CTE discussion !

Patrick Johnson said:
Since this is a CTE discussion thread, I'll add my standard caveat:

CTE/Pro1 doesn't get your cue to center cue ball and on the contact point on the object ball and lined up very close to center pocket by itself. You have to learn through practice and memorization how to recognize the reference alignments that correspond to the cut angles and how to adjust from the reference alignments to the final aim. Like any aiming method, the shooter's "aiming instincts" play a substantial role and must be developed through practice and repetition.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick, You do not understand CTE PRO ONE or you'd know that secondary adjustments to account for various cut angles are not necessary.

Sure, there are a few initial visual alignments to learn but they're not so tough. There are only 2 visual alignments for CTE and all shots go with those 2 alignments.

Stan Shuffett
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Oh, I get you now.

I like clockface positions combined with fractons of maximum. For instance I might say "1/3 maximum 2 o'clock english" for a small amount of top-right or "1/2 maximum 6 o'clock english" for a medium amount of pure draw.

Unfortunately, the pool world doesn't yet fully realize the wisdom of my opinions, so this isn't (yet) worldwide standard terminology.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Thanks for the chuckle.
 
stan shuffett said:
Patrick, You do not understand CTE PRO ONE or you'd know that secondary adjustments to account for various cut angles are not necessary.
Click to expand...
I respect your right to say so, Stan, but I'll stand by my statement. As always, I agree that CTE does have real value for those who like it, but no aiming system offers "robotic precision".

Anyway, we've been over and over this point in the past, and I think we might just interpret the words differently. Some will relate to my interpretation and some will relate to yours. It's all good by me, and I hope you sell a million copies.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I respect your right to say so, Stan, but I'll stand by my statement. As always, I agree that CTE does have real value for those who like it, but no aiming system offers "robotic precision".

Anyway, we've been over and over this point in the past, and I think we might just interpret the words differently. Some will relate to my interpretation and some will relate to yours. It's all good by me, and I hope you sell a million copies.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Pj, No problem. But I do believe that one day you will get it'

Stan Shuffett
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I think I agree with most of what you've said - except hyperbole like "[CTE] will become the holy grail of aiming". But you're careful to say that's your opinion, so I have no quarrel with it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

i do mean cte/pro1 system by stan and not the others. Stan has worked at making the system complete from start to finish in my eyes.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I think I agree with most of what you've said - except hyperbole like "[CTE] will become the holy grail of aiming". But you're careful to say that's your opinion, so I have no quarrel with it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

your right, its not that it will become, it already is.



p.s. an opinion from a very experienced user
 
Connecting the Dots on the Center to Edge System of Aiming

Cj can take over from here and add or subtract from what I have said.

Stan Shuffett[/QUOTE]

Today I read the original description by Hal and it made a lot of sense to me....the only thing I do differently is my specific points are on the cue ball, and "relative points" are on the object ball (at least that's how it appears at first).... his points/sections are 2 times 3 that equals 6 (being the number of pockets) and mine is 3 (edge*center*edge of object ball) and 8 off the Cue Ball - 4 off the one side of center (edge,quarter,half,three quarters,full{center}) and the same off the other side of center to equal 8 total points ..... so mine is 3 times 8 equaling 24 {which equals the Total amount of diamonds/sections on the table}(pockets are considered sections even though they aren't marked with a diamond) ..... I may be unconsciously reducing my 24 angles/sections total down to the 6 Hal speaks of.....Stan, you know this better than me, what do you think? I also agree that I can make any bank to any other pocket using my system and when I understand yours better I believe we'll find them connect....I'm anxious to find out for my edification Stan, it appears your system is easier than mine, I just have 8 Themes and 24 total angles with mine and I'm just trying to understand how to simplify that... Thanks
391409_505771886115519_376208511_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think I agree with most of what you've said - except hyperbole like "[CTE] will become the holy grail of aiming". But you're careful to say that's your opinion, so I have no quarrel with it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
cookie man:
your right, its not that it will become, it already is.

p.s. an opinion from a very experienced user
Click to expand...
CTE obviously helps a number of players, and I believe it's your holy grail of aiming.

But it's not the holy grail, and I don't think it (or any single method) ever will be.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Ok so i see whats going on with your 24 alignments but what does the diamonds and pockets have to do with anything?
 
Last edited:
cjssecrets4u2 said:
... Today I read the original description by Hal and it made a lot of sense to me....the only thing I do differently is my specific points are on the cue ball, and "relative points" are on the object ball (at least that's how it appears at first).... his points/sections are 2 times 3 that equals 6 (being the number of pockets) and mine is 3 (edge*center*edge of object ball) and 8 off the Cue Ball - 4 off the one side of center (edge,quarter,half,three quarters,full{center}) and the same off the other side of center to equal 8 total points ..... so mine is 3 times 8 equaling 24 {which equals the Total amount of diamonds/sections on the table}(pockets are considered sections even though they aren't marked with a diamond) ..... I may be unconsciously reducing my 24 angles/sections total down to the 6 Hal speaks of.....Stan, you know this better than me, what do you think? I also agree that I can make any bank to any other pocket using my system and when I understand yours better I believe we'll find them connect....I'm anxious to find out for my edification Stan, it appears your system is easier than mine, I just have 8 Themes and 24 total angles with mine and I'm just trying to understand how to simplify that... Thanks ...
Click to expand...

Now I don't know whether you're kidding.

If by "the original description by Hal" you mean what pj put in the "Texas Staff" thread, that's not a description of CTE. It's from years before Hal taught CTE, in the midst of arguments over whether 3 angles were sufficient on a pool table. Some people claim Hal wrote it as a joke. Others see deep hidden meaning in it.

And as to your aiming system as taught on your "Secrets" dvd, it does not (if performed robotically) provide 24 angles. It creates 8 cut angles in each direction, plus straight, for a total of 17 directions to send an OB. When you multiply 8 x 3 to get 24, you have many duplications (and you forgot straight).
 
i understand cj's system now regardless of how many lines is claimed lol :) it's interesting and for the record i understand hals 3 angle system for some time now also and it will work too :)

Cj is not counting center cue ball for some reason?

(edge, quarter, half, three quarters, center cue ball, three quarters, half, quarter, edge)
 
Last edited:
Pro1/Cte

Good Morning,

as many guys know, i m also an *oldschooled guy*. Can shoot some balls- and also teaching/instructing a bit more. In the last 2 years i followed Stan s system (Pro1) and furthermore also followed Ekkes System form the first pre-release (See-System).

For me as many of you as a player who learnt it the hard way-means. in the early 80s where you just tried and error- perhaps had been able to get a book or two ^^, i completly understand that some have a real problem with those systems. I would say that i can teach a lot of *aiming systems*. But to be honest it took me a bit, when a student asked me seriously: Ingo, what kind of systems are you definitley using? Finally it s a combination of several systems which i put together until it worked for me.

What i can seriously say now is, that both systems taught me a lot new stuff (pro1 and see-system). Just yesterday while working with a student he asked shortly about it. I just throw out some balls and explained him (really really fast, just with some simple explanations about edge and center), how it works, and what would be the sense of it. It was really easy to see, that he was curious and also wondering a bit- seeing me doin shots, where i haven t got a single look at the pocket, the striking line etc. - I just told him while aligning and shoot, where i look at, and where i pay attention to align.
i put 7 shots, made these 7 shots-- so he saw that it definitly works- and i was serious to tell him also, that i am not able to explain it mathmatically-but it works for sure :-)

After telling a bit about angles on the table (relatioship ob and cb and pocket) he also was a bit confused. Just explained him, for what they can be useful ( See-System for example).

I m still no *pure pro-1 or cte* - user. But both are well thought and working systems. After testing around with pro1 and See-System i pulled out some situations for me, where i use em definitley for me-and if it is at least a "double check help".


But still my strong opinion is, that both systems are nothing for beginners :-) But maybe someday i ll say that i am wrong about this statement.


hats off for Stan Shuffet and Ekkes for their passion and the time they put into their work.

A "sometimes pro1 + see-system user"

lg from overseas,

Ingo
 
AtLarge said:
...as to your aiming system as taught on your "Secrets" dvd, it does not (if performed robotically) provide 24 angles. It creates 8 cut angles in each direction, plus straight, for a total of 17 directions to send an OB. When you multiply 8 x 3 to get 24, you have many duplications (and you forgot straight).
Click to expand...
Why are the reference alignments multiplied by 3? Does that represent each reference alignment plus an adjustment to the right of it and an adjustment to the left of it? If so, I'd say there are really only 8 (4 each way) and the adjustments are, of course, undefined like every other fractional system.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Why are the reference alignments multiplie by 3? Does that represent on each reference alignment, adjusted right of it and adjusted left of it? If so, I'd say there are really only 8 (and the adjustments are, of course, undefined except for which gap they're within).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Pj he has 3 reference points on the object ball: edge/center/edge


object ball>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edge/center/edge <<<<<<<<<<<< object ball


(edge, quarter, half, three quarters, center cue ball, three quarters, half, quarter, edge) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cue ball
 
Last edited:
Living Legend said:
Pj he has 3 reference points on the object ball: edge/center/edge


object ball>>>>>>>>>>>>>> edge/center/edge <<<<<<<<<<<< object ball


(edge, quarter, half, three quarters, center cue ball, three quarters, half, quarter, edge) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< cue ball
Click to expand...
OK, so the possible alignments for each direction are:

CB 3/4 to OB center
CB 1/2 to OB center
CB 1/4 to OB center
CB inside edge to OB center (half ball)
CB 3/4 to OB outside edge
CB 1/2 to OB outside edge
CB 1/4 to OB outside edge
CB inside edge to OB outside edge (thin)

Eight alignments for each direction, plus full = 17 total (as AtLarge said).

This is about the same number of system alignments as CTE's 4 (or 5?) aimpoints x 2 pivots in each direction, and presumably represents about the same fraction of all cut angles needed to pocket balls.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
Now I don't know whether you're kidding.

If by "the original description by Hal" you mean what pj put in the "Texas Staff" thread, that's not a description of CTE. It's from years before Hal taught CTE, in the midst of arguments over whether 3 angles were sufficient on a pool table. Some people claim Hal wrote it as a joke. Others see deep hidden meaning in it.

And as to your aiming system as taught on your "Secrets" dvd, it does not (if performed robotically) provide 24 angles. It creates 8 cut angles in each direction, plus straight, for a total of 17 directions to send an OB. When you multiply 8 x 3 to get 24, you have many duplications (and you forgot straight).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the pockets that I included must represent the duplicates, and straight in stands alone......17...hmmm, in numerics this number stands for victory ... interesting, very, very interesting THE NUMBER 17
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top