There are NO limitations with Pro-One
Millions of Views!!!!
- Thread starter JB Cases
- Start date
- Status
There are NO limitations with Pro-One
.
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.
Not sure about ball layout possibilities.
How about Pro1 perceptions?
It's not as bad as all that. Different ball positions don't matter - only how many different CB/OB alignments are needed to cover all the possible cut angles. Because of pocket slop that's a finite number, and not even that huge.8pack:
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.
To make the longest shot from all cut angles takes only 75 or so CB/OB alignments. It only takes 25 or so to make a spot shot from all angles - still way more than any system can define.
pj
chgo
Any system except CTE
He asked how many potting angles there are, not the minimum number you need to account for. That would be unlimited, as you can take any two angles and divide them in half to get a new angle. As for CTE, the cue ball circumference is divided into 360 ticks for the sake of explanation of a fixed cue ball.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
.
Millions of angles..
0 to 90 and after that I would say your lucks going to run out.
Not sure about ball layout possibilities.
How about Pro1 perceptions?
You asked two questions I answered one.
For any given shot there is only ONE angle. Each shot is a unique task to be solved and has no relationship to all other shots. It is at that moment the only shot that exists.
You can choose not to take that shot and pick a different shot. At that time you will move to a different position and face a different task.
There are 8 perceptions in pro one for each cut direction and one of these perceptions covers every almost every shot to a pocket that you will face.
Of the 8 perceptions you can eliminate four of them as you step to the shot. That leaves four and your practice will tell you which one is the right one.
If, like me you don't use the inside and outside sweeps, those perceptions go down to 8 total, four per cut direction. This simplifies things even more and for it I sacrifice a little precision in aiming.
So, for any shot which can be made directly to a pocket, per my experience so far, one of four perceptions in ProOne will handle it. That is any shot I face in a 90 degree segment I will use one of four perceptions to align and aim.
Simplifies the task tremendously.
It's too bad that your videos, while entertaining, are not very helpful. You are obviously a great player but for some reason you prefer to shroud yourself in mystery. You seem to enjoy showing off more than teaching. But I will give you credit at least for being inspirational on YouTube and encouraging people to put in table time even if you don't give them any instruction on what to do.
Is he though? I mean, what has he accomplished in the pool world other than running balls in his basement?
And Yes, we know you don't know what there is to know about CTE and especially how to perform it but in your mega ego driven mind think you know everything.
Btw, how did you fare in the United States Amateur Championship, Patrick?
Last edited:
I answered the question he should have asked (and probably meant to).
pj <- how many angels can dance on a pin?
chgo
LMAO...I guess you didn't.
It is bizarre -- how Dan can ask questions in the nicest, simplest, most sincere manner and then be attacked? The nothing can stop me, CTE is taking over the world stuff is not normal either, nor is the fact that for years proponents have argued that CTE could not be documented in 2D but now there's a several hundred page book coming out. What? Is it going to have pop-up holograms?
From it's inception, little about CTE and its derivatives have made sense. To enter into a discussion about it has always been like going into a fun house Hall of Mirrors, where asking a simple question is an attack and failure to make the system work a lack of effort and faith.
The two DVDs I've watched have gaping holes in how they explain how you make it work. YET it's the viewers fault when the system doesn't work and to say so out loud inevitably results in an attack. That's the Bizzaro World this system exists in.
Lou Figueroa
MR. WILSON made THIS POST a little earlier in the thread:
" The instruction over and over was On topic and Constructive.
The constant arguing about prove it, you're wrong, etc...
If you can't agree, so what? Say so ONCE and drop out of the conversation.
Badgering everyone else that wants to talk about it is done, not just for him, but all."
Are YOU going to start your 18 years of badmouthing CTE as you and PJ have done since the same time in RSB till now and keep it up? You said it...drop out and ADIOS, LOU. You and PJ as your tag team partner have been like a PLAGUE!
Then why don't you break it down as to where the "gaping" holes are?
Why don't you show that you understand the method as applied on the table first.
I think astrophysics has "gaping holes" but since I can't even do the basic math in the field I guess I can't very well SHOW those gaping holes can I?
Simply stating it doesn't make it true, not for CTE proponents and not for CTE opponents. But the difference is table time and experience.
If I were to go to a springboard diving school the instructor would first test me on the basic knowledge and my physical ability to perform the dives to assess where I am at. Obviously it would be folly of me to argue with him on the mechanics involved in a backwards 3 1/2 if I couldn't even do a single back flip correctly.
Those of us who have put in the time with Hal's methods and with CTE know that they work because we have the experience ON THE TABLE.
It isn't a question of making it work using our subconscious but even if that were true then it's STILL more accurate than other methods. I mean those of us who have worked with it enjoy a higher degree of accuracy in shotmaking even with our funky imperfect strokes. Those who have great stroking technique enjoy even more success with it.
That's ultimately the bottom line Lou. I don't get why this is such a problem.
As for asking questions, Dan has been somewhat disingenuous in his line of questioning. Stan has the answers of course but is/was simply tired of giving them only to be knocked again and again.
You have said point blank that you think it's POSSIBLE that Stan intentionally left information out of the DVDs in order to book more in person lessons. This is not true and your statement is tantamount to calling him a snake-oil-salesman. You're an evil person. You have been evil as long as I have known of you. In your mind if you could not achieve a high level through incessant trial and error then no one else ought to be able to either. The very idea of anything that can shorten the learning curve in any way seems to piss you off. So you have consistently attacked every single person on every forum you have been on who advocates for aiming systems and for Hal's especially. That's just evil.
Instead of being part of the solution you are part of the problem dedicated to holding people back as players. You have access to video cameras and you spend hours at the pool room every day.
You are literally minutes away from Landon Shuffett and you could visit him at Lindenwood's training facility and go over CTE/ProOne with him but you won't. Stan has in the past extended a sincere invitation to you to go visit him and discuss it. But you are so entrenched in your view that you won't even consider it.
I even begged you to consider it after our match and you declined again. I am sorry but in my opinion you are an evil person who simply gets off on conflict instead of trying to find common ground.
You have never offered anything of value to any aiming system discussion ever. You could send Dan your DVDs though.
I have no interest in rehashing any of those things because they only produce an endless loop of insanity with you guys.
My review of Stan's first DVD is out there and I did him a mitzvah by refusing to review the second, though it was sent to me by another skeptic requesting I review it also. My other comments are out there too, which you will undoubtably continue to twist and take out of context. So, no thanks, I'm not playing.
Saying, "But the Emperor has no clothes!" does not make me evil. It just makes me an astute and honest observer. For any number of reasons, that appears to cause you angst, to gnash your teeth and rend your garments. I'm good with that
Ya'll carry on now.
Lou Figueroa
I have no interest in rehashing any of those things because they only produce an endless loop of insanity with you guys.
My review of Stan's first DVD is out there and I did him a mitzvah by refusing to review the second, though it was sent to me by another skeptic requesting I review it also. My other comments are out there too, which you will undoubtably continue to twist and take out of context. So, no thanks, I'm not playing.
Saying, "But the Emperor has no clothes!" does not make me evil. It just makes me an astute and honest observer. For any number of reasons, that appears to cause you angst, to gnash your teeth and rend your garments. I'm good with that
Ya'll carry on now.
Lou Figueroa
It's just a shame you wrote your review before ever watching the dvd. Hell, knowing how you feel, i could have wrote it for you.
Really, you should have watched it before writing the review, you might have learned something.
And we know what you think, just wonder why you continue to put it in writing knowing it just proves your lack of knowledge on the subject.
- Status