Another CTE question

[8pack]

I hate to ask this question again, just remember not to pounce, I'm one of you...

Monty, you said something in your diagram that hit home. You said the balls would have a slightly different orientation because of the reference of the table (true) which enables you to make both shots with the same aim point and sweep. So my question is - and has been - why? I know it works, but what is it about the reference of the table that causes us to line up differently on two balls that are similar to or parallel to each other? Conversely, why without that reference would it NOT work?

This is the same thing that has bugged me for a while, mostly because I just can't figure it out. It's almost like sometimes I have it on the tip of my brain then I lose it. But something about the table/pocket reference is causing us to orientate our bodies initially differently, yet consistently, to similar shots, the end result being that our perception of the CTE line is starting from a slightly different starting point or direction, which then of course has the same affect on the ABC lines, which results in different shot lines for all of these examples that come up.

In other words, the CTE line and secondary aim points have to be different to make both shots, yet without the table as a reference it doesn't follow that they would be. So why, and how, does the framework of the table force this difference in perception?

Again, know it works, and it may be a subconscious difference in orientation, but interesting how repetitive it is not only from shot to shot but from person to person. I apologize if this was somehow addressed somewhere and I missed it. Seems like a critical component in understanding exactly how everything works and deflecting those age old arguments...

Scott

During your process you're merely making an adjustment by knowing the table and your eyes give you feedback for this to happen. It's called adjusting for the shot. You will not perceive this adjustment anywhere else. If you to do your routine on any other surface,everything would be the same. You will not create 2 different angles . What makes it a center pocket system is you,not the system.

 

[mohrt]

During your process your are merely making an adjustment by knowing the table and your eyes give you feedback for this to happen. It's called adjusting for the shot. You will not perceive this adjustment anywhere else. If you to do your routine on any other surface,everything would be the same. You will not create 2 different angles . What makes it a center pocket system is you,not the system.

You are right about the eyes giving us feedback. The adjustment part you are not. There is no conscious adjustment going on. What makes the system work is our perception of the centers and edges of the balls on the 2x1 table. You apply the visuals exactly the same way (procedurally) for each shot. Our perception brings us to the correct visual to connect to the pocket. The position of the balls on the table give us the perceptual information we need so that when we line up on the aim lines *exactly* as stated, we are 1/2 tip from the shot line that connects to the pocket. There is no guesswork or adjusting here. So when you say its you and not the system, it is actually your perception, which is the system.

 

[stan shuffett]

During your process your are merely making an adjustment by knowing the table and your eyes give you feedback for this to happen. It's called adjusting for the shot. You will not perceive this adjustment anywhere else. If you to do your routine on any other surface,everything would be the same. You will not create 2 different angles . What makes it a center pocket system is you,not the system.

Sorry, but the perceptions will not be the SAME as you suggest they would be on another surface. I used an alternative surface in DVD2 and the obtained perceptions support what happens on a pool table. I have tested the perceptions away from a typical pool table environment many times over the past few years. The same mystery would occur on a 3 cushion table as well...as that was also one of my test areas.

As Hal said, Real CTE perceptions were never supposed to be. But they are and they work just as Scottjen26 confirmed in an above post.

Stan Shuffett

 

[8pack]

Sorry, but the perceptions will not be the SAME as you suggest they would be on another surface. I used an alternative surface in DVD2 and the obtained perceptions support what happens on a pool table. I have tested the perceptions away from a typical pool table environment many times over the past few years. The same mystery would occur on a 3 cushion table as well...as that was also one of my test areas.

As Hal said, Real CTE perceptions were never supposed to be. But they are and they work just as Scottjen26 confirmed in an above post.

Stan Shuffett

When you create a different perception by the same ball placement the guilty party is you not the system. It's not your fault ...it's the only way to come up with the shot line. You don't have the right connection to the table to make it fit the table . I need know confirming ...the table has already made me see the light. Don't you think when a same shot layout creates in this case two different perceptions,people will have a hard time with this?

 

[stan shuffett]

When you create a different perception by the same ball placement the guilty party is you not the system. It's not your fault ...it's the only way to come up with the shot line. You don't have the right connection to the table to make it fit the table . I need know confirming ...the table has already made me see the light. Don't you think when a same shot layout creates in this case two different perceptions,people will have a hard time with this?

The perceptions of REAL CTE are real and you might as well get over it.

Sure, pool is a tough game and many have great difficulty with various aspects of the game.

The CTE PERCEPTIONS can present a little difficulty but the hurdle required to learn the real CTE PERCEPTIONS can be NOT so tough to clear. In fact, it can done in days or weeks and no worst than months. And then it's onto an objective visual physical approach to playing that lasts a lifetime. ONCE CTE is learned it allows players time to work on other hurdles that might not otherwise EVER get proper attention.

Stan Shuffett

 

[8pack]

The perceptions of REAL CTE are real and you might as well get over it.

Sure, pool is a tough game and many have great difficulty with various aspects of the game.

The CTE PERCEPTIONS can present a little difficulty but the hurdle required to learn the real CTE PERCEPTIONS can be NOT so tough to clear. In fact, it can done in days or weeks and no worst than months. And then it's onto an objective visual physical approach to playing that lasts a lifetime. ONCE CTE is learned it allows players time to work on other hurdles that might not otherwise EVER get proper attention.

Stan Shuffett

The real cte seems rather delicate .....and we've not even added the spin ,speed and all the other factors in yet. To each his own I guess .

 

[nobcitypool]

I don't understand these questions. Every other aiming system I'm familiar with relies on reference to the pocket. If I'm mistaken on that, please enlighten me. Stan says, and has proven with the many curtain shots, CTE/Pro One references the table itself. Frankly, continuing to ask why this works, or to explain in detail why it works, is as silly as asking why ghost ball references the pocket.

Perhaps one of you who is familiar with feel can explain, in detail, why it "feels" different to shoot one shot versus the other. scottjen, perhaps you can explain the mathematics with the SEE system and what the mathematical proof is when you stride towards the left edge of the ball for a certain cut and stride towards the right edge for another cut. My stride is different than your stride as is different from any other players stride, so how does this work mathematically? Do we need to factor our shoe size and natural stride length into some formula to see how this works mathematically? The SEE system uses all these shadows and even with that, you have to look at the darkest shadow and look at it the right way for it to work. Yet, I don't see all this crap going on with that system. If I want to play Devil's Advocate and act like you guys act towards Stan, I could rip the SEE system to smithereens.

I'll bet the vast majority of the people asking for all this mathematical proof barely passed high school Geometry and/or Trigonometry, or didn't even take it. You all probably have never seen the inside of a Calculus or Differential Equations book. You wouldn't understand the mathematical analysis if it were available.

I can understand someone questioning when a Stevie Moore says CTE/Pro One helped him (I can't really, but I'll give benefit of the doubt). Stevie was a ball pocketing machine before CTE/Pro One. However, I use Pro One and was in no way was a ball pocketing machine prior to using it. I wouldn't be considered a ball pocketing machine now but it is 100% clear my ball pocketing ability has improved substantially since learning and using Pro One. If I knew how to "feel" these shots and tweak and all this other crap, why would I have ever learned it? If I couldn't feel and tweak those shots before, why would I be able to feel and tweak those Pro One perceptions and alignments now?

Instead of this focused effort to detract from Stan's system, to no useful end, why don't you take the time to actually understand it completely .... OR .... just leave it alone? Your constant bullshit questions clearly detract from those people who are actually trying to learn the system. Let Stan, Gerry, mohrt and others answer questions from these folks that will help them learn the system. Seeing the actual differential equations that are likely needed to explain why/how CTE/Pro One works will do nothing to improve anybody's ball pocketing ability.

 

[bwally]

The only reason I can come up with would be to stroke one's own ego. The thinking is "you just wait and see how smart I am when I get them to admit it doesn't work". The problem with this is that I would bet that most of those who argue that CTE doesn't work have never tried it and assume it's just "too good to be true".

What's sad is that there are many CTE users and Stan himself that honestly are trying to help people with the system and understand it. Yet there are those vocal minority who are ignorant to CTE and have made up their mind that it can't work. Ignorance is not a good place to have a debate from.

It's kind of like arguing with Magellan that the world was still flat after his crew proved otherwise (Magellan died in the Philippines).

It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another just to be argumentative just for the sake of arguing> That just makes you look like a fool...

Instead of this focused effort to detract from Stan's system, to no useful end, why don't you take the time to actually understand it completely .... OR .... just leave it alone? Your constant bullshit questions clearly detract from those people who are actually trying to learn the system. Let Stan, Gerry, mohrt and others answer questions from these folks that will help them learn the system. Seeing the actual differential equations that are likely needed to explain why/how CTE/Pro One works will do nothing to improve anybody's ball pocketing ability.

 

[mohrt]

The real cte seems rather delicate .....and we've not even added the spin ,speed and all the other factors in yet. To each his own I guess .

It's as delicate as connecting with the pocket. The bigger the table, the more delicate. This is a constant factor regardless of how you aim.

Aim, speed and spin are the primary factors to ball pocketing. Aiming systems primarily address one of them: the aim. If you are given the aim, this drastically reduces the variables for a given shot. You have to be aware of how speed and spin affects a shot. Again, constant factors regardless of how you aim.

Any other dead horses to beat?

 

[BasementDweller]

The only reason I can come up with would be to stroke one's own ego. The thinking is "you just wait and see how smart I am when I get them to admit it doesn't work". The problem with this is that I would bet that most of those who argue that CTE doesn't work have never tried it and assume it's just "too good to be true".

What's sad is that there are many CTE users and Stan himself that honestly are trying to help people with the system and understand it. Yet there are those vocal minority who are ignorant to CTE and have made up their mind that it can't work. Ignorance is not a good place to have a debate from.

It's kind of like arguing with Magellan that the world was still flat after his crew proved otherwise (Magellan died in the Philippines).

It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another just to be argumentative just for the sake of arguing> That just makes you look like a fool...

Just for fun....

Nobody is really saying that CTE doesn't work. It's obvious from the many accounts on here that it indeed works for those players that have found success with it.

What has been argued since the earth cooled is why does it work or how does it work. Many people have argued that there is some fine tuned subconcious adjustment that must be going on and others say there's ZERO adjustment PERIOD!

I guess we will never really know until a machine is built that utilizes this method of aiming, but I guess to do that we would need to understand the math. But not me, because nobcitypool described me to a T. You could show me the math and I wouldn't have a clue what I'm looking at. But I still enjoy a good argument and I can usually follow along with the logic. It's one of my favorite things to do on AZ.

So for the life of me, I've never quite understood why CTE proponents are so against the idea of some subconsious adjustment going on. I think it stems from the early arguments where both sides were backed into a corner. When you think about it, if you don't totally understand how something works (i.e. the math) how can you totally rule out something like subconsious adjustment? Just going with, "Well this all happens on a totally different dimension that we don't understand", or some such saying -- is a bit much for many of us.

I'll finish off with a question:

It's been said that the 2x1 table dimension plays a vital role in CTE working. It has also been said that the pockets forming right angles plays a vital role. Which is more important?

 

[mohrt]

Just for fun....

Nobody is really saying that CTE doesn't work. It's obvious from the many accounts on here that it indeed works for those players that have found success with it.

What has been argued since the earth cooled is why does it work or how does it work. Many people have argued that there is some fine tuned subconcious adjustment that must be going on and others say there's ZERO adjustment PERIOD!

I guess we will never really know until a machine is built that utilizes this method of aiming, but I guess to do that we would need to understand the math. But not me, because nobcitypool described me to a T. You could show me the math and I wouldn't have a clue what I'm looking at. But I still enjoy a good argument and I can usually follow along with the logic. It's one of my favorite things to do on AZ.

So for the life of me, I've never quite understood why CTE proponents are so against the idea of some subconsious adjustment going on. I think it stems from the early arguments where both sides were backed into a corner. When you think about it, if you don't totally understand how something works (i.e. the math) how can you totally rule out something like subconsious adjustment? Just going with, "Well this all happens on a totally different dimension that we don't understand", or some such saying -- is a bit much for many of us.

I'll finish off with a question:

It's been said that the 2x1 table dimension plays a vital role in CTE working. It has also been said that the pockets forming right angles plays a vital role. Which is more important?

Its hard for some to grasp that this is about perception, not conscious adjustment. Lining up on the visuals on two balls give you a unique perception. This is produceable and repeatable. If you move one ball slightly, follow the exact same steps, and you get a new perception slightly different than the last. This isn't a conscious adjustment, it is an adjustment given to us by our perception. We didn't do anything different, yet we yield a slightly different result. That is why this is a system, because it is systematic, produceable and repeatable. If it were conscious adjustment we would gain nothing by it. Labeling perception as unconscious adjustment is misleading, as the word "adjustment" assumes you are purposefully doing something different, but procedurally you are not.

As for what is important? A 2x1 table always forms right angles. IMHO the table has to be made of perfect squares. So we need right isosceles triangles, not JUST right angles. You could have a 1x1 table with 4 pockets. or 2x1 with 6 pockets. Now I'll go out on a limb and say a 4x1 table with 10 pockets would also work, as the geometry lines up. ie. what was a 1 rail straight back bank becomes a straight in shot to the corner.

 

[nobcitypool]

What has been argued since the earth cooled is why does it work or how does it work. Many people have argued that there is some fine tuned subconcious adjustment that must be going on and others say there's ZERO adjustment PERIOD!

So for the life of me, I've never quite understood why CTE proponents are so against the idea of some subconsious adjustment going on.

It's been said that the 2x1 table dimension plays a vital role in CTE working. It has also been said that the pockets forming right angles plays a vital role. Which is more important?

I don't believe CTE Proponents are against the idea of a subconscious adjustment per se, it just we're convinced it doesn't happen. That would imply, or even explicitly indicate, the CTE/Pro One user is either subconsciously altering something on the way down to stepping into the shot AND/OR adjusting the cue alignment once we're set and have visually checked the aim line of the CB and OB (much the same as SAM - Stick Aiming Method). Here's the deal. I would be incredibly flattered were I to think I'm good enough to do the former. Again, if I were that good, I wouldn't need CTE/Pro One. If I were doing that, why am I pocketing balls from any position so much better and more consistently than I was before I used CTE/Pro One? As to the tweaking of the cue alignment, watch the videos. Do you see Stan, Stevie, Landon, Gerry, mohrt, et al tweaking their cue alignment at all? Ever?

You want proof? How about evidence? If you have a murder trial, people are convicted without eye witnesses or video confirmation of the act occurring. How many people have been acquitted when there was a video of them actually committing the act? Have you ever seen or heard of a Defense Attorney saying to the jury "Well, while the video may have shown my client shooting the deceased, they didn't provide mathematical proof he actually did it." So you have Gigabytes of video evidence of CTE/Pro One working with numerous different people but people still want mathematical proof? That's freaking hilarious but absolutely embarrassing to those foolish enough to continue asking such silly questions. Are they saying their eyes and brain don't work well enough together to process what was seen? So we're to believe someone who can't believe what their eyes clearly show them is going to understand a complex calculus or differential equation explaining it? Are you serious?

Here's the real problem - uncensored. The problem so many people have is three things.

1. They want a silver bullet or magic pill that just works with no effort. Stan, Landon, Stevie, Gerry, morht (and others including myself) have put hundreds of hours of table time into learning the system. One of the top Professionals in the World, Stevie Moore, admitted he had to do considerable work to make his stroke straight in order for CTE/Pro One to work.

2. Most people don't want to face up to the fact their stroke is flawed and then take whatever steps are necessary to fix it. I would wager less than 10% of the people who would be considered regular pool players have a straight stroke. How measured? I'll bet 90% plus wouldn't be able to put the CB on the button, hit straight down the table to the middle diamond and have the CB pass some part of it over the button on the return trip 9 out of 10 times. If you can't do that, how would you expect to hit better than 9 out of 10 shots (or however many times you could do that drill successfully out of 10).

3. Most people don't want to put the additional work into their stance, grip, alignment, etc.. There is a HUGE problem with CTE/Pro One. It takes you to the perfect shot line. If you don't have a straight stroke and/or you don't have good stance, alignment, etc. fundamentals, you will absolutely miss the shot!!! You may have been using feel and were able to account for the stroke and other fundamental errors but now, you can't do that. The system takes you there but you have to deliver after that.

Consider this as follow on the number 3. If you've ever shot a pistol, you understand recoil and the effects it can have. Shoot a .357 magnum for 10 minutes. Then, leave one of the cylinders blank. See if you don't flinch and pull the pistol up when you hit that blank cylinder, even though there is no recoil. Then ask yourself, if I'm missing the target high left, is it the pistol or is it me? Watch a special forces guy do that same thing and see what happens.

 

[scottjen26]

I don't understand these questions. Every other aiming system I'm familiar with relies on reference to the pocket. If I'm mistaken on that, please enlighten me. Stan says, and has proven with the many curtain shots, CTE/Pro One references the table itself. Frankly, continuing to ask why this works, or to explain in detail why it works, is as silly as asking why ghost ball references the pocket.

Perhaps one of you who is familiar with feel can explain, in detail, why it "feels" different to shoot one shot versus the other. scottjen, perhaps you can explain the mathematics with the SEE system and what the mathematical proof is when you stride towards the left edge of the ball for a certain cut and stride towards the right edge for another cut. My stride is different than your stride as is different from any other players stride, so how does this work mathematically? Do we need to factor our shoe size and natural stride length into some formula to see how this works mathematically? The SEE system uses all these shadows and even with that, you have to look at the darkest shadow and look at it the right way for it to work. Yet, I don't see all this crap going on with that system. If I want to play Devil's Advocate and act like you guys act towards Stan, I could rip the SEE system to smithereens.

I'll bet the vast majority of the people asking for all this mathematical proof barely passed high school Geometry and/or Trigonometry, or didn't even take it. You all probably have never seen the inside of a Calculus or Differential Equations book. You wouldn't understand the mathematical analysis if it were available.

I can understand someone questioning when a Stevie Moore says CTE/Pro One helped him (I can't really, but I'll give benefit of the doubt). Stevie was a ball pocketing machine before CTE/Pro One. However, I use Pro One and was in no way was a ball pocketing machine prior to using it. I wouldn't be considered a ball pocketing machine now but it is 100% clear my ball pocketing ability has improved substantially since learning and using Pro One. If I knew how to "feel" these shots and tweak and all this other crap, why would I have ever learned it? If I couldn't feel and tweak those shots before, why would I be able to feel and tweak those Pro One perceptions and alignments now?

Instead of this focused effort to detract from Stan's system, to no useful end, why don't you take the time to actually understand it completely .... OR .... just leave it alone? Your constant bullshit questions clearly detract from those people who are actually trying to learn the system. Let Stan, Gerry, mohrt and others answer questions from these folks that will help them learn the system. Seeing the actual differential equations that are likely needed to explain why/how CTE/Pro One works will do nothing to improve anybody's ball pocketing ability.

I don't understand why you (and some others) take so much offense when questions are posed? I clearly didn't ask for any mathematical proof (and by the way, I would be the one who majored in math and would understand if one were presented). That ship has sailed, and frankly I don't believe there is a math "proof" to this or any other system out there.

I also didn't attack Stan in any way. I simply posed a question - albeit one I've asked before - because of the way mohrt's comment struck me. I thought further discussion might help me figure something out that I believe is occurring with all systems. Hoping for answers, not this BS again.

I think you forget that before Gerry, before mohrt, before you - I learned the system, I talked with Stan, he thanked me for my explanations and thanked me for helping others, he shared information with me before it was made public. I spent many hours on the phone with you trying to help as well, although I couldn't see you to see the things you were doing incorrectly which obviously were fixed by Stan and Stevie. I do understand it completely, and can use it as well as you or others. I have nothing against Stan or the system, he is a great guy and great teacher. I may disagree with how some things have been explained or described, and may want more details, but there is no disagreement that the system works as described.

Lastly regarding SEE - interesting that there isn't more "crap" with that system, isn't it? I can explain how that system works, since the initial overlap formed by the alignment and the consequent step in results in different amount of body rotation for different angled shots. It's not mathematical, and therefore doesn't have to be precise based on shoe size etc. It's visual, just like other system, with a consistent starting point based on ball positions in relation to a pocket and a method to get you on to the actual shot line repeatedly. Ekkes is much more open about how and why it works, addressing shortcomings, as well as the merits and similarities to other systems out there.


This is exactly the type of response that inflamed the "naysayers" group - which I was not part of. Granted, many of those questions degenerated into personal attacks and caused Stan (and apparently now you) to be very defensive. I'm sure I would have reacted in a very similar manner, with posts and emails flying all over the place to defend what I created. Sad that the history with this is preventing questions from being pondered or answered from people who truly just want to explore it further and have no ulterior motive.

I'll try to refrain from ruining the sanctity of Pro One by asking any more questions. Would be nice to understand more, really the last piece of the puzzle for me at least, but I guess I can drive a car without knowing how it works...

Scott

 

[nobcitypool]

Scott, I wasn't intending my post to be a personal affront to you or SEE. I like and respect you and also appreciate and respect the work Ekkes has done with SEE. I was intending to make a point and not be negative towards SEE. I've purchased all the SEE materials and worked with it enough to see it can work. It has a lot of similarities to CTE/Pro One, obviously some differences. I respect the heck out of guys like Stan and Ekkes who have invested so much of their time to the sport we love to improve it. I am certain I'd enjoy meeting Ekkes and spending time with him, he seems more than just "quite bright".

I think you just happened to be on the wrong thread at the wrong time. Several of the trolls have been quite active lately and it has a number of us frustrated a bit (duuuuuh). I apologize if I hit a nerve with you personally, I can assure you, that wasn't my intention.

As to the answer to your question? I've given it considerable thought and simply don't know. Were I forced to speculate, my best guess is there is some subconscious alignment based upon the reference to the table. I thought about having a CB and OB placed on a flat table of immense size where you can't see the ends of the table. You'd have no idea even whether it was a straight hit, 15, 30, 45 or 60 reference. You have nothing to reference at all aside from the CB and OB. So while I don't have the intellectual capabilities or knowledge to prove it, that seems to be the most logical explanation. But I wouldn't bet more than $5 on that being even close to correct.

I apologize if my post struck a personal nerve, as I stated, I truly like and respect you Scott.

 

[Mirza]

Ok, I'll try to explain it as I understand it, don't wont to engage in any "aiming wors" but would like to be one of the people who settled it.

Main question about CTE Pro1 was how can the same alignment between the two balls with the same sweep be pocketed into the same pocket when there is obviously different angle in question, correct?

I never questioned this because when I thought about it it seemed very logical to me and I do have a very strong math background (electrical engineer, was 4th and twice 5th in math cometitions in my country).

Ok look at this image in the attachment.

I found it in this document: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/courses/crsinf/151/09_Depth_non_stereo.pdf (perception of 3D stucture)

Those 3 objects are all the same size (measure it if you like).

Do they look the same size in this 3D perspective?

No they don't.

So if this tunnel was pool table and those objects were pool balls, why can't they produce different things for our perspective of looking at them and aligning differently, as this simple example does?

This is the answer and it is the only one and really you can see from this simple example that it is possible, exact proof isn't really needed because, as you can see, it is possible that same objects look differently when in specific 3D perspective and there are people like Stan, Landon, Gerry, Stevie showing you that it works.

Hope this will give some people what they needed so we can all be friends again.

Best regards from Bosnia,
Mirza, in love with ALL aiming systems

 

[8pack]

Ok, I'll try to explain it as I understand it, don't wont to engage in any "aiming wors" but would like to be one of the people who settled it.

Main question about CTE Pro1 was how can the same alignment between the two balls with the same sweep be pocketed into the same pocket when there is obviously different angle in question, correct?

I never questioned this because when I thought about it it seemed very logical to me and I do have a very strong math background (electrical engineer, was 4th and twice 5th in math cometitions in my country).

Ok look at this image in the attachment.

I found it in this document: http://www.bcs.rochester.edu/courses/crsinf/151/09_Depth_non_stereo.pdf (perception of 3D stucture)

Those 3 objects are all the same size (measure it if you like).

Do they look the same size in this 3D perspective?

No they don't.

So if this tunnel was pool table and those objects were pool balls, why can't they produce different things for our perspective of looking at them and aligning differently, as this simple example does?

This is the answer and it is the only one and really you can see from this simple example that it is possible, exact proof isn't really needed because, as you can see, it is possible that same objects look differently when in specific 3D perspective and there are people like Stan, Landon, Gerry, Stevie showing you that it works.

Hope this will give some people what they needed so we can all be friends again.

Best regards from Bosnia,
Mirza, in love with ALL aiming systems

It can be a cure for things on the same forward track. It's not the cure for sideways movement .

 

[chalkhed]

Here's the real problem - uncensored. The problem so many people have is three things. ...

I tend to think that your reasons are not the reasons people take such issue with cte. These same points apply to every other aiming system on earth (magic bullet, stroke, fundamental problems). Please don't take offense at my disagreement, I'm not sure why these threads seem to get people so angry, I'm simply trying to discuss.

Here are the parts that I think people intuitively may struggle with and why they want to discount pro one/cte so much - And please don't take these as criticisms - They may (and probably are) completely wrong about pro one, but I'm trying to explain a few points that people may struggle with intuitively (past the basic mistakes of trying to convert it into a 2d problem).



1) From mirza's post, yes you see things further away as smaller and things closer as larger, but it might be difficult to understand why this creates correct shot angles / alignment. I find this one easy enough to accept - different perceptions of the balls are created based on the distance between them, and the math/reasoning behind what angle is created is too much work to worry about as long as it works.



2) A bigger problem that people may have (and partially what this thread was about) - If you have several different sets of a cue ball and object ball with equal distances between them but at different places on the table (see the first setup in chapter 12 on dvd2 which involves equidistant balls setup at different positions laterally), intuitively you'd think that if you could stand at the same distance from the cue ball for all of them, it would create the same perception of the balls. If I asked this to a logical person, I think you'd generally get the answer that you'd see all the different sets of balls in the same way, leading to the same perception of the balls.

Given that the method tends to be described approximately as "get behind the balls and try to line up your vision with these reference points between balls," with no real reference to using the table, if you haven't tried it out and or haven't made it work for you, the natural response might be to say that it makes no sense (assuming you hold the belief that equidistant balls should create the same perception).

However, (at least according to my understanding of what Stan has said earlier in this thread), your eyes actually take into account the surroundings of the balls and the references of the table and your perception is slightly skewed by where the balls lay on the table - which if true would create a different perception and different shot angle for each set of balls. This would make sense to me, as there are a ton of optical illusions that document how your brain's model of the world can make you view things differently than you'd expect.




I think #2 is generally the biggest point people struggle with when thinking about cte. If pro one said something explicit about using table references to decide on things, I think people wouldn't have as much resistance to it, but that's not how it works and isn't necessarily possible - you're relying on your vision system to do what it does naturally.

 

[nobcitypool]

Chalked, good post. I agree with number two. As I stated, my speculation is that it is related to the perspective of the table. It is a strange and interesting phenomenon.

I think that point has been brought up countless times and it is clear there isn't a definitive answer. It is what it is. taking the example you mentioned, keep in mind that your eyes and head are positioned at different locations relate to the perspective of the table. They have to be, that is the only way to see the visual perceptual relationships between the cb and ob. That's why I believe the table perspective is the logical answer. The fact that it works on a rectangle with a 2 to 1 ratio relationship, and doesn't for any other ratio, leads me to accept the geometric relationship is also fact.

 

[Mirza]

It can be a cure for things on the same forward track. It's not the cure for sideways movement .

Well, actually, it is

Let me try and explain it.

Lines that are in perspective are the lines that are "arround" your vision center and their perspective changes.

For example, if you're in the middle of a railroad and looking in the vanishing point, two railroad tracks seem to get closer and closer when distance changes, when they approach the vanishing point.

Why is that? Because of the 3D perspective that surrounds it and you're place in it from where you're watching.

BUT if you're standing directly on one of the railroad tracks, it is in a 90° to your vision center, right? No perspection can change that, correct? Only the second railroad track is in your perspection and its position towards your vision center will change when you move sideways, correct? It must because when you're in the middle of the railroad left and right railroad track are in the same (reverse) angle to your vision center (picture in the attachment), but if you move sideways ON one of the railroad tracks it will always be 90° to your vision and the other will not, because of the perception.

Now, to relate to CTE Pro1 visuals and this example, I think this example shows clearly why you MUST NOT stand behing either visual but in the middle, between CTE line and CB edge to A/C, B line because only then they WILL BE IN PERSPECTIVE and any movement, be it sideways or frontal will change the perspective in which you see them because the 3D perspective that you see them on (pool table) changes as you move in any direction.

Does this make sence?

It should

 

[swest]

I hesitate to do this. I don't want to poison the well even before I get Stan's DVD... but, what the hell? (please see my question below your post).

Here are two separate shots, both to the upper-left corner pocket. Ball 1 and CB to its right, and ball 3 and CB to its right.




They both require the same visual: CTEL/C with right pivot. However, each shot will have a slightly different orientation. That is, if you line up the first shot and take note where the line through CCB falls on the object ball, then line up shot #2 you will see it lines up slightly farther outside the OB. This is because of the orientation of the balls on the table. This is also how the same visuals can pocket a range of shots. The orientation of the balls on the table affect how the visuals line up. This isn't something you have to do consciously. With some practice you will quickly see how they orient slightly different, but the outcome is a connection to the shotline.

You say that, "each shot will have a slightly different orientation". I would like to pose a little thought experiment using curtains. Say we have the following setup (the shooter can't see beyond the curtains, but the Great Observer - that's us - can see the reality).

I will stipulate that the 1-ball is makeable in the top left corner pocket by a shooter standing at the right of the table between the curtains. Further, based on that knowledge, he then moves to the 3-ball shot, his 'orientation' changes in whatever way you believe that it would change, and he then pockets the 3-ball in the same pocket.

(It is a separate question as to whether, with the curtains in place, he actually has enough information to pocket the 1-ball... but for now, we will assume he can.)

Now we move the curtains, and set up the shots again:

I will stipulate that the shooter again makes the 1-ball in the upper left corner pocket, and then moves to the 3-ball and proceeds to pocket it. Now here is my question:

Is there any difference between the change in his perception that takes place between 1-ball and 3-ball in the first setup, and the change in his perception that takes place between the 1-ball and 3-ball in the second setup?

Please read that carefully. I'm wondering about differences here.

Thanks.

- s.west