CTE and a 2x1 Surface Explored

[Dan White]

According to both the inventor of CTE (Hal Houle) and Stan himself, Stan Shuffet’s CTE Pro One only works because the table has 2x1 dimensions. If the dimensions are other than 2x1, logically, then CTE will no longer work. If there were 10 Commandments of CTE this would be the first one. Stan called this phenomenon “something that was never meant to be.” He also called it a “mystery” as shown at the 2:05 mark in the video below. Apparently linking to youtube at specific time markers doesn't work on AZ so you have to go to the 2:05 minute mark manually. Edit: I have since learned that typically Stan has made things more complicated than need be. His youtube posts are allowed to play on youtube ONLY for some reason and that prevents time stamps from working.

By Stan’s reasoning, the mystery of the 2x1 table means that you no longer need to care where the pockets are because his system, using only three alignments for each side of the ball, will automatically send the ball to the corners of the table. You only have to have a vague idea of where the pocket is so that you can pick the correct solution. JB relates this to having a set of keys to choose from. This is why Stan posts videos of him pocketing balls with a curtain covering the pockets. In essence, CTE does the aiming for you because, as luck would have it, the 2x1 surface allows it to work.

The only explanation as to why the surface has to be 2x1 came from Hal Houle in which he runs through the various angles that the rail diamonds make - 15, 30, 45, 60 and so on. It really is more of a limerick than an explanation (I don't have it handy or else I'd post it here). To my knowledge the surface has never been scratched any deeper and the 2x1 requirement rolls off the tongue like a bumper sticker. Some of us are interested in examining the 2x1 assertion to see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Look at the first diagram below. It shows how, using CTE Pro One, both shots will be made using the “ETA” or the “15 degree” perception. Do the exact same steps for both shots and the two balls will go to the same pocket simply because the table is twice as long as it is wide.

Now, here is something really interesting. Let’s take out a diamond saw and cut six inches off the side of the table, as shown in the next diagram below. Hitting the exact same shots with the exact same 15 degree perception, you will be amazed to learn that the shots no longer both go in the pocket, or do they? The table is no longer 2x1 after all. Is this an accurate representation of the 2x1 concept mentioned by Stan?

The answer seems obvious to me but I leave open the possibility that I am missing something that will make this understandable. Hopefully some of the CTE guys will chime in with constructive comments.

 

[cookie man]

When you find a made up table like you want to do, then i guess a real experiment could be done. Oh that's right, you scientific guys don't do experiments, you just give out keyboard thoughts.

 

[mohrt]

This looks like a good experiment. My hypothesis will be for this specific setup that the ball still pockets, because the portion of the table that is involved in the perception is still visible and valid. Sending the ball to the opposite corner pocket however, would no longer work if the pocket is moved (or removed) from the 90 degree angles congruent to the other pockets on the table. I could be completely wrong about this too. But given a curtain shot, all you could visibly see are the two side rails going under the curtain.

I'm also going to put this out there: CTE has been a growing and learning experience for everyone, even Stan himself. There have been things stated in the past that have been refined and/or corrected over the years (yes, even mistakes). For instance the famous "5 shot" video where all shots were pocketed with a single perception. That has since been updated and clarified in his book given the latest information on correct eye position for all CTE perceptions. So take the history of youtube information, especially the older information, with a grain of salt as things have not always been perfect. Stan has made a commitment to put out updates / refinements / corrections to previous information as he identifies them.

 

[Dan White]

When you find a made up table like you want to do, then i guess a real experiment could be done. Oh that's right, you scientific guys don't do experiments, you just give out keyboard thoughts.

We do them all the time. JB has 5 tables in one room so maybe he could do it. I think an easier method would to be fashioning a 2x3 into a fake rail painted green or shaped like a rail and covered in cloth if you want to get fancy. Then you could set it down as a new long rail and cover the rest of the table with black cloth so it doesn't get seen when you shoot. If you cut off a foot this would change the table to about 2.6x1. This would have to be done by someone who uses CTE and gets CTE to work for all shots.

 

[mohrt]

I just watched that video you posted at the top of this channel. I have not seen that one in years! But I do believe it is absolutely valid. The position of the balls on his countertop, when given the same perception (15 inside) both shots resolve in unique physical alignments. The same thing happens with CB/OB relationships on a pool table. I demonstrated this in my latest video with the 30I shots with four different CB/OB positions on the table making the same pocket. It is not something I do consciously, my perception takes me to unique and repeatable alignments for any given CB/OB position on the table.

 

[Dan White]

This looks like a good experiment. My hypothesis will be for this specific setup that the ball still pockets, because the portion of the table that is involved in the perception is still visible and valid. Sending the ball to the opposite corner pocket however, would no longer work if the pocket is moved (or removed) from the 90 degree angles congruent to the other pockets on the table. I could be completely wrong about this too. But given a curtain shot, all you could visibly see are the two side rails going under the curtain.

Couple of problems with this. Stan does curtain shots where none of the rails except the one under his cue are visible. That was a video on banking. So it does not seem that the 2x1 requirement has anything to do with seeing the rails. It seems to be more like the table has to have those dimensions in order to work with the CTE procedure, regardless of whether you can see the rails or not.

Regarding shooting to the rail that has been moved. Why is it any different? In the first case you say you can see the two rails around the pocket you are shooting towards and that is what is important. So now if you shoot toward a pocket that is 6 inches moved over why is there a problem? You can see those two rails around the pocket so why not just pick the perception (maybe that one is an edge to C shot) and shoot?

I'm also going to put this out there: CTE has been a growing and learning experience for everyone, even Stan himself. There have been things stated in the past that have been refined and/or corrected over the years (yes, even mistakes). For instance the famous "5 shot" video where all shots were pocketed with a single perception. That has since been updated and clarified in his book given the latest information on correct eye position for all CTE perceptions. So take the history of youtube information, especially the older information, with a grain of salt as things have not always been perfect. Stan has made a commitment to put out updates / refinements / corrections to previous information as he identifies them.

Stan has a talent for saying he did things wrong but was still right. Is he going to make a commitment to apologize to everyone who has been saying for years that his explanations were wrong? On second thought, don't answer that. It would be nice to keep this focused on why 2x1 matters and I appreciate you giving it a try.

 

[Dan White]

I just watched that video you posted at the top of this channel. I have not seen that one in years! But I do believe it is absolutely valid. The position of the balls on his countertop, when given the same perception (15 inside) both shots resolve in unique physical alignments. The same thing happens with CB/OB relationships on a pool table.

I always wondered if that countertop was 2x1. IIRC, I think Stan even says the countertop is not 2x1. Doesn't he say something like "it's not 2x1 but anyway" and then proceeds to show the mystery working? Why does he continue to talk about the 2x1 thing if it doesn't really matter?

I demonstrated this in my latest video with the 30I shots with four different CB/OB positions on the table making the same pocket. It is not something I do consciously, my perception takes me to unique and repeatable alignments for any given CB/OB position on the table.

Yes, that was a good video. My belief is that you ARE adjusting something without realizing it (subconsciously). Since you really don't know why the balls go in is it not a possibility that you are making them go in rather than the 2x1 table doing it for you? You said something about having sense of where the pocket is for each of those shots. Maybe you are making the adjustments without really even thinking about it.

 

[boogieman]

According to both the inventor of CTE (Hal Houle) and Stan himself, Stan Shuffet’s CTE Pro One only works because the table has 2x1 dimensions. If the dimensions are other than 2x1, logically, then CTE will no longer work. If there were 10 Commandments of CTE this would be the first one. Stan called this phenomenon “something that was never meant to be.” He also called it a “mystery” as shown at the 2:05 mark in the video below. Apparently linking to youtube at specific time markers doesn't work on AZ so you have to go to the 2:05 minute mark manually.

By Stan’s reasoning, the mystery of the 2x1 table means that you no longer need to care where the pockets are because his system, using only three alignments for each side of the ball, will automatically send the ball to the corners of the table. You only have to have a vague idea of where the pocket is so that you can pick the correct solution. JB relates this to having a set of keys to choose from. This is why Stan posts videos of him pocketing balls with a curtain covering the pockets. In essence, CTE does the aiming for you because, as luck would have it, the 2x1 surface allows it to work.

The only explanation as to why the surface has to be 2x1 came from Hal Houle in which he runs through the various angles that the rail diamonds make - 15, 30, 45, 60 and so on. It really is more of a limerick than an explanation (I don't have it handy or else I'd post it here). To my knowledge the surface has never been scratched any deeper and the 2x1 requirement rolls off the tongue like a bumper sticker. Some of us are interested in examining the 2x1 assertion to see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Look at the first diagram below. It shows how, using CTE Pro One, both shots will be made using the “ETA” or the “15 degree” perception. Do the exact same steps for both shots and the two balls will go to the same pocket simply because the table is twice as long as it is wide.

View attachment 592218

Now, here is something really interesting. Let’s take out a diamond saw and cut six inches off the side of the table, as shown in the next diagram below. Hitting the exact same shots with the exact same 15 degree perception, you will be amazed to learn that the shots no longer both go in the pocket, or do they? The table is no longer 2x1 after all. Is this an accurate representation of the 2x1 concept mentioned by Stan?

View attachment 592219

The answer seems obvious to me but I leave open the possibility that I am missing something that will make this understandable. Hopefully some of the CTE guys will chime in with constructive comments.

I know very little of CTE, but I don't think this example is all encompassing. Sure, a straight in shot aims the same, but what about when you throw in banks, 3 cushion shots etc. I don't think Stan is saying changing table geometry changes straight in shots, it has to do with the different routes on the table, including 3 rail shots etc. Imagine trying to do a 3 rail shot on this cut off table. The "tracks" are drastically altered.

 

[Dan White]

I know very little of CTE, but I don't think this example is all encompassing. Sure, a straight in shot aims the same, but what about when you throw in banks, 3 cushion shots etc. I don't think Stan is saying changing table geometry changes straight in shots, it has to do with the different routes on the table, including 3 rail shots etc. Imagine trying to do a 3 rail shot on this cut off table. The "tracks" are drastically altered.

That's not really what Stan says. He has never said that straight in shots can be made on any dimension table. Take the example in his video on the kitchen table. He always says that the reason for the "mystery" phenomena is the 2x1 table. The mystery is why you can use the same CTE perception on two different shots like in his example and they both go in. These are not bank shots. Again, it is saying that because the table is 2x1 then you can make these two shots with the same perception.

 

[boogieman]

That's not really what Stan says. He has never said that straight in shots can be made on any dimension table. Take the example in his video on the kitchen table. He always says that the reason for the "mystery" phenomena is the 2x1 table. The mystery is why you can use the same CTE perception on two different shots like in his example and they both go in. These are not bank shots. Again, it is saying that because the table is 2x1 then you can make these two shots with the same perception.

I'm not fully versed, so take into consideration my ignorance. If you're shooting a straight in shot (or angled, I mean no rail contact), isn't that a 1:1 ratio? The 2:1 doesn't come into effect until you involve a rail. It just might happen that the 1:1 ratio is also covered by the 2:1 rule. After all, in CTE, you have two 1X1 tables spliced together. A side pocket is 180 degrees, meaning it consists of two 90 degree angles butting against each other. So with this thought, also taking it as a fact that CTE works (just a mental exercise, not meaning to prophetize), it should work on 1:1, 2:1, 2:2, 4:2, 3:3, 3:1.5 etc. As long as you maintain the ratio of not just 2:2 but two 1:1 ratios, it should work. If you have a ratio that breaks the table consisting of two 1:1 ratios, it falls apart. If you have a table which is 3:1, the table tracks no longer work. Perhaps at this point you would need to divide the cue ball into 6 contact points? I'm not fully certain if I'm calculating correctly, but there is some kind of math proof here.

 

[Dan White]

I'm not fully versed, so take into consideration my ignorance. If you're shooting a straight in shot (or angled, I mean no rail contact), isn't that a 1:1 ratio? The 2:1 doesn't come into effect until you involve a rail. It just might happen that the 1:1 ratio is also covered by the 2:1 rule. After all, in CTE, you have two 1X1 tables spliced together. A side pocket is 180 degrees, meaning it consists of two 90 degree angles butting against each other. So with this thought, also taking it as a fact that CTE works (just a mental exercise, not meaning to prophetize), it should work on 1:1, 2:1, 2:2, 4:2, 3:3, 3:1.5 etc. As long as you maintain the ratio of not just 2:2 but two 1:1 ratios, it should work. If you have a ratio that breaks the table consisting of two 1:1 ratios, it falls apart. If you have a table which is 3:1, the table tracks no longer work. Perhaps at this point you would need to divide the cue ball into 6 contact points? I'm not fully certain if I'm calculating correctly, but there is some kind of math proof here.

I understand what you are saying but that is not what Stan is saying. In my example above, it is not a 1x1 surface. It is 1.88x1 but it could be anything for discussion purposes. The discussion of bank shots is kind of an afterthought or bonus that if you pick the wrong perception the ball will bank into another pocket. That is not the main selling point of CTE. The selling point is that you can pick one perception and pocket balls with a wide variety of shot angles without regard to aiming at the pocket. For example, a 30 degree perception will pocket balls with different shot angles BECAUSE the table dimension is 2x1.

 

[mohrt]

I always wondered if that countertop was 2x1. IIRC, I think Stan even says the countertop is not 2x1. Doesn't he say something like "it's not 2x1 but anyway" and then proceeds to show the mystery working? Why does he continue to talk about the 2x1 thing if it doesn't really matter?

Yes, that was a good video. My belief is that you ARE adjusting something without realizing it (subconsciously). Since you really don't know why the balls go in is it not a possibility that you are making them go in rather than the 2x1 table doing it for you? You said something about having sense of where the pocket is for each of those shots. Maybe you are making the adjustments without really even thinking about it.

If I am "making the adjustments" by simply aligning with the SL and AL, repeatedly and consistently, I'll take it. It's an identical "adjustment" every time, and so long as my stroke and mechanics are on, I'll pocket that ball a very high percentage.

 

[mohrt]

I always wondered if that countertop was 2x1. IIRC, I think Stan even says the countertop is not 2x1. Doesn't he say something like "it's not 2x1 but anyway" and then proceeds to show the mystery working? Why does he continue to talk about the 2x1 thing if it doesn't really matter?

Yes, that was a good video. My belief is that you ARE adjusting something without realizing it (subconsciously). Since you really don't know why the balls go in is it not a possibility that you are making them go in rather than the 2x1 table doing it for you? You said something about having sense of where the pocket is for each of those shots. Maybe you are making the adjustments without really even thinking about it.

A 2x1 table does matter for the purpose of pocketing balls. Regardless of the shape of the counter surface, the perception phenomena still happens in a similar manner. That is all he is pointing out for that video.

 

[mohrt]

I don't understand why you can't just learn the "how" by practicing the instructions for a relatively short time, and then ponder the "why", instead of insisting on knowing the "why" before you give the "how" a go. If I insisted to know every detail of the "why" first, I would have never discovered it.

 

[boogieman]

I understand what you are saying but that is not what Stan is saying. In my example above, it is not a 1x1 surface. It is 1.88x1 but it could be anything for discussion purposes. The discussion of bank shots is kind of an afterthought or bonus that if you pick the wrong perception the ball will bank into another pocket. That is not the main selling point of CTE. The selling point is that you can pick one perception and pocket balls with a wide variety of shot angles without regard to aiming at the pocket. For example, a 30 degree perception will pocket balls with different shot angles BECAUSE the table dimension is 2x1.

Again, it says 2:1, but if you read into the system, it's actually two 1x1 tables combined. I haven't seen anyone actually come out and say this, but the math is there. It's not strictly 2:1, just the stuff that works at 1:1 also works on 2:1, and the fact that the multiple rail shots work is a cooked in bonus.

The reason they work is the same as equal angle banks, where you picture a second table butted against the one you're shooting on works. You aim for the "ghost table corner pocket" and the ball goes into the corner after rebound. It's not a difficult concept, just it's damn near impossible to write it concisely in a formulaic statement.

EDIT: I'm not saying it's not an afterthought, but it's a nice bonus either way.

 

[JB Cases]

lol. Of course CTE works on EVERY 90 degree angle. The only question is how far away from that 90 degree angle will there be a CTE perception that works for it. Newton's first law says that a body in motion remains in motion so any "pockets" along a line on which a CTE resolved shot would work. Now that said where CTE might not work is for banks to pockets that are not on the 90 degree corners that are present on a 2x1 perfect rectangle.

My question to you is this. How do you explain increased success at one, two, three, and four rail bank shots when using Center to Edge?

I can see your point about "subsconscious adjustment" for the shots directly to a pocket.... the powerful brain adjusts to the correct shot line because you think that CTE is not actually objectively handling "all shots" directly to a pocket. But to me attributing subconscious adjustment to a sudden increase in success rates for the banks shots is really miraculous.

 

[boogieman]

miraculous

This gonna be Gud.

 

[Dan White]

If I am "making the adjustments" by simply aligning with the SL and AL, repeatedly and consistently, I'll take it. It's an identical "adjustment" every time, and so long as my stroke and mechanics are on, I'll pocket that ball a very high percentage.

It may be possible that the SL and AL are your starting points from which you adjust depending on exactly where the pocket is. The point is that it is your past knowledge of what a successful alignment is that makes the ball go in. If that is the case then CTE is merely a pre shot routine to get you focused on the shot but it would have nothing to do, really, with the pocketing of the ball.

A 2x1 table does matter for the purpose of pocketing balls. Regardless of the shape of the counter surface, the perception phenomena still happens in a similar manner. That is all he is pointing out for that video.

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why does it matter, and does it really for non bank shots?

I don't understand why you can't just learn the "how" by practicing the instructions for a relatively short time, and then ponder the "why", instead of insisting on knowing the "why" before you give the "how" a go. If I insisted to know every detail of the "why" first, I would have never discovered it.

Why do you guys always conclude that I haven't practiced CTE? You think that if I am not making all the shots then I am doing it wrong. I say if I AM making all the shots then I am fudging the shot. I have used it enough to know two things, for me. One is that it is difficult to find the A and C locations while also finding the CTE line. I believe there is A LOT of room for error/subjectivity there, and the other is that when I do get a shot dialed in, like a 15 degree perception, then move the balls a little the shot no longer goes in.

 

[Dan White]

Again, it says 2:1, but if you read into the system, it's actually two 1x1 tables combined. I haven't seen anyone actually come out and say this, but the math is there. It's not strictly 2:1, just the stuff that works at 1:1 also works on 2:1, and the fact that the multiple rail shots work is a cooked in bonus.

The reason they work is the same as equal angle banks, where you picture a second table butted against the one you're shooting on works. You aim for the "ghost table corner pocket" and the ball goes into the corner after rebound. It's not a difficult concept, just it's damn near impossible to write it concisely in a formulaic statement.

EDIT: I'm not saying it's not an afterthought, but it's a nice bonus either way.

I believe that even Hal's original blurb on the angles says that the 2x1 table is made up of 2 1x1 squares so I imagine Stan would say it works on a half table the same, but that is conjecture. Anyway, this is really more about what happens when the table is something other than 2x1 and not specifically 1x1.

Of course bank systems would still work but they would have to be altered. I don't think you could use the diamonds in the same way because the foot rail diamonds would be different from the long rail. However, using the mirror system using two tables next to each other would still work if those odd tables were butted next to each other.

I think it is safe to say that banking systems do require a 2x1 surface because the diamonds need to be equal distances on all sides of the surface. In CTE, though, the diamonds are not used so it is not clear why banking only works on a 2x1 surface. If a particular shot is at the proper angle to be pocketed using a 15 degree perception then I could see that in that situation if you use a 30 degree perception it might send the ball to a different pocket. If you move the balls off of that position a little, though, then that would no longer hold true. It would be simple to diagram and find out.

This gonna be Gud.

Nope, not going there! Trying to keep this civil.

 

[Dan White]

lol. Of course CTE works on EVERY 90 degree angle. The only question is how far away from that 90 degree angle will there be a CTE perception that works for it. Newton's first law says that a body in motion remains in motion so any "pockets" along a line on which a CTE resolved shot would work.

When the question is "Why is a 2x1 surface with pockets at the corners required for CTE?" an answer like "of course it works" is not an answer. I have yet to see any proof that if a ball misses one pocket that it will track to another.

Now that said where CTE might not work is for banks to pockets that are not on the 90 degree corners that are present on a 2x1 perfect rectangle.

Yes, that is the question I'm trying to get to the bottom of. Is it the 90 degrees that matters or the 2x1 because every odd shape still has 90 degree corners?

My question to you is this. How do you explain increased success at one, two, three, and four rail bank shots when using Center to Edge?

I can only go on the most plausible explanation given that we have no proof of any kind that the 2x1 surface matters. Here it is: The only documented case of bank shots working better using CTE comes from Stan. We all know Stan is a Kentucky bank pool champion and played nothing but bank pool from the age of 8 to 16. I could go on with his bank pool resume. If boogieman starts draining 3 rail banks using a curtain then you will have my attention.

I can see your point about "subsconscious adjustment" for the shots directly to a pocket.... the powerful brain adjusts to the correct shot line because you think that CTE is not actually objectively handling "all shots" directly to a pocket.

Well I'm surprised and impressed that you would make that statement. Are you agreeing with this or are you simply saying that that is what the skeptics like me believe?

But to me attributing subconscious adjustment to a sudden increase in success rates for the banks shots is really miraculous.

I agree. If Joe Blow banks miraculously better after learning CTE then that is interesting to understand better. I don't see that happening on youtube anywhere but I could be wrong. You also have to factor in that simply practicing banks will make you better at them. I don't think that is a trivial statement.