Another CTE question

swest · Mar 21, 2014

First off, sorry for starting yet another thread with this kind of title and subject, but I didn't want to post my question over in Big C's CTE review (where this came up), at the risk of getting his thread relocated out of the Main forum (which it is probably in danger of anyway)...

Secondly, please don't make assumptions about my motives for asking my question. If you have an answer, great, if not, that's fine too.

Gerry Williams said:
With the curtain the only objective points are the balls since you cannot see the pocket. If Stan was trying to shoot those by feel he would be trying to guess where the pocket is exactly.

Pro One the target is centre cue ball once the visuals have been locked in.

Shooting under the curtain is fun - I have spent time at Stan's place doing this - nailed em too for the most part. Could probably win a lot of money this way

Gerry's remarks are in relation to the video that was referenced in the opening post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpcDls9V3ds , which I watched.

These two things, the video, and Gerry's remarks above, have brought me back to a question I have wondered about before. To requote Gerry, "...the only objective points are the balls...". Q: Are you saying that the procedure, in CTE/Pro 1, for placing yourself on the shot line relies on no reference points from the table at all?

stan shuffett · Mar 21, 2014

swest said:
First off, sorry for starting yet another thread with this kind of title and subject, but I didn't want to post my question over in Big C's CTE review (where this came up), at the risk of getting his thread relocated out of the Main forum (which it is probably in danger of anyway)...

Secondly, please don't make assumptions about my motives for asking my question. If you have an answer, great, if not, that's fine too.

Gerry's remarks are in relation to the video that was referenced in the opening post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpcDls9V3ds , which I watched.

These two things, the video, and Gerry's remarks above, have brought me back to a question I have wondered about before. To requote Gerry, "...the only objective points are the balls...". Q: Are you saying that the procedure, in CTE/Pro 1, for placing yourself on the shot line relies on no reference points from the table at all?

The system yields shot lines to right angles. There's essentially 8 of them on a regulation table. A portion of a table can be blinded but the right angle(s) are typically almost always apparent. With the blinded pocket(s) it is almost impossible to know where center pocket is exactly located. It is easy to be fooled by many inches. HOWEVER, the system is not fooled when on a 2x1 table.

Stan Shuffett

swest · Mar 21, 2014

Thank you for responding.

In your curtained example, both end pockets were obscured. So even though the line of the long rail (i.e., the one that is away from you) can be mentally extended, you wouldn't know the location of the pocket (consciously, or subconsciously) without awareness of the 2x1 dimensions of the table. Is that what you are saying?

stan shuffett · Mar 21, 2014

swest said:
Thank you for responding.

In your curtained example, both end pockets were obscured. So even though the line of the long rail (i.e., the one that is away from you) can be mentally extended, you wouldn't know the location of the pocket (consciously, or subconsciously) without awareness of the 2x1 dimensions of the table. Is that what you are saying?

That is correct. Two right angles at the bottom. CTE shines in taking the shooter to 90 degree angles even when unaware of their precise local.

Stan Shuffett

swest · Mar 21, 2014

Ok, then. So I will go out on a limb and say that the System must require some reference to the table, even if it's minimal, and limited to, for example

the direction of the long rail (in 2-d)
the table's width, and
the location of, at least, one pocket

Given the 2x1 length to width relationship, those three pieces of information, as an example, would be sufficient to inform the System of the location of all the pockets, right?

What I'm driving at is this: If the rails and pockets of the table were all obscured in some way, and the orientation of the table in 2-d space was unknown, and you put a cue ball and object ball in random locations on that otherwise unmarked surface, that would be insufficient information for the System to work, right? You need some minimum information from the table itself for the System to work.

I'm pressing this point because I inferred from Gerry's comment in the other thread, that he might say (sorry if I'm putting words in his mouth) that it wasn't true that you needed any reference points from the table at all. Further, during the long years of the debate over the System, I seem to recall others making similar statements, that just would seem to fly in the face of reason.

Can you clear this up for me?

stan shuffett · Mar 21, 2014

swest said:
Ok, then. So I will go out on a limb and say that the System must require some reference to the table, even if it's minimal, and limited to, for example

the direction of the long rail (in 2-d)

the table's width, and

the location of, at least, one pocket

Given the 2x1 length to width relationship, those three pieces of information, as an example, would be sufficient to inform the System of the location of all the pockets, right?

What I'm driving at is this: If the rails and pockets of the table were all obscured in some way, and the orientation of the table in 2-d space was unknown, and you put a cue ball and object ball in random locations on that otherwise unmarked surface, that would be insufficient information for the System to work, right? You need some minimum information from the table itself for the System to work.

I'm pressing this point because I inferred from Gerry's comment in the other thread, that he might say (sorry if I'm putting words in his mouth) that it wasn't true that you needed any reference points from the table at all. Further, during the long years of the debate over the System, I seem to recall others making similar statements, that just would seem to fly in the face of reason.

Can you clear this up for me?

In a recent YouTube video I did a lazier point test under the curtain and I was off of enter pocket. The first 10 points that I did were way off from the pocket. So, even though I knew a right angle was in a certain direction my best guesses for center pocket were zero for 10.

Yes one could ridiculously obscure the table to the point where it would be difficult to ascertain right angle locations... But just give me a portion of a regulation table and I will make some balls. The system results in right angle shot lines.

Stan Shuffett

swest · Mar 21, 2014

You have cleared up that misconception to my satisfaction.

Thank you, very much.

- s.west

chalkhed · Mar 21, 2014

So do you think that your visual perception of how the balls relate to one another automatically changes slightly based on your perception of their relation to these table references (for example where the walls are)?

For example with the initial 2 shots in chapter 12 on dvd 2 where the balls are the same distance from one another but slightly different angles to the pocket - is your perception of the relation between the balls (how you perceive edge to A and CTE) slightly different because of the balls relation to the rails / table references, and this is what results in the correct shot angles being produced?

stan shuffett · Mar 21, 2014

chalkhed said:
So do you think that your visual perception of how the balls relate to one another automatically changes slightly based on your perception of their relation to these table references (for example where the walls are)?

For example with the initial 2 shots in chapter 12 on dvd 2 where the balls are the same distance from one another but slightly different angles to the pocket - is your perception of the relation between the balls (how you perceive edge to A and CTE) slightly different because of the balls relation to the rails / table references, and this is what results in the correct shot angles being produced?

No. Perceptions are the same. The rotation or sweep to CCB changes.
One shot is a cut to a corner while the other is a long rail bank.
The visuals are constant. The pivot or sweep is the variable.

Stan Shuffett

Gerry Williams · Mar 21, 2014

Yes - I should have mentioned that some portion of the table is visible as Stan indicated. I mentioned that in the other thread so the ball isn't the only objective target but the pockets are clearly hidden.

Sorry if it caused any confusion.

swest said:
First off, sorry for starting yet another thread with this kind of title and subject, but I didn't want to post my question over in Big C's CTE review (where this came up), at the risk of getting his thread relocated out of the Main forum (which it is probably in danger of anyway)...

Secondly, please don't make assumptions about my motives for asking my question. If you have an answer, great, if not, that's fine too.

Gerry's remarks are in relation to the video that was referenced in the opening post: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpcDls9V3ds , which I watched.

These two things, the video, and Gerry's remarks above, have brought me back to a question I have wondered about before. To requote Gerry, "...the only objective points are the balls...". Q: Are you saying that the procedure, in CTE/Pro 1, for placing yourself on the shot line relies on no reference points from the table at all?

chalkhed · Mar 21, 2014

stan shuffett said:
No. Perceptions are the same. The rotation or sweep to CCB changes.
One shot is a cut to a corner while the other is a long rail bank.
The visuals are constant. The pivot or sweep is the variable.

Stan Shuffett

Sorry I think I messed up - the first shot in chapter 12 "a workbench study" is where you have the 3 sets of cue ball and object ball lined up the same distance from one another each set slightly further from the long rail, all cuts to the far left corner pocket (no banks). Do you perceive the balls differently in each shot here because of their relationship to the rails/table? That would make sense to me that the eyes might naturally change how they perceive things in relation to their surroundings

EDIT: and by perceive - I don't mean use a different perception - I mean your eyes see something slightly different in the 15 degree perception between each set of balls, which gets you to the correct shot line / cut angle

stan shuffett · Mar 21, 2014

chalkhed said:
Sorry I think I messed up - the first shot in chapter 12 "a workbench study" is where you have the 3 sets of cue ball and object ball lined up the same distance from one another each set slightly further from the long rail, all cuts to the far left corner pocket (no banks). Do you perceive the balls differently in each shot here because of their relationship to the rails/table? That would make sense to me that the eyes might naturally change how they perceive things in relation to their surroundings

EDIT: and by perceive - I don't mean use a different perception - I mean your eyes see something slightly different in the 15 degree perception between each set of balls, which gets you to the correct shot line / cut angle

My bad!

Yes. You got it. Each CB OB has it's own unique relationship.

The visuals across the 3 balls are A and CTE and a 1/2 tip indies pivot or sweep can pockets all 3 shots.

That is the only way the system can handle a zillion shots.

Stan Shuffett

Cynabar · Mar 22, 2014

stan shuffett said:
My bad!

Yes. You got it. Each CB OB has it's own unique relationship.

The visuals across the 3 balls are A and CTE and a 1/2 tip indies pivot or sweep can pockets all 3 shots.

That is the only way the system can handle a zillion shots.

Stan Shuffett

Capter 12 is a challenge for me. I know something must change from shot to shot as the angle to the pocket changes but if the perception and sweep are identical, what changes?

Right now I'm left with the concept of the "table" subconsciously informing each perception and or each sweep resulting in a in-perceivable but real change in the shot dynamics for each example.

Help please.

stan shuffett · Mar 22, 2014

Cynabar said:
Capter 12 is a challenge for me. I know something must change from shot to shot as the angle to the pocket changes but if the perception and sweep are identical, what changes?

Right now I'm left with the concept of the "table" subconsciously informing each perception and or each sweep resulting in a in-perceivable but real change in the shot dynamics for each example.

Help please.

The CB OB orientation changes the perception BUT your Aim points and the CTE remain from shot to shot.

Continue to make balls. Work very hard to master chapters 6. 8 and 9.
You will soon learn the perceptions.

You are LEARNING to use your eyes in a very different way and it soon can become quite easy.

Continue your study and work and you will soon see what is happening.

Stan Shuffett

stan shuffett · Mar 22, 2014

Cynabar said:
Capter 12 is a challenge for me. I know something must change from shot to shot as the angle to the pocket changes but if the perception and sweep are identical, what changes?

Right now I'm left with the concept of the "table" subconsciously informing each perception and or each sweep resulting in a in-perceivable but real change in the shot dynamics for each example.

Help please.

Also, please consider that it took YEARS for me to unravel the presentation. Your material can allow you to learn the 2 CTE perceptions in a very short time....NOT years.
What is KEY is to get stubborn with and work the fire out it for a while. It could be days or weeks or a few months ..... Not much to pay for moving your visuals skills to a new dimension that connect with the table. And to boot your physical moves to CCB will be professional not amateurish.

Hang in there!

Stan Shuffett

UpMySleeves · Mar 22, 2014

swest said:
Ok, then. So I will go out on a limb and say that the System must require some reference to the table, even if it's minimal, and limited to, for example

the direction of the long rail (in 2-d)

the table's width, and

the location of, at least, one pocket

Given the 2x1 length to width relationship, those three pieces of information, as an example, would be sufficient to inform the System of the location of all the pockets, right?

What I'm driving at is this: If the rails and pockets of the table were all obscured in some way, and the orientation of the table in 2-d space was unknown, and you put a cue ball and object ball in random locations on that otherwise unmarked surface, that would be insufficient information for the System to work, right? You need some minimum information from the table itself for the System to work.

I'm pressing this point because I inferred from Gerry's comment in the other thread, that he might say (sorry if I'm putting words in his mouth) that it wasn't true that you needed any reference points from the table at all. Further, during the long years of the debate over the System, I seem to recall others making similar statements, that just would seem to fly in the face of reason.

Can you clear this up for me?

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.

Shawn Armstrong · Mar 22, 2014

I'm sure this has been addressed, but I don't know where to find the information, so I'll ask while I have the resources here. What happens when the target isn't the pocket? Say I'm aiming a carom, kiss, or banking a ball with an object ball. Is there some adjustment with CTE or Pro1 for this?

chalkhed · Mar 22, 2014

There's a chapter on the dvd about that (although I didn't really understand it). It appears there's some adjustment for it.

UpMySleeves · Mar 22, 2014

The whole point of the curtain exercise is to show that the pocket isn't the imoortant factor, even for a sstraight in shot. It still isn't for a bank. The system finds the corresponding pocket with the visuals and sweep that were used (if there is one). So for a bank without curtains, you are not aiming to a point on the rail, you simply use the correct visuals and sweep and it connects. Figuring out which ob aim point is correct will depend on the 15 or 30 degree perception. Maybe a more experienced user can explain better here, bur from what I understand, the theoretical full table curtain exercise will work. You might pocket the ball straight in, or have a 3 rail bank, that is unknown if you can't see the whole table.

I am aware that will multi rail banks, you have to adjust for speed and spin, so first shot success is unlikely but it will be pretty close

Sent from my LT30p using Tapatalk

Big C · Mar 22, 2014

Shawn Armstrong said:
I'm sure this has been addressed, but I don't know where to find the information, so I'll ask while I have the resources here. What happens when the target isn't the pocket? Say I'm aiming a carom, kiss, or banking a ball with an object ball. Is there some adjustment with CTE or Pro1 for this?

CTE PRO 1 does have solutions for combinations and caroms. Usually it best to stick to 15 and 30 degree perceptions. 30 and over gets really iffy. Try some easy straight-ins and progress up to 30 degrees. You will soon get the jist of it.

Another CTE question

goldmember

AzB Silver Member

goldmember

AzB Silver Member

goldmember

AzB Silver Member

goldmember

Registered

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Registered

AzB Silver Member

Registered

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AZB deceased - stopped posting 5/13/2022

Registered

AzB Silver Member

Deep in the heart of TX.