A video on pivoting systems

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
And yet everything I mention is in his videos and book. Go figure.
You always make these claims but then you say you're too busy or can't be bothered to show proof. Why don't you take a picture of the section in Stan's book where he says you can imagine a pocket along the rail and use CTE to send the ball there? I know -- you don't feel like it.
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
How would one know edge to B would be too fat and edge to C would be too thin?
Cutting to the left.

Common sense answer...

The player would have to develop the visual experience to be able to recognize when to use a 15-inside or a 30-inside, or whatever particular "perception" might be needed to pocket the ball.

I remember Stan explaining an example in a YouTube video years ago. Using a 30° perception, for example, he said you can look at where the ob would go if you shot the shot from that exact ccb perception (pre-pivot/sweep), and it'll be "obvious" whether or not you need a thinner aim (inside pivot/sweep) or a thicker aim (outside pivot/sweep).

Of course, that "obvious" part, the thinner or thicker part, is only obvious for those with enough playing experience to recognize where the ob will go based on the angle or "perspective" from where they are standing. In other words, you simply have to recognize it or know it, like recognizing/knowing when a shot is a dead halfball aim, or a little thinner or thicker than a halfball aim, by simply looking at the cb-ob relationship to the pocket.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You always make these claims but then you say you're too busy or can't be bothered to show proof. Why don't you take a picture of the section in Stan's book where he says you can imagine a pocket along the rail and use CTE to send the ball there? I know -- you don't feel like it.
I don't know that he imagines a pocket along the rail and I'm sure I never said he did. What I said was that I use the contact point on the 1st rail and then choose the perception that gets the object ball there, as if imagining a pocket at that spot. If you want to see hundreds of illustrations of Stan doin just exactly that and even explaining in text every single one of them, buy his book. It's a great read. If you can't read and comprehend, which I'm starting to think may be the case, look at a couple of his free banking videos using CTE doing exactly what I said. He'll explain every single shot for you also.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I don't know that he imagines a pocket along the rail and I'm sure I never said he did. What I said was that I use the contact point on the 1st rail and then choose the perception that gets the object ball there, as if imagining a pocket at that spot.
Isn't that basically EXACTLY what I said? You said you imagine a pocket at that spot and below you say that's what Stan does. Ask JB about that.
If you want to see hundreds of illustrations of Stan doin just exactly that and even explaining in text every single one of them, buy his book. It's a great read. If you can't read and comprehend, which I'm starting to think may be the case, look at a couple of his free banking videos using CTE doing exactly what I said. He'll explain every single shot for you also.
lol sure.
 
Last edited:

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I wish there was a DENSE button on these posts.
Can you point out the difference between what you said and what I said? Aren't we both saying you are aiming at a point on a rail (as if there were a pocket there) using CTE and, furthermore, this is what Stan now instructs?
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Can you point out the difference between what you said and what I said? Aren't we both saying you are aiming at a point on a rail (as if there were a pocket there) using CTE and, furthermore, this is what Stan now instructs?
The difference is that you said Stan doesn't teach imagining a pocket on the rail for banking. My point was I never said he did. Still, with multi rail banks there is usually some amount of cut to the 1st rail contact point to get the bank on track. If you can see about where that point is, then using the perception to cut the ball there locks in the CTE system to the geometry of the table, which is what I try to do. I make substantially more banks by doing so than I do by just guessing. Stan does not state that method word for word but he does it all the time in his videos.
 

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
The difference is that you said Stan doesn't teach imagining a pocket on the rail for banking. My point was I never said he did. Still, with multi rail banks there is usually some amount of cut to the 1st rail contact point to get the bank on track. If you can see about where that point is, then using the perception to cut the ball there locks in the CTE system to the geometry of the table, which is what I try to do. I make substantially more banks by doing so than I do by just guessing. Stan does not state that method word for word but he does it all the time in his videos.
Wasn't he a banking champion before he met Hal?
 

BC21

https://www.playpoolbetter.com
Gold Member
Silver Member
The difference is that you said Stan doesn't teach imagining a pocket on the rail for banking. My point was I never said he did. Still, with multi rail banks there is usually some amount of cut to the 1st rail contact point to get the bank on track. If you can see about where that point is, then using the perception to cut the ball there locks in the CTE system to the geometry of the table, which is what I try to do. I make substantially more banks by doing so than I do by just guessing. Stan does not state that method word for word but he does it all the time in his videos.

From what I remember, Stan always stressed how CTE Pro1 "connects" the shot to the "geometry" of the table, or connects the ob to the pocket.

He has curtain bank videos to show that he isn't looking at the rail, saying that all you have to do is know which perception and sweep to use, and with the correct spin and speed, the ob will find a pocket, either 1 rail, 2, or 3 rails or more.

So, for banks, Stan says CTE automatically connects the ob to the pocket, and the player simply has to chose the proper perception, along with the correct amount of speed and spin. But the way you describe it makes more sense, imagining a point or place on the rail, then using your aiming method to send the ob to that point.

Your way is typically how most people line up bank shots, they pick a spot on the rail, or use a known reference line (based on visual experience or relying on a particular banking system), and then they use whatever aiming method they prefer to send the ob to that spot or along the chosen line. No mystery involved, nothing about 2x1 table dimensions, eight 90° angles or automatically connecting the ob to the geometry of the table.

The truth isn't so odd. Anyone can use whatever method they prefer to use, and once they've done it enough to develop consistent accuracy, they can tell others it's the best method ever, and for them that's no lie. But this applies to everything (ghostball, fractions, contact points, 90/90, shishkabob, CTE, Pro1, etc...).

Through successful repetition, the mind eventually paves all the neural networks needed to make anything work like magic. That's the true pathway to skill development, whether we're talking about playing guitar, playing baseball or basketball, or becoming a fluent shot maker in this awesome game we love.
 
Last edited:

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
From what I remember, Stan always stressed how CTE Pro1 "connects" the shot to the "geometry" of the table, or connects the ob to the pocket.

He has curtain bank videos to show that he isn't looking at the rail, saying that all you have to do is know which perception and sweep to use, and with the correct spin and speed, the ob will find a pocket, either 1 rail, 2, or 3 rails or more.

So, for banks, Stan says CTE automatically connects the ob to the pocket, and the player simply has to chose the proper perception, along with the correct amount of speed and spin. But the way you describe it makes more sense, imagining a point or place on the rail, then using your aiming method to send the ob to that point.

Your way is typically how most people line up bank shots, they pick a spot on the rail, or use a known reference line (based on visual experience or relying on a particular banking system), and then they use whatever aiming method they prefer to send the ob to that spot or along the chosen line. No mystery involved, nothing about 2x1 table dimensions, eight 90° angles or automatically connecting the ob to the geometry of the table.

The truth isn't so odd. Anyone can use whatever method they prefer to use, and once they've done it enough to develop consistent accuracy, they can tell others it's the best method ever, and for them that's no lie. But this applies to everything (ghostball, fractions, contact points, 90/90, shishkabob, CTE, Pro1, etc...).

Through successful repetition, the mind eventually paves all the neural networks needed to make anything work like magic. That's the true pathway to skill development, whether we're talking about playing guitar, playing baseball or basketball, or becoming a fluent shot maker in this awesome game we love.
Exactly Brian. I agree completely. For me, if I can determine about the right point on the 1st rail to hit by imagining a pocket their merely for the purpose of determining the perception, or how much cut basically, then I don't have to think or worry about actually hitting the exact point. I just trust the system to get the object ball on track. I don't always get it right, but it's better than just guessing.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The difference is that you said Stan doesn't teach imagining a pocket on the rail for banking. My point was I never said he did. Still, with multi rail banks there is usually some amount of cut to the 1st rail contact point to get the bank on track. If you can see about where that point is, then using the perception to cut the ball there locks in the CTE system to the geometry of the table, which is what I try to do. I make substantially more banks by doing so than I do by just guessing. Stan does not state that method word for word but he does it all the time in his videos.
This violates the rules of CTE. You cannot pick any old spot on a rail and pick a perception to get you there. CTE only works at the corner and side pockets, supposedly. You have come up with something that works for you after substantial time on the table and you insist on calling it Stan's CTE.
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Exactly Brian. I agree completely. For me, if I can determine about the right point on the 1st rail to hit by imagining a pocket their merely for the purpose of determining the perception, or how much cut basically, then I don't have to think or worry about actually hitting the exact point. I just trust the system to get the object ball on track. I don't always get it right, but it's better than just guessing.
You. Can't. Do. That. Period.

If you do then it isn't CTE Pro1.
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This violates the rules of CTE. You cannot pick any old spot on a rail and pick a perception to get you there. CTE only works at the corner and side pockets, supposedly. You have come up with something that works for you after substantial time on the table and you insist on calling it Stan's CTE.
OK, let's call it Frank's CTE. How ya like it now?
 

Renegade_56

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You. Can't. Do. That. Period.

If you do then it isn't CTE Pro1.
You know what, I'm gonna throw you this little nugget, just cause I like you. See if you can get the point, finally. This is illustrating just a simple 1 rail bank, but if you can imagine more table you could certainly imagine more rails. It's exactly the same principle regardless. And don't tell me what I can't do.

Image Table System.jpg
 

Dan White

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK, let's call it Frank's CTE. How ya like it now?
I. Can. And. I. Do. Period

Who said I use Pro1? Do you even know the difference?
You know what, I'm gonna throw you this little nugget, just cause I like you. See if you can get the point, finally. This is illustrating just a simple 1 rail bank, but if you can imagine more table you could certainly imagine more rails. It's exactly the same principle regardless. And don't tell me what I can't do.

View attachment 779706
You sure give the impression you use CTE PRO1 by giving examples out of his book and saying for 2 years that you could diagram it on CAD. If you use your own version of CTE you could have said so after the third or fourth time I pointed out that what you are doing bears little resemblance to PRO1.

What you are doing is learning what cut angle you get out of each perception and then using that to send the cue ball where you want for banks. If you need an in between cut angle then you adjust for that. All of that makes perfect sense and it is what many people do. They say, "I use CTE (PRO1) but here's how I do it" and then they proceed to violate what Stan teaches.

Do whatever works for you but don't misunderstand it for the "real" CTE.
 

boogieman

It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
You know what, I'm gonna throw you this little nugget, just cause I like you. See if you can get the point, finally. This is illustrating just a simple 1 rail bank, but if you can imagine more table you could certainly imagine more rails. It's exactly the same principle regardless. And don't tell me what I can't do.

View attachment 779706
Am I imagining it or isn't there a big table matrix diagram like this in Center Pocket Music? I thought I saw one there. Don't let the secret out but when I aim banks at the side pocket, I shoot them straight into an imaginary pocket out in space where it would be with two table surfaces butted up together. ;)

I don't think it's a secret actually, but not many people think about that. The diagram you posted is basically how I aim banks. I do kicks different because you're aiming for a point on a ball rather than a pocket, but if you have a great imagination that would work for kicks too.
 
Top