I sometimes screwed up my visuals so missed the pocket, but then saw the ball double bank in the other side pocket! This happened a few times from different angles, and my brother was thinking I was lucky, but in my head I was like "Nope, it's not luck it's CTE, I just didn't choose the right visuals for the straight in bank, but instead used the visuals for the double bank.

Anyways, I am seeing a progression and can't wait to practice more with the DVD

Cheers!

 

[duckie]

If you were to place a curtain such that no other parts of the table can be seen, only the two balls, no other rails, no other pockets, and the person walked blindfold to the table, it won't work.

I've used a soccer player as a example before. They know where the goal is based on the reference points around the field. If you were to take a soccer player and surround then with a solid wall such that the wall and the green grass was all they could see, they could not make a goal. Not enough reference points can be seen in order to know where they are on the field.

Curtain shots are nothing more than trick shots.....something to do in order to say hey look at me and my system, look what my system can do......which is not a forth right statement, it aint the system but how the system is used.

 

[mohrt]

If you were to place a curtain such that no other parts of the table can be seen, only the two balls, no other rails, no other pockets, and the person walked blindfold to the table, it won't work.

I've used a soccer player as a example before. They know where the goal is based on the reference points around the field. If you were to take a soccer player and surround then with a solid wall such that the wall and the green grass was all they could see, they could not make a goal. Not enough reference points can be seen in order to know where they are on the field.

Curtain shots are nothing more than trick shots.....something to do in order to say hey look at me and my system, look what my system can do......which is not a forth right statement, it aint the system but how the system is used.

This has already been explained. It is true there needs to be enough information visually to orient the two balls with the 90 degree connections on the table. Hanging a curtain on one end of the table still gives the shooter enough visual reference to orient themselves on the correct visuals for the given shot.

If you take a proficient CTE shooter and a proficient ghostball shooter, then hang a curtain on the table and throw out random ball positions and have each shooter attempt the shot with their own methods of aiming... and the CTE shooter makes an obviously higher percentage of the shots, this should be evidence that the system works and not any tricks about it.

And, of course it is how the system is used. A system won't pocket balls for you.

 

[Neil]

If you were to place a curtain such that no other parts of the table can be seen, only the two balls, no other rails, no other pockets, and the person walked blindfold to the table, it won't work.

I've used a soccer player as a example before. They know where the goal is based on the reference points around the field. If you were to take a soccer player and surround then with a solid wall such that the wall and the green grass was all they could see, they could not make a goal. Not enough reference points can be seen in order to know where they are on the field.

Curtain shots are nothing more than trick shots.....something to do in order to say hey look at me and my system, look what my system can do......which is not a forth right statement, it aint the system but how the system is used.

Just wondering how you know it won't work, when you don't even know how to use the system? I predict that you will pocket a ball using the different sweeps and visuals. You won't know what pocket it goes in, but it will go into some pocket. Or, in the case of a more than two rail bank, very close depending on speed and spin.

 

[enzo1990]

This has already been explained. It is true there needs to be enough information visually to orient the two balls with the 90 degree connections on the table. Hanging a curtain on one end of the table still gives the shooter enough visual reference to orient themselves on the correct visuals for the given shot.

If you take a proficient CTE shooter and a proficient ghostball shooter, then hang a curtain on the table and throw out random ball positions and have each shooter attempt the shot with their own methods of aiming... and the CTE shooter makes an obviously higher percentage of the shots, this should be evidence that the system works and not any tricks about it.

And, of course it is how the system is used. A system won't pocket balls for you.

So cte pro one does need to use reference points such as table rails in order to see the shot line? Stan emphasizes that the system only works on a 2 to 1 ratio table, which I think means you cannot just use cte and edge to abc line but incorporate them with table. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mohrt]

So cte pro one does need to use reference points such as table rails in order to see the shot line? Stan emphasizes that the system only works on a 2 to 1 ratio table, which I think means you cannot just use cte and edge to abc line but incorporate them with table. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stan has stated the system connects to 90 degree angles. To be more precise, right isosceles triangles. They must be 90/45/45. No other triangle will produce perfect squares. A regulation 2x1 table has exactly this. So when you are looking at two balls on the surface of the table, their orientation on the table is part of the perception when you line up your initial visuals. One you have that visual locked in, the cue ball is all that is necessary to finish the PSR. ie. look at center of fixed CB, pivot/sweep to CCB. You are now on the shotline. You don't technically need to "see" the shot line. Just see CCB. So after the initial visuals are established, all the alignment work is done. You are now a 1/2 tip pivot/sweep away from the shot line.

 

[enzo1990]

Stan has stated the system connects to 90 degree angles. To be more precise, right isosceles triangles. They must be 90/45/45. No other triangle will produce perfect squares. A regulation 2x1 table has exactly this. So when you are looking at two balls on the surface of the table, their orientation on the table is part of the perception when you line up your initial visuals. One you have that visual locked in, the cue ball is all that is necessary to finish the PSR. ie. look at center of fixed CB, pivot/sweep to CCB. You are now on the shotline. You don't technically need to "see" the shot line. Just see CCB.

Can you elaborate the part "when your looking at two balls on the surface of the table, their orientation of the table is part of the perception"? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mohrt]

Can you elaborate the part "when your looking at two balls on the surface of the table, their orientation of the table is part of the perception"? Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are two separate shots, both to the upper-left corner pocket. Ball 1 and CB to its right, and ball 3 and CB to its right.




They both require the same visual: CTEL/C with right pivot. However, each shot will have a slightly different orientation. That is, if you line up the first shot and take note where the line through CCB falls on the object ball, then line up shot #2 you will see it lines up slightly farther outside the OB. This is because of the orientation of the balls on the table. This is also how the same visuals can pocket a range of shots. The orientation of the balls on the table affect how the visuals line up. This isn't something you have to do consciously. With some practice you will quickly see how they orient slightly different, but the outcome is a connection to the shotline.

 

[enzo1990]

Here are two separate shots, both to the upper-left corner pocket. Ball 1 and CB to its right, and ball 3 and CB to its right.









They both require the same visual: CTEL/C with right pivot. However, each shot will have a slightly different orientation. That is, if you line up the first shot and take note where the line through CCB falls on the object ball, then line up shot #2 you will see it lines up slightly farther outside the OB. This is because of the orientation of the balls on the table. This is also how the same visuals can pocket a range of shots. The orientation of the balls on the table affect how the visuals line up. This isn't something you have to do consciously. With some practice you will quickly see how they orient slightly different, but the outcome is a connection to the shotline.

Thanks a bunch, mohrt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mohrt]

Stan demonstrates these perceptions pretty clearly in these three videos:

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

 

[8pack]

I didn't feel like posting an other CTE thread, so I'll just add to this one as it somewhat relates to the subject.

I am incorperating CTE Pro one everytime I go practice now (still waiting my DVD!) and so far I am getting good results. I make cuts straight in the pocket without any focus on the pocket.

One funny situation that happened a few times: I was playing a friendly 9-ball match with my brother and when I had side banks, I sometimes screwed up my visuals so missed the pocket, but then saw the ball double bank in the other side pocket! This happened a few times from different angles, and my brother was thinking I was lucky, but in my head I was like "Nope, it's not luck it's CTE, I just didn't choose the right visuals for the straight in bank, but instead used the visuals for the double bank.

Anyways, I am seeing a progression and can't wait to practice more with the DVD

Cheers!

o

Here's another possibility .......you hit it to hard.(it happens )

 

[enzo1990]

Stan demonstrates these perceptions pretty clearly in these three videos:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAKAP8iR3Lw

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFOHUceNpA

I have watched all these videos. I think Stan should have stated in the videos that you need to have a view of table ( at least part of it ) to see the shot line. Then such threads about questioning how looking at two balls will get you to the shot lines wouldn't have appeared.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mohrt]

I have watched all these videos. I think Stan should have stated in the videos that you need to have a view of table ( at least part of it ) to see the shot line. Then such threads about questioning how looking at two balls will get you to the shot lines wouldn't have appeared.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well to be honest, its a lot of information to take in when you first get into the system. Its not necessary to lay out all the ugly details to use it. Just take it to the table. You will see that when you line up these visuals they will connect to the pockets with the 1/2 tip pivots. The reasons are deep in perception. The table is part of that perception. Even I don't know all the gory details how these perceptions happen to work, I'm not sure Stan does either. But they do, and they can be quickly proven at the table.

The only way I got through the system was with an open mind. Instead of trying to make the perceptions fit into how I already knew how to aim, I instead trusted the system as stated and observed where the shots went. Once I got past that it fell together rather quickly. But you have to let go and trust it. All too many can't do it. They just can't give it a try without understanding all the gory details. They might try it but not truly trusting it, and end up dismissing it because it wasn't a magic bullet for them.

 

[enzo1990]

Well to be honest, its a lot of information to take in when you first get into the system. Its not necessary to lay out all the ugly details to use it. Just take it to the table. You will see that when you line up these visuals they will connect to the pockets with the 1/2 tip pivots. The reasons are deep in perception. The table is part of that perception. Even I don't know all the gory details how these perceptions happen to work, I'm not sure Stan does either. But they do, and they can be quickly proven at the table.

The only way I got through the system was with an open mind. Instead of trying to make the perceptions fit into how I already knew how to aim, I instead trusted the system as stated and observed where the shots went. Once I got past that it fell together rather quickly. But you have to let go and trust it. All too many can't do it. They just can't give it a try without understanding all the gory details. They might try it but not truly trusting it, and end up dismissing it because it wasn't a magic bullet for them.

You made some really good points. I'm going to continue working on it until it clicks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scottjen26]

I hate to ask this question again, just remember not to pounce, I'm one of you...

Monty, you said something in your diagram that hit home. You said the balls would have a slightly different orientation because of the reference of the table (true) which enables you to make both shots with the same aim point and sweep. So my question is - and has been - why? I know it works, but what is it about the reference of the table that causes us to line up differently on two balls that are similar to or parallel to each other? Conversely, why without that reference would it NOT work?

This is the same thing that has bugged me for a while, mostly because I just can't figure it out. It's almost like sometimes I have it on the tip of my brain then I lose it. But something about the table/pocket reference is causing us to orientate our bodies initially differently, yet consistently, to similar shots, the end result being that our perception of the CTE line is starting from a slightly different starting point or direction, which then of course has the same affect on the ABC lines, which results in different shot lines for all of these examples that come up.

In other words, the CTE line and secondary aim points have to be different to make both shots, yet without the table as a reference it doesn't follow that they would be. So why, and how, does the framework of the table force this difference in perception?

Again, know it works, and it may be a subconscious difference in orientation, but interesting how repetitive it is not only from shot to shot but from person to person. I apologize if this was somehow addressed somewhere and I missed it. Seems like a critical component in understanding exactly how everything works and deflecting those age old arguments...

Scott

 

[mohrt]

I hate to ask this question again, just remember not to pounce, I'm one of you...

Monty, you said something in your diagram that hit home. You said the balls would have a slightly different orientation because of the reference of the table (true) which enables you to make both shots with the same aim point and sweep. So my question is - and has been - why? I know it works, but what is it about the reference of the table that causes us to line up differently on two balls that are similar to or parallel to each other? Conversely, why without that reference would it NOT work?

This is the same thing that has bugged me for a while, mostly because I just can't figure it out. It's almost like sometimes I have it on the tip of my brain then I lose it. But something about the table/pocket reference is causing us to orientate our bodies initially differently, yet consistently, to similar shots, the end result being that our perception of the CTE line is starting from a slightly different starting point or direction, which then of course has the same affect on the ABC lines, which results in different shot lines for all of these examples that come up.

In other words, the CTE line and secondary aim points have to be different to make both shots, yet without the table as a reference it doesn't follow that they would be. So why, and how, does the framework of the table force this difference in perception?

Again, know it works, and it may be a subconscious difference in orientation, but interesting how repetitive it is not only from shot to shot but from person to person. I apologize if this was somehow addressed somewhere and I missed it. Seems like a critical component in understanding exactly how everything works and deflecting those age old arguments...

Scott

I don't have a technical answer to that question. It is certainly buried in the nuances of perception. Stan says use the "outter most edge". So what I do is I find where the CTEL is as far outside the OB as possible without losing it or the A/B/C aim line. When you focus on that the perceptions are slightly different for each and every shot. If I don't do that I can force myself to line up the same on each shot, but they won't look right and wont work either.