Thanks for responding. I had a hunch a quarters book wouldn't use the term.
You seem to have some confusion about a visual. CTE visuals are quite easy to see. In fact they're much easier for me to use than a 3/16 quarters alignment for example.
Trying to understand CTE Pro 1
- Thread starter Butterbean150
- Start date
Thanks for responding. I had a hunch a quarters book wouldn't use the term.
You seem to have some confusion about a visual. CTE visuals are quite easy to see. In fact they're much easier for me to use than a 3/16 quarters alignment for example.
Thanks for incoherent rant.
Your welcome.
Gotta question for you, why are there so many people having a hard time with pro1
.cte?
Even if Stan had trademark rights to the word "visual" it wouldn't mean that CTE's visual is any different in function than the visuals used in other systems or non-systems. CTE's inability to clearly define it doesn't make it special or different - it just makes CTE's advertising... er, fanciful.
pj
chgo
There are no visuals in any other system. You have only a one line aim point. For the FOURTH time, tell us of any system that uses the noun "visual" as part of it's aiming system. Good luck, you'll need it.
btw.. Your 'advertising' is much more fanciful.
I agree that visualizing a 3/16 fraction aim line is a bit more challenging than visualizing a CTE or ETB. But the a full ball, a 7/8, a 3/4, a 5/8, a 1/2, and a 3/8 are just as easy to visualize as an ETA, B, or C, and CTE line.
I realize CTE users don't line up directly behind any of these lines/visuals, but rather use two visualized lines (like ETA and CTE) to obtain a fixed cb perspective, a pre-shot angle so to speak. If that perceived shot angle looks thin they use an outside offset pivot or sweep to thicken it up and arrive on the shot line, and vice versa if it looks thick.
A non CTE player could incorporate a similar method by using the nearest quarter fractional aim line to "fix" the cb at a certain shot angle/perspective that looks close to pocketing the ball. From this fixed ccb perspective they'll then have to decide if the shot needs thickened or thinned (using the same visual experience that a CTE user must first use to determine whether an outside or inside pivot/sweep is needed). Once it's determined whether the shot needs thinned or thickened, the non CTE user can use an offset pivot (from inside or outside the shot angle) to thin or thicken the shot according to what the eyes see. With enough practice they'll find it easier to know which initiatial quarter reference line to use, and they'll automatically recognize which pivot/sweep to use.
The only difference between working the pivots from a single quarter fractional line (as described above) and a 2-line CTE perception is the fact that quite often the non CTE user will find that their initial reference line (that fixed ccb line to one of the quarters) will already be dead for the pocket with no offset pivot needed to thin or thicken it up. With the CTE 2-line perception method this somehow never happens -- the perception is always thin or thick of the actual shot line and therefore always requires a pivot or sweep.
Both methods can be worked and used with enough practice.
Last edited:
Other systems use more than one reference alignment - a fractional aimer, for instance (from which CTE evolved) might reference one or two fractional alignments depending on where the actual cut angle falls between them. Other systems might start with a center-to-edge "orienting" alignment and adjust from there to the actual cut angle, using fractions or not. Even I compare more than one "landmark" with my non-system aiming method. It's not special.
More to the point, using two lines doesn't make a system's "visual" function any differently than a single-line system's visual - it's just a little more elaborate... which isn't necessarily better.
pj
chgo
The third paragraph describes a system similar to shish-kabob, imho. Using quarters with a variable pivot could be used as the start of an aiming system.
It's funny you mentioned that method because a few months ago I was dinkin' on the table using a pivot triangle to compute the angle and then using a variable pivot and nearest quarter to shoot some balls in. it works pretty well but requires a more subjective estimate with the alignment.
It's funny you mentioned that method because a few months ago I was dinkin' on the table using a pivot triangle to compute the angle and then using a variable pivot and nearest quarter to shoot some balls in. it works pretty well but requires a more subjective estimate with the alignment.
More to the point, a two line system is much different than any one line system. You do understand the difference between one and two I hope. In fact, it's unique compared to other aiming systems.
I have a friend who uses Shishkabob, his "enhanced" version of it anyway. He does alright.
Is aiming a rifle/pistol sight to a target a "visual" or "visualization"?
I can't talk for other people but I can tell you the bumps I had. They all related to repeatability.
You must stand in the same relative position to the OB - CB line.
The pivot or sweep must be the same amount. Bridge distance must be the same if using a manual pivot. Tip placement must be the same too.
The drop to center CB must be straight down.
You must have a straight stroke.
CTE is an advanced aiming system with many 'moving parts'. If you're a casual player it's hard to keep all the pieces running smoothly. My suggestion for someone who wishes to learn the system is to do a lot of stroke exercises. Without a good stroke you won't be consistent with system.
just mho
Last edited:
A visual is what anybody sees. A visualization or perception is that same visual "marked up" with whatever you choose to focus on or imagine for your purpose (usually parts of the CB/OB aligned with each other).
All aiming methods and systems use visuals/visualizations/perceptions in the same ways - to help identify, memorize and recall CB/OB alignments that work for specific cut angles. The differences between what's visualized for one method vs. another are simply personal preferences - no magic involved (except for the impressive "magic" of our subconscious supercomputers, which use the visualized "data" to learn when to say "aha!").
The whole semantic argument ("we used the word this way first, so our system is different/better") is even sillier than most CTE claims - not to mention untrue.
pj
chgo
Low IQ sez.........
I am going to take a little issue with your belief about a casual player.
If that casual player decides to get better, the CTE method is without question the most precise and easiest method to learn. It is unusual...that is the deal.
The casual or beginning player doesn't have all that bull crammed in his/her memory bank from years of reading Patrick Johnson or Brian Crist or Duckie or Joey or any of the other "expert aimers" in this pool forum.
With the beginner, there is an open mind. The beginner doesn't have to unlearn a lot of bullfeathers and falsehoods. The beginner's mind is open for proper instructions.
With CTE Pro One, there is no manual pivot. Once the perceptions are understood, the shooter just does the same thing over and over and over. He is not burdened with any conglomeration of 1/16" fraction or 3/8" fraction, 11/16" fraction, invisible ghostballs, or any of that outdated baloney.
I struggled with the method for quite a while myself because I had to unlearn all that crud.
Once I visited Stan Shuffett for personal coaching, it all fell into place quite simply.
I personally observed the materials in his upcoming book. It will be wonderful for a beginning player with an open mind.
For those bigots who continue to gripe and moan about how "it won't work".....all I have for them is this: Mind your own business, don't buy it, don't believe any of it, don't look at any of it, ignore the Truth Series, just keep right on doing what you've been doing for decades and LEAVE US ALL ALONE.
And that's the name of that tune........
Low IQ (that's me) sez:
I am going to take a little issue with your belief about a casual player.
If that casual player decides to get better, the CTE method is without question the most precise and easiest method to learn. It is unusual...that is the deal.
The casual or beginning player doesn't have all that bull crammed in his/her memory bank from years of reading Patrick Johnson or Brian Crist or Duckie or Joey or any of the other "expert aimers" in this pool forum.
With the beginner, there is an open mind. The beginner doesn't have to unlearn a lot of bullfeathers and falsehoods. The beginner's mind is open for proper instructions.
With CTE Pro One, there is no manual pivot. Once the perceptions are understood, the shooter just does the same thing over and over and over. He is not burdened with any conglomeration of 1/16" fraction or 3/8" fraction, 11/16" fraction, invisible ghostballs, or any of that outdated baloney.
I struggled with the method for quite a while myself because I had to unlearn all that crud.
Once I visited Stan Shuffett for personal coaching, it all fell into place quite simply.
I personally observed the materials in his upcoming book. It will be wonderful for a beginning player with an open mind.
For those bigots who continue to gripe and moan about how "it won't work".....all I have for them is this: Mind your own business, don't buy it, don't believe any of it, don't look at any of it, ignore the Truth Series, just keep right on doing what you've been doing for decades and LEAVE US ALL ALONE.
And that's the name of that tune........
A visual when used in relation to CTE is a unique term. It's not related to perception or visualization when used as a noun in any dictionary. It's not what anybody sees. It's defined as a picture or graphic if you take the time to crack a book.
No other aiming systems use a visual. Give an example if you can. ( and you can't )
It's not a sematic argument. A CTE visual is an alignment method that's unique to all aiming systems. It uses two lines for alignment which is different than other system. You don't have visuals in GB, CP, fractions, overlaps, etc... To claim there are is a very silly statement. Surely you jest.
Nonsense. Whatever "shot picture" you visualize with any system/method is used in exactly the same way: to fix the successful shotpic/visualization/visual in your memory with enough identifying information so your subconscious can recognize it again when needed.
Thinking CTE's visual is used some other "unique" way just means you haven't thought about it clearly - maybe you don't want to, since it reveals CTE's ordinariness.
By the way, this isn't about whether or not CTE "works", just about how it works - i.e., like every other method, whether using two "lines" or one or none.
I actually like the idea of using a center-to-edge "orienting" alignment along with a "fractional" A-B-C-1/8 "aiming reference" alignment, and I can see advantages to pivoting to the final aim line - but even these aren't unique to CTE, whether or not you know that.
pj
chgo
I would say a visual, or better yet a visual perception. You are matching up two visuals, two images (one near - the sights, and one far - the target). When your brain perceives these images being lined up appropriately you know you're locked in.
In pool there are no sights, no cross arrows to easily pinpoint onto a distance target. I suppose you do have a front and rear sight (bridge and and grip hand), but you can't look directly along these points as you can with a rifle or pistol. Shooting a pool shot is probably more like using a rifle or pistol from the hip without utilizing the sights. You have to visualize the proper direction/trajectory in order to hit the target.
No subconscious tweaking. Same ol' tired BS. Get the visual, pivot or sweep, shoot, and plunk. No extra brain power needed.
It's a two line system not a one liner. Hello, hello, hello. Is there anybody in there?
I'm surprised you admitted CTE works. Maybe there's hope yet. That's a big maybe though.
It isn't a fractional aim because fractional aiming uses a single line.
I know other pivoting systems exist but they, like every other system, use a single aim line. This includes shish-kabob, 90/90, and any other pivoting system. Tell us, if you can, of another one that uses a two line visual. Betcha' can't. But you know that too.
You imagine/visualize two lines at once, like a CTE line and an ETA line. You must orient your body/head in a particular position to visualize these two lines. From this position you visualize the fixed ccb perception line and then visualize a offset sweep or pivot. I say "visualize" because none of these are visible, they reflect no light, meaning your eyes cannot capture any images other the reference points on each ball. The lines are perceived by the brain, not actually seen by the eyes, which means the lines are not things that fall under the definition of "visual". They are visualizations.
You can call any of these lines a visual, but they are no different than the tangent line or an aim line or shot line, all of which must me imagined/visualized based on real references (images/visuals) that we can actually see.
I agree that the 2-line visualization method with CTE does provide a unique "fixed" ccb alignment that other systems (those with single line visualizations) can't provide. But all systems actually "fix" the cb. Anytime you look straight at ccb, from any perspective, there will always be two "fixed" edges.
Again.. a CTE 'visual' is DEFINED as the unique alignment of two fixed positions. The term 'visual' is used ONLY in conjunction with CTE. You can't call a single line alignment a 'visual' because is doesn't use two lines. I don't need no stinkin' magination.