Center Pocket Music, the long-awaited CTE Pro One book, by Stan Shuffett.

[SpiderWebComm]

It would be surprising if more than a few fractional shots go in. For instance, at just 2 feet from the pocket less than 1 in 4 will go (and that's with corner pockets at least 5" wide).

pj
chgo

I don't care. This isn't an accuracy test. It's nothing more than getting the eyes and brain trained to see the edge of the CB linked to A, B, C. Shooting and missing with it is just as good as seeing balls go in. Soon it becomes obvious why before even pulling the cue back for the start of the stroke. Let me say it again...it's a drill and way to get used to the eyes going directly to the CB Edge for ABC on the OB. Nothing more and nothing less. Made balls and missed balls are all good at this point.

It's also not a contact point on OB/CB and linking them up. It's getting away from that.

You can see it on the face you are looking at and estimate the offset at the front of the ball. If you envision an ellipse corresponding to the equator, it's pretty easy to line up the exact reciprocal points with no further geometry or drafting.

Or you can get Joe Tucker's Contact Point training balls and system. I drove up to see Joe 3 times some years back and spent hours at the table with him on this. Joe has contact point aiming down better than anyone out there with his entire system.

Aiming By The Numbers Method - Endorsed by Mike Massey - Ozone Billiards

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I don't care. This isn't an accuracy test.

It tests the accuracy of your understanding of fractional aiming. Guess what grade you get.

pj
chgo

 

[ShootingArts]

I remember struggling for months back in the dawn of time building the backside of the cue ball that I couldn't see. While I considered it half of a perfect circle and still do, I had to build some compensations in when first transferring those points from the front of the cue ball that I could see to the back that I couldn't because I pocketed balls without further conscious compensations.

Fractional aiming doesn't work for me. I shoot ridiculously bad. Likewise, when I moved the balls a quarter or half inch off the rail to take away slop, Gene's Perfect Aim only worked on one side for me. What Gene had said clearly would work didn't! No internet at the pool room so I couldn't be talking to Gene and on the table when I didn't have one at home. When I got back on the net Gene said I had to make adjustments when cutting right. So much for Perfect Aim being Perfect!

I have worked with CTE both on my own and with an advocate who it works well for. So far CTE doesn't work for me either. I think it has to do with the way I see balls after so many years at the table. My homebrew version of contact points or equal opposites works well enough I have beaten some of the best and perhaps more tellingly came within three balls of a perfect score on a snooker table. The five was rejected when I fired it in dead center so I will say it was at least equal parts the old table and my shortcomings. Can't call firing a ball dead center into the pocket an aiming issue.

A combination of the eyes not being what they once were and looking at new things, I am interested in CTE or Pro One. No question Stan makes Pro One work. What I don't know is if it works unaided or if Stan and others have learned mental gymnastics that make these aiming systems work much as I built in adjustments long ago. I may have to relearn how I see the relationship between balls to get any new aiming system to work. It took months to learn to shoot like this and it seems it may take months to learn a different system. I have proven to myself over and over that a few hours doesn't recalibrate my eyes. Perhaps not surprising when I put hundreds of hours of intense effort into building the invisible side of the cue ball to begin with.

I don't have the answers for CTE/Pro One, may never have them. However, these are paths that work for some and I feel are at least worth exploring. I have damaged my pool game badly trying to fix something that wasn't broken though which may be causing a mental struggle. A course in bowling I had to take as a freshman at LSU destroyed a reasonably competent bowling game that never recovered. Out of close to a hundred people in that bowling class I was probably dead last, not excepting a little old blue haired lady! Coming into the class I could break 200 pretty much at will. Never achieved anything like that moderate level of competence again. Self taught, I used a three step approach. LSU insisted on a four step approach. With my wrong leg leading at any stage of the approach I would hop, skip, jump, and hit the back of my leg so solidly that my legs would go up before my head started down! Only Dagwood Bumstead could fall as spectacularly. The bruise on the back of my leg grew to a size it looked like I had been in a train wreck. Despite a lot of sessions on my own dime plus the college class I never achieved a four step approach but I did lose my three step approach. After a few months I was neither fish nor fowl! The experience may be causing a mental struggle that I am not aware of trying new things on a pool table.

Hu

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It tests the accuracy of your understanding of fractional aiming. Guess what grade you get.

pj
chgo

Since this has nothing to do with standard fractional aiming, which you've never gotten in 23 years, you get the same grade as you always have. The classroom dunce. Now go stand in the corner with your hat on. I am glad to see your aren't about to stop to continue wasting each day of your remaining life away on CTE. LMAO

A businessman, wearing a dunce cap, sits on a stool in the corner of...

A businessman, wearing a dunce cap, sits on a stool in the corner of a large room. The concrete walls of the room convey a feeling of coldness and distance as if the man has been banished off to a...

www.gettyimages.ca

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I remember struggling for months back in the dawn of time building the backside of the cue ball that I couldn't see. While I considered it half of a perfect circle and still do, I had to build some compensations in when first transferring those points from the front of the cue ball that I could see to the back that I couldn't because I pocketed balls without further conscious compensations.

Fractional aiming doesn't work for me. I shoot ridiculously bad. Likewise, when I moved the balls a quarter or half inch off the rail to take away slop, Gene's Perfect Aim only worked on one side for me. What Gene had said clearly would work didn't! No internet at the pool room so I couldn't be talking to Gene and on the table when I didn't have one at home. When I got back on the net Gene said I had to make adjustments when cutting right. So much for Perfect Aim being Perfect!

I have worked with CTE both on my own and with an advocate who it works well for. So far CTE doesn't work for me either. I think it has to do with the way I see balls after so many years at the table. My homebrew version of contact points or equal opposites works well enough I have beaten some of the best and perhaps more tellingly came within three balls of a perfect score on a snooker table. The five was rejected when I fired it in dead center so I will say it was at least equal parts the old table and my shortcomings. Can't call firing a ball dead center into the pocket an aiming issue.

A combination of the eyes not being what they once were and looking at new things, I am interested in CTE or Pro One. No question Stan makes Pro One work. What I don't know is if it works unaided or if Stan and others have learned mental gymnastics that make these aiming systems work much as I built in adjustments long ago. I may have to relearn how I see the relationship between balls to get any new aiming system to work. It took months to learn to shoot like this and it seems it may take months to learn a different system. I have proven to myself over and over that a few hours doesn't recalibrate my eyes. Perhaps not surprising when I put hundreds of hours of intense effort into building the invisible side of the cue ball to begin with.

I don't have the answers for CTE/Pro One, may never have them. However, these are paths that work for some and I feel are at least worth exploring. I have damaged my pool game badly trying to fix something that wasn't broken though which may be causing a mental struggle. A course in bowling I had to take as a freshman at LSU destroyed a reasonably competent bowling game that never recovered. Out of close to a hundred people in that bowling class I was probably dead last, not excepting a little old blue haired lady! Coming into the class I could break 200 pretty much at will. Never achieved anything like that moderate level of competence again. Self taught, I used a three step approach. LSU insisted on a four step approach. With my wrong leg leading at any stage of the approach I would hop, skip, jump, and hit the back of my leg so solidly that my legs would go up before my head started down! Only Dagwood Bumstead could fall as spectacularly. The bruise on the back of my leg grew to a size it looked like I had been in a train wreck. Despite a lot of sessions on my own dime plus the college class I never achieved a four step approach but I did lose my three step approach. After a few months I was neither fish nor fowl! The experience may be causing a mental struggle that I am not aware of trying new things on a pool table.

Hu

You have to understand something right up front, CTE is NOT fractional aiming like PJ or others keep wanting to pin on it or what you think it is. A, B, C or 15, 30, 45 which is the basis for CTE, are reference points.

I listed names in another thread of those who are certified instructors as well as endorsed players who are well versed in CTE and use it the way it's designed to be used. Their status in the world of pool as instructors, pro players, top ranked amateur players, and numbers far exceed the accomplishments of the five or six on a pool forum who've basically done nothing as instructors and players. Their entire reason for getting involved with CTE is to try building some sort of hyped up status by knocking CTE and those who use it for over two decades.

If it's not for you based on past experience, then it's not for you. However, the book and the way it's laid out along with information, is definitely the final answer. When top pro players come to Stan for in person lessons regularly, male and female, become instructors as well as using it to earn money in their livelihood through tournament play, something is clicking in the right direction.

I'd say, get the book. But it's up to you. Are you too old for change? You have to answer that.

 

[boogieman]

It's a discussion forum where we discuss things about aiming pool. It is one tiny little corner of the internet. Sometimes we disagree on certain aspects and the "objectivity" of CTE is one of those things. If you don't like it then you don't have to read those posts. I thought you had all of us on ignore, anyway. What happened to that?

My comment on education in science was not meant to be a sleight. I know plenty of high school educated people smarter than I am. My point is that if you are someone like, oh, say a grammar school reading teacher you might not know how to test your theory properly. There are variables that need to be controlled, biases need to be eliminated as much as possible, and things like that. I have shown in a couple of instances where a video showed invalid results and every CTE supporter fluffed it off as nonsense. That led me to conclude, along with other evidence, that not really understanding how experiments work is kind of a prerequisite to accepting the CTE dogma.

I'm not saying CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it. I'm interested to see how boogieman does. Hopefully he will start a thread in the aiming forum about his journey with CTE. I am saying that it does not and cannot do what it claims to do.

I just got the book yesterday, but didn't get much chance to read it. I got through the introduction/preface stuff and am ready to start reading. I'm trying to keep an open mind. My thing is, I know barely anything about the system or the drama, so this is all new to me with an unbiased eye. The only thing I've noticed is that it's always an internet firestorm whenever it's mentioned. I don't care about that, I've been around forums enough to know how that stuff goes and it's in one ear and out the other. If a couple dudes are in a dick measuring contest, I'd rather leave the room cause I don't want to see that! There will be no stirring the pot from me.

I will say the book physically seems to be very good quality, very heavy and HUGE with good quality paper. It's a BIG book with lots of diagrams. I'm not far into the book, but the writing in the intro and such is very good quality writing. Honestly I can understand the price on the book, printing ain't cheap and if the info in it is even 25% of what it's cracked up to be, I feel it's a very fair price.

I'll probably post some kind of review when I get farther into it, but I don't want to do it prematurely as that would be unfair. I also have to figure out how to do it without dealing with the dumb that these threads tend to spawn. I'm going to try to stay objective because the last thing I want is to get caught up in all the related drama.

One last thing, the truth series left me kind of wondering what the hell I had heard, with a lot of terminology with no definitions. I was very pleased to see that at the start of a book, there is a glossary that defines the words. A tick is basically 1 degree out of a 360 degree total. I thought that's what it was, but without a definition I was left guessing. Anyway, I'll end the book I've written and start reading now.

 

[boogieman]

You stated in post #765..... (A). "I'm not saying that CTE is no good and you can't learn to play well with it"
and.....(B). "I am saying that it does not do what it claims to do"
If statement (A) is true, then using logic, how can statement (B) be true also?

Not him and not trying to answer for anyone, but that isn't really a logical flaw. See the post I just did where I talked about zen archers. They may (making stuff up here) think their chi has to be pushed to the tip of their pinkie finger so the arrow becomes infused with energy. Sure, it might not be correct, but if they get better results with it, it's all good. Maybe the pinkie finger thing was just a mental tactic to clear their head.

If the chi in the pinkie didn't cause the arrow to strike the target, it's not doing what it claims (B), but the archer hits a bullseye and shoots better with the mental tactic (A).

I shoot better when I listen to the sound my cue makes, there's nothing scientific or provable about that, but it keeps my mind focused and stops it from wandering into worrying about bad performance. It's like a reverse shark tactic. Ask someone details about their shot and they're gonna miss. Focus is really just distracting oneself from other unhelpful distractions.

I don't know if that's what he meant or anything, just don't see the statements as illogical, just maybe a bit vague.

 

[Dan White]

I just got the book yesterday, but didn't get much chance to read it. I got through the introduction/preface stuff and am ready to start reading. I'm trying to keep an open mind. My thing is, I know barely anything about the system or the drama, so this is all new to me with an unbiased eye. The only thing I've noticed is that it's always an internet firestorm whenever it's mentioned. I don't care about that, I've been around forums enough to know how that stuff goes and it's in one ear and out the other. If a couple dudes are in a dick measuring contest, I'd rather leave the room cause I don't want to see that! There will be no stirring the pot from me.

I will say the book physically seems to be very good quality, very heavy and HUGE with good quality paper. It's a BIG book with lots of diagrams. I'm not far into the book, but the writing in the intro and such is very good quality writing. Honestly I can understand the price on the book, printing ain't cheap and if the info in it is even 25% of what it's cracked up to be, I feel it's a very fair price.

I'll probably post some kind of review when I get farther into it, but I don't want to do it prematurely as that would be unfair. I also have to figure out how to do it without dealing with the dumb that these threads tend to spawn. I'm going to try to stay objective because the last thing I want is to get caught up in all the related drama.

One last thing, the truth series left me kind of wondering what the hell I had heard, with a lot of terminology with no definitions. I was very pleased to see that at the start of a book, there is a glossary that defines the words. A tick is basically 1 degree out of a 360 degree total. I thought that's what it was, but without a definition I was left guessing. Anyway, I'll end the book I've written and start reading now.

It would be interesting if you started your own thread when you are ready to make comments.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

boogieman, go slowly and take it to the table early on with what you're reading. If you have a table at home, duplicate the pictures with CB and OB (high # striped balls) and burn it into your eyes and brain.

Btw, if you're going to post about it or need help, there is a place to do it with like minded people as well as those who are very proficient in it. Hundreds of them.

 

[Dan White]

Not him and not trying to answer for anyone, but that isn't really a logical flaw. See the post I just did where I talked about zen archers. They may (making stuff up here) think their chi has to be pushed to the tip of their pinkie finger so the arrow becomes infused with energy. Sure, it might not be correct, but if they get better results with it, it's all good. Maybe the pinkie finger thing was just a mental tactic to clear their head.

If the chi in the pinkie didn't cause the arrow to strike the target, it's not doing what it claims (B), but the archer hits a bullseye and shoots better with the mental tactic (A).

I shoot better when I listen to the sound my cue makes, there's nothing scientific or provable about that, but it keeps my mind focused and stops it from wandering into worrying about bad performance. It's like a reverse shark tactic. Ask someone details about their shot and they're gonna miss. Focus is really just distracting oneself from other unhelpful distractions.

I don't know if that's what he meant or anything, just don't see the statements as illogical, just maybe a bit vague.

That was me. Your analysis is correct. It seems you have a rational head on your shoulders. I'm not trying to drag you into any kind of debate but he whole issue is really very simple. CTE is presented (sold) as something unique in that it can deliver the shot line for you without you having to put in the table time to let your brain learn when a shot is on and when it is not. They call this "100% objective" and make that claim with no supporting evidence other than "it works, so there." OK, you're all caught up on 20 years. Enjoy the book!

 

[Patrick Johnson]

CTE is NOT fractional aiming like PJ or others keep wanting to pin on it or what you think it is. A, B, C or 15, 30, 45 which is the basis for CTE, are reference points.

Those are also the reference points for fractional aiming.

pj <- go figure
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Those are also the reference points for fractional aiming.

pj <- go figure
chgo

A woman walks down the street wearing eyeliner. A man walks down the street also wearing eyeliner. It doesn't make him a woman and A, B, C in CTE doesn't make it a fractional aiming system although they coincidentally are located in the same place. Everything changes after that in how it's treated. One is a target for collision and the other is not. You know that but it's the same broken record crap over and over and over. Get a life PJ, a real one. Not this imaginary one where you think you're King on the Mountain for everything pool. You've pretty much accomplished nothing in the real world of pool.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

A, B, C in CTE doesn't make it a fractional aiming system although they coincidentally are located in the same place. Everything changes after that in how it's treated. One is a target for collision and the other is not.

They're only "targets for collision" if a fraction happens to be dead on for the shot - which, as I've explained, happens a small percentage of the time. In both systems they're references to help estimate the actual "target for collision" for each shot.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

They're only "targets for collision" if a fraction happens to be dead on for the shot - which, as I've explained, happens a small percentage of the time. In both systems they're references to help estimate the actual "target for collision" for each shot.

pj
chgo

It's handled and seen entirely differently from there on out. No relationship whatsoever other than the location.

A bicycle and a motorcycle both have two wheels and tires, a seat to sit on and handlebars with grips to steer it and they can both get you to the destination. Everything in between is like night and day and nowhere near the same. Just like 15-30-45.

Get lost.

 

[straightline]

Or you can get Joe Tucker's Contact Point training balls and system. I drove up to see Joe 3 times some years back and spent hours at the table with him on this. Joe has contact point aiming down better than anyone out there with his entire system.

Aiming By The Numbers Method - Endorsed by Mike Massey - Ozone Billiards

So I've heard. I don't know why he abandoned it. I'm still learning to calibrate my stroke - THE weak link in any system and indeed most ball games.

 

[ShootingArts]

I just got the book yesterday, but didn't get much chance to read it. I got through the introduction/preface stuff and am ready to start reading. I'm trying to keep an open mind. My thing is, I know barely anything about the system or the drama, so this is all new to me with an unbiased eye. The only thing I've noticed is that it's always an internet firestorm whenever it's mentioned. I don't care about that, I've been around forums enough to know how that stuff goes and it's in one ear and out the other. If a couple dudes are in a dick measuring contest, I'd rather leave the room cause I don't want to see that! There will be no stirring the pot from me.

I will say the book physically seems to be very good quality, very heavy and HUGE with good quality paper. It's a BIG book with lots of diagrams. I'm not far into the book, but the writing in the intro and such is very good quality writing. Honestly I can understand the price on the book, printing ain't cheap and if the info in it is even 25% of what it's cracked up to be, I feel it's a very fair price.

I'll probably post some kind of review when I get farther into it, but I don't want to do it prematurely as that would be unfair. I also have to figure out how to do it without dealing with the dumb that these threads tend to spawn. I'm going to try to stay objective because the last thing I want is to get caught up in all the related drama.

One last thing, the truth series left me kind of wondering what the hell I had heard, with a lot of terminology with no definitions. I was very pleased to see that at the start of a book, there is a glossary that defines the words. A tick is basically 1 degree out of a 360 degree total. I thought that's what it was, but without a definition I was left guessing. Anyway, I'll end the book I've written and start reading now.

A fresh look from a fresh eye would be nice!

Hu

 

[SpiderWebComm]

A fresh look from a fresh eye would be nice!

Hu

There are over 400 fresh sets of eyes talking about this everyday. Take out one of your best scopes and set your crosshairs on it.

 

[straightline]

I remember struggling for months back in the dawn of time building the backside of the cue ball that I couldn't see. While I considered it half of a perfect circle and still do, I had to build some compensations in when first transferring those points from the front of the cue ball that I could see to the back that I couldn't because I pocketed balls without further conscious compensations.
Hu

If you use the stick as a drafting tool, the shot line will be determined for you. No compensation required. You still need to develop a linear stroke and work out the shooting process.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

If you use the stick as a drafting tool, the shot line will be determined for you. No compensation required. You still need to develop a linear stroke and work out the shooting process.

Brilliant. I wonder which pros do this. What is impressive is you state it with so much authority and simplicity as if it's carved in stone. Have you applied for a Patent on this pool related drafting tool yet?

 

[straightline]

Brilliant. I wonder which pros do this. What is impressive is you state it with so much authority and simplicity as if it's carved in stone. Have you applied for a Patent on this pool related drafting tool yet?

It's called a cue. Been doing it for years now. Matter of fact since I first read of it here.
There was a How do you aim? thread and some guy answered with something like: you rest the tip of the stick on the middle point between the cue ball and object ball, point from there at the contact point then roll the stick over to center cue ball. Voila, there's your shot line. It was also diagrammed on Cuetable. Went from that to figuring out Jimmy Reid's "equal angle opposites" Solved all my aiming problems.