PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

Dave, you make some good points. Of course I may be partial at this point... But this is what I can't yet reconcile for myself either.

I'm following instructions to align visually and physically, I'm pivoting to center (manual or Pro 1), and the balls drop. From everywhere, including banks. And for shots in a similar range of angles, I'm using the same alignment and pivot and making them all. And I certainly do not have any conscious feeling (forgive using that word) that I'm doing anything different on any of these shots.

I too don't even know where the "feel" or fudging would come into play. And because of this consistent alignment and pivoting and my confidence in it (which is results based), I no longer care when I overrun position and have a slightly tougher or longer shot, or a more extreme angle, since I'm just executing the shot the same as if it was straight in.

If it turns out it's just a visual trick of sorts, great, I'll trick myself all day long. I just don't see it. Yet I also don't see how geometrically it can work either, only difference is unlike some others I took it to the table instead of arguing about it on paper or based on theory. That's the rub - it can't work, but it does. And the debate rages on...

Scott

champ2107 said:

click on it and watch

Click to expand...

Ahhhh So.

Funny Stuff.

SpiderWebComm said:

Did you try it? Don't ask me--- peel yourself off your keyboard and put some time in. Post a video of you doing it, so if it doesn't work--- we can all examine why.

Click to expand...

As you will remember, I did try it, both the way you did it in the video and the way Stan prescribes for those shots. In neither case would it "work" for all 12 balls. And, no, I don't do videos of myself.

For the sixth through eleventh shots on that video, you used an edge-to-1/2 secondary alignment line. Here's something I wrote at the time. "Dave, suppose you placed the six "B" shots from your video on the center line near the middle of a three-cushion table. Then do the same relative placements of the cue balls and the same pivot lengths and pivots as in your video. If you did this with robotic perfection, do you really think the 6 shots would all hit the cushion in the same place? No! The OB's would follow 6 distinct but parallel lines to the cushion, because you would be cutting all of them at the same angle." You didn't respond.

scottjen26 said:

Dave, you make some good points. Of course I may be partial at this point... But this is what I can't yet reconcile for myself either.

I'm following instructions to align visually and physically, I'm pivoting to center (manual or Pro 1), and the balls drop. From everywhere, including banks. And for shots in a similar range of angles, I'm using the same alignment and pivot and making them all. And I certainly do not have any conscious feeling (forgive using that word) that I'm doing anything different on any of these shots.

I too don't even know where the "feel" or fudging would come into play. And because of this consistent alignment and pivoting and my confidence in it (which is results based), I no longer care when I overrun position and have a slightly tougher or longer shot, or a more extreme angle, since I'm just executing the shot the same as if it was straight in.

If it turns out it's just a visual trick of sorts, great, I'll trick myself all day long. I just don't see it. Yet I also don't see how geometrically it can work either, only difference is unlike some others I took it to the table instead of arguing about it on paper or based on theory. That's the rub - it can't work, but it does. And the debate rages on...

Scott

Click to expand...

Well as Hal said - pool is outcome based. So, if shots go like God--- maybe we're missing something and those discussing it don't know everything. Hal told me it can't be shown in 2D - so I just assume we're wasting our time because there's no progress.

If you do X, Y and Z exactly and to the "T" --- and the ball drops, I think you need to start from there and work backwards. Instead, the forum guys start from the beginning and drive forward. The only way this on-going discussion will come to a halt, is if a collection of guys who are successful with CTE are video taped from the top-down on a series of shots and annotated with stroke/video analysis software (using specific reference points as anchors). Only then will we have a clue of what's going on. Until then, I'm bored (and have been for a while) of these threads.

AtLarge said:

As you will remember, I did try it, both the way you did it in the video and the way Stan prescribes for those shots. In neither case would it "work" for all 12 balls. And, no, I don't do videos of myself.

For the sixth through eleventh shots on that video, you used an edge-to-1/2 secondary alignment line. Here's something I wrote at the time. "Dave, suppose you placed the six "B" shots from your video on the center line near the middle of a three-cushion table. Then do the same relative placements of the cue balls and the same pivot lengths and pivots as in your video. If you did this with robotic perfection, do you really think the 6 shots would all hit the cushion in the same place? No! The OB's would follow 6 distinct but parallel lines to the cushion, because you would be cutting all of them at the same angle." You didn't respond.

Click to expand...

As I said in the post above, it'd be helpful to have a top-down camera video taping the drill you describe. I'm confident I'd send the ball to the corner of the 3-cushion table for all shots until collision induced throw would force me to guess on how to cancel it out. Even then, however, it'd be close every time.

SpiderWebComm said:

... I'm confident I'd send the ball to the corner of the 3-cushion table for all shots until collision induced throw would force me to guess on how to cancel it out. Even then, however, it'd be close every time.

Click to expand...

You are not really responding to my point. I said to put the 6 balls on the center line near the middle of the 3-cushion table. So the corner of that table is much farther to the shooter's left than was the pocket on the pool table. I'm just pointing out that the basic CTE instruction set (with edge-to-1/2 secondary alignment) can still be performed in that situation, and will send each of the 6 shots somewhere, but that there is no reason in the world for all 6 shots to converge to the same spot on the rail (as you say they do when you put them on the pool table with a pocket).

SpiderWebComm said:

Well as Hal said - pool is outcome based. So, if shots go like God--- maybe we're missing something and those discussing it don't know everything. Hal told me it can't be shown in 2D - so I just assume we're wasting our time because there's no progress.

If you do X, Y and Z exactly and to the "T" --- and the ball drops, I think you need to start from there and work backwards. Instead, the forum guys start from the beginning and drive forward. The only way this on-going discussion will come to a halt, is if a collection of guys who are successful with CTE are video taped from the top-down on a series of shots and annotated with stroke/video analysis software (using specific reference points as anchors). Only then will we have a clue of what's going on. Until then, I'm bored (and have been for a while) of these threads.

Click to expand...

Dave,
Reverse engineering of CTE?
I have held that there are many different strokes for different folks so the cut angles achieved by 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8 will be different for each but can be commited to memory.

So wheter it is moving the bridge back or forth or changing the pre-pivot offset, to fill in the cut angles in between - that can be commited to memory as well for recall later.

Thanks.

stan shuffett said:

Shots 7-12 go with a CTE visual but not directly to that left corner pocket.
In CTE/PRO ONE shots 7-12 go to that corner but only with an adjustment to CTE, the 1/8 ball overlap and the proper pivot.

Shots 7-10 can be played as back under banks using a CTE visual. AGain, the aim points and pivots vary from shot to shot. Shot 11 is actually a 2 rail CTE bank to the left corner.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification Stan.

This is different information than what Spidey says in his video. He claims that the pivot distance doesn't change at all from shot to shot.

SpiderWebComm said:

Did you try it? Don't ask me--- peel yourself off your keyboard and put some time in. Post a video of you doing it, so if it doesn't work--- we can all examine why.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I tried it. Given the same secondary alignment and pivot point, I get exactly the same final aim line. How should I not?

LAMas said:

Dave,
Reverse engineering of CTE?
I have held that there are many different strokes for different folks so the cut angles achieved by 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8 will be different for each but can be commited to memory.

So wheter it is moving the bridge back or forth or changing the pre-pivot offset, to fill in the cut angles in between - that can be commited to memory as well for recall later.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I've tried to post here before on what I look at or feel while shooting using CTE/Pro 1 in an effort to explain it, especially since I'm new to it and had to really think about it when working on it.

As far as methods of subconsciously filling in the angles between the commonly accepted 6 or 8 prescribed angles for each shot - if we are to assume that those 6 or 8 angles are in fact all that can be achieved without feel-based adjustments, then some sort of adjustment must be needed to fill in the gaps. Regarding some of your ideas, and others I've seen:

- We could be altering the lines or aim points somehow and making slight adjustments to affect the angle of the shot. Pretty sure that's not the case, would be very tough to do that accurately. In my experience, sighting the lines as accurately as possible is what makes the shots go in

- We could be altering our bridge lengths. I think this can actually be learned through repetition, and I know the actual or effective bridge or pivot lengths can be altered as an accomodation in this and other systems, but I know for me I am definitely not changing my bridge length based on the shot, it's constant on all shots that don't have a physical restriction of some sort. Using the Pro 1 or "air" or "hip" pivot accomplishes this.

- We could be altering our final post-pivot position. Again, I think with 90/90 or other CTE systems the effective pivot point could definitely be slightly adjusted to affect the final position, and that could be learned through experience as well, but with CTE/Pro 1 the pivot is so small that room for feel-based adjustments seems very small. And as above, I feel like the combination of accurate sight lines and accurate pivots is what makes the balls go in, sloppiness with either tends to promote a miss

- Unless I'm missing something, that leaves some sort of feel or adjustment happening in the initial alignment itself. So I'm sighting the lines accurately for all shots but something about the shot is causing my body to be aligned slightly differently, which then causes my body to lean over the shot slightly differently for different shots. For me, this seems the most likely, and could possibly tie into that "visual intelligence" term that's been used. It's not like I stare at a spot on the table where I'm going to place my bridge hand, it all drops into place largely based on my body and eye position


So I think (for now) that either the process being followed is being subconsciously adjusted in a very accurate and repeatable way, and if so my money is on the last of the 4 options above, or there is something flawed in the very logic that the initial alignment and pivots can only truly produce 6 or 8 resulting angles. I know logically on paper that has to be true, but I know experientially that it may not be, and I still think there may be a possibility dependent on 3D perception that no one has been able to accurately prove or disprove, although many good diagrams and attempts have been made. As Dave said, I think we would really need a good video setup with the right perspective and editing tools to further some of the investigation.

Scott

stan shuffett said:

First, AtLarge, thank you for your work with CTE/PRO ONE.

AtLarge, All shots do go with CTE/PRO ONE. ( I am assuming you are referring to the 12 shots that Spidey set up and shot into the bottom left corner on video}

The first 6 shots go into the left corner with a CTE visual. The aim points vary and the pivots are, of course, left or right.

Shots 7-12 go with a CTE visual but not directly to that left corner pocket.
In CTE/PRO ONE shots 7-12 go to that corner but only with an adjustment to CTE, the 1/8 ball overlap and the proper pivot.

Shots 7-10 can be played as back under banks using a CTE visual. AGain, the aim points and pivots vary from shot to shot. Shot 11 is actually a 2 rail CTE bank to the left corner.

Shot 12 is best played as a 1/8 ball overlap shot.

It is always important to remember that most shots go with a CTE visual but not always to the pocket you would like.

One of the Keys of CTE/PRO ONE is that are only a few visuals to learn but all shots are to be played with a 1/2 tip pivot whether Basic CTE or the equivalent PRO ONE pivot.

STan

Click to expand...

Thank you, Stan. And, yes, I am referring to Spidey's 12 shots to the same left corner pocket. I think one difficulty with his video, as I told him at the time, was that he was not using your version of manual CTE. He was using a 1/2-ball offset, he was pivoting from the same side for all shots, and he was using a pivot length different from your recommendation. As expected, he said those differences make no difference, but they do to a student trying to learn your version of manual CTE.

Spidey claimed that he was using exactly the same visuals, offset, and pivot on shots 6 through 11, and getting 6 different cut angles to the same pocket. My use of the billiard-table analogy was to show that his claim, without using additional "visual intelligence" from knowing the location of the target, is illogical.

You seem to be indicating that some of those shots require something different from what Spidey was saying, but I still don't fully understand your comments. Shot 6 is a "B," right? And you say shots 7-11 are 1/8 overlap shots. So let me just focus on 7-11. Since the CB-OB distance is less than 12.5" for all of them, you would recommend a 5"-6" pivot length. Are some of them right pivots and some left pivots? Since there are 5 of those shots, at least two of them must have the pivot from the same side. For whatever number of those 5 shots that would have the same CB-OB distance, the same visuals, the same 1/2-tip offset, the same bridge length, and the same-sided pivot -- why do you produce more than one cut angle?

SpiderWebComm said:

If you do X, Y and Z exactly and to the "T" --- and the ball drops, I think you need to start from there and work backwards.

Click to expand...

Dave, you must know that to reverse engineer a process from its effects you must do three very fundamental things before you even start down that path:

1. Define clearly the effect you're interested in.

2. Assume, for the purpose of the analysis, that an effect exists.

3. Assume, for the purpose of the analysis, that you do not know what causes the effect.

I'm sure you see the problem with that for Patrick, jsp, et al. They don't accept that there is any evidence for an explanation other than their own. Because there is no such evidence (that they accept) they're absolutely certain they know the answer. Therefore, they see no reason to attempt to reverse engineer the system from its effects.

scottjen26 said:

... I still think there may be a possibility dependent on 3D perception that no one has been able to accurately prove or disprove...

Click to expand...

Suppose:
Repeat the shot identically a zillion times on a flat surface with no pockets. Measure the cut angle it produces.

Move the shot to a pool table. It's now possible for it to produce multiple cut angles?

What does 3D have to do with producing any differences for this shot?

jsp said:

I highly doubt you'd go through all that with the specific example I gave.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't I? You have no history of making false claims of which I'm aware. From your original post, you have a DVD showing yourself and others doing what you claim to have done.

Note that neither in my response to your original post, nor here, have I said that I would (initially) believe that the effect you claimed was caused by the actions you said you took.

I would, however, do you the courtesy of suspending any disbelief I might have while I looked at your system closely enough to determine to my own satisfaction whether (a) there was some possibility your claimed cause was actually the correct one, or (b) something unstated or unrecognized was the real cause, or contributed to it, or (c) there was some error in your procedure that had led you to a mistaken conclusion and that I thought you might appreciate knowing about.

stan shuffett said:

Yes, AtLarge, you are correct. Shot 6 is B.

Yes, Some shots from 7-11 can have the same pivots.

Remember, 1/8 ball overlaps are not CTE shots. 1/8 ball overlap shots are adjustments to CTE as describle in my video. Any "very thin or 1/8 ball overap shot" might be catagorized as "iffy". However, most !/8 ball overlap shots with 1/2 tip pivots can be played very accurately, but not always with the perception that it will go center pocket.

Stan

Click to expand...

OK, 1/8-overlap shots are not CTE shots, because there is no center-to-edge visual.

Why can this CTE shot produce multiple cut angles on a pool table?

AtLarge said:

Suppose:

CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right​

Repeat the shot identically a zillion times on a flat surface with no pockets. Measure the cut angle it produces.

Move the shot to a pool table. It's now possible for it to produce multiple cut angles?

What does 3D have to do with producing any differences for this shot?

Click to expand...

How do you get a cut angle with no target? How did you manage to align yourself without a cut angle?

By "cut angle" do you mean the angle at which the OB and CB separate after contact?

AtLarge said:

Suppose:

CB-OB distance = 3 feet
cut to left
secondary alignment line to "B"
bridge length = 8"
cue offset = 1/2 tip
pivot from left to right​

Repeat the shot identically a zillion times on a flat surface with no pockets. Measure the cut angle it produces.

Move the shot to a pool table. It's now possible for it to produce multiple cut angles?

What does 3D have to do with producing any differences for this shot?

Click to expand...

You are correct, and something I've been struggling with as well. For any given shot, assuming that I use the same alignment to the shot and use the same aim point, pivot, bridge distance, etc., I can achieve only a certain angle. For the system to work in a pure form, that one angle would have to always be angled toward the pocket, and that's doesn't make sense. Only difference is at the table I'm potentially aligning myself to a rectangular surface that's exactly twice as long as it is wide and I'm aligning myself at an offset angle based on the approximate aim line or direction of shot. Not sure if that matters, just a thought.

But yet it works. And for a lot of shots I never look at the pocket, other than to just know it's going in that direction, no actual aiming at it or imaging points opposite the object ball etc. So there's either something our eye/brain/subconscious unit is very, very good at doing based on the input it's being given, or there is something else at play that no one understands yet. Hence the ongoing pseudo-religious debate, paper-based scientific proofs that it can't work vs. experiential evidence that shows it does. I'm leaning toward the visual intelligence or eye/brain/subconscious adjustments, but just can't fathom how that can work so accurately and so quickly after learning the system, especially when I've restructured my entire preshot routing to accomodate the CTE approach. Weird...
Scott