CTE PRO ONE Contrast with Quarters System

Neil said:
...the VISUALS are objective.
Click to expand...
Then they can be precisely described. Describe one precisely.

... practice and experience will help one get the correction perception of the shot
Click to expand...
"Practice and experience" is how all aiming is learned.

I'm glad it works for you and you have confidence in it - really. But your understanding of how it works is illogical and misleading to those who want to evaluate it before committing the time and money to learn it.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Then they can be precisely described. Describe one precisely.


"Practice and experience" is how all aiming is learned.

I'm glad it works for you and you have confidence in it - really. But your understanding of how it works is illogical and misleading to those who want to evaluate it before committing the time and money to learn it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Has been done many times. Are you now going to claim, like some do, that the edge of the ball, or 1/4 of the ob, or the center of the ob are not objective? If so, you don't understand what objective means. Might want to read the definition already given in this thread if that is the case.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
..."Practice and experience" is how all aiming is learned.

I'm glad it works for you and you have confidence in it - really. But your understanding of how it works is illogical and misleading to those who want to evaluate it before committing the time and money to learn it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Well Stated.
 
Me:
Describe one [CTE "visual"] precisely.
Click to expand...
Neil:
Has been done many times. Are you now going to claim, like some do, that the edge of the ball, or 1/4 of the ob, or the center of the ob are not objective? If so, you don't understand what objective means. Might want to read the definition already given in this thread if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Neil, but your (CTE's?) definition of objective doesn't seem to be the same as mine.

CTE's "visuals" involve two fractional alignments. Describe objectively how to align yourself with them. Choose any two you like.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
if you want me to respond to you, you'll have to calm down and talk rationally. I'm not interested in your internet drama.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Patrick, you're not that important to me, get over yourself. I don't care whether you talk to me at all. Of course you'll use internet drama as an excuse for not responding to my questions or the challenge/bet. All those readers you referred to though can see right through that camouflage. You also don't seem to have much problem with internet drama when you're slandering and pounding on somebody else. You're fooling nobody.
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry, Neil, but your (CTE's?) definition of objective doesn't seem to be the same as mine.

CTE's "visuals" involve two fractional alignments. Describe objectively how to align yourself with them. Choose any two you like.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

When you've clearly lost the debate, just keep saying the same ole, same ole crap over and over again, perhaps a few people will buy into it. Stan has multiple YouTube videos where he has precisely described this and the CTE process. No reason to repeat it and the links to his YouTube are out there. Google is your friend. Fact is, you have proven to have zero interest in learning the facts and the truth. So why waste your time with the 50 question game when you clearly have no interest in the answers? Further, why would anybody answer your questions when you don't respond to the tough questions you clearly lack the factual knowledge to answer or that paint you in a true light?
 
The system is objective in a sense that you use two lines for the said perceptions.
It is objective in a sense that you don't have to guess...
It is objective for the fact that it applies pivoting...


To stan, I feel sorry that he's doing his best to explain things, but others who have the proper intellect does not give it a chance to perfectly analyze CTE.

I'm hoping that someday, there will be standards or an organization that will test an aiming system if its effective in some degree or in full.

Look at ghost ball, it's what we do, its what we learned, it's what we see from great players.. but is it technically objective and true in reality?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One can never learn any aiming system, unless he gives it a chance and set aside his existing knowledge of pool for a while"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Then it's easy to quote him and prove me wrong. Yet nobody does.

Hmm...

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Even a wannabe scientist like you Patrick should realize you can't prove a negative. However, you've done a very adequate job on your own proving yourself wrong. And you apparently are afraid to man up, win a few thousand and prove yourself right.
 
nobcitypool said:
Even a wannabe scientist like you Patrick should realize you can't prove a negative. However, you've done a very adequate job on your own proving yourself wrong. And you apparently are afraid to man up, win a few thousand and prove yourself right.
Click to expand...
Even a wannabe scientist like me knows that's not a description of how to "acquire the visual".

Hmm...

pj
chgo
 
BeiberLvr once gave a perfect explanation of how to aquire the visuals and why is it "objective", at least it is for me.

Sit in front of a round clock thats on the wall.

Point your left hand index finger at the left quarter of the clock and point your right hand index finger at the right edge of the clock.

Now you see your fingers on both hands clearly pointing at those spots, its objective, why? Because if you now move your head a bit to the left or to the right, while still sitting, and NOT moving anything else, you'll see that now your fingers are pointing to different spots on the clock, so there is only one place where you can put your head in so that your index fingers are pointing directly to the spots where you first pointed them at, the left quarter and right edge of the clock.

Thats objective. For me.
 
Weeeee!!!!....
PIs3W1y.png


I'm pretty sure the two lines should run parallel, but the last center diamond should be more to the left if it were 3D

Edit: Ooooh I'm an idiot. Since it's 2D, the Center point, as the lowest point we would see on the CB, should actually be represented by being in the middle of the CB, for a top down view.
 
Last edited:
Fixed:

edADkvN.png


Probably shouldn't have used the term pivot point, because it's not the same as pivoting to thicken or thin a cut...

I also didn't account for the fact, that as you move over to the left to be able to line up the edge of the CB to the center of the OB, that edge of the CB also changes, because as you walk around it you can see more of it. So in steps 2 and 3, the CB Edge diamond should be higher (closer to ten o'clock).

I think the point is that each alignment has a point that is to far, a point that isn't far enough, and a point that's just right. If you tried to go to a point where the Edge you perceive is at 11 o'clock instead, you would end up seeing more than half of the OB ball. Once that line is set, your head can only turn to be able to keep a view on both the points you've already lined up. Now same goes for the Center of the cueball being lined up exactly with the edge of the object ball. There's a too far, not far enough, and a just right.

Put it all together, and you have two lines that need to be seen in just the right place, and you have to be in in the precise spot to see those two lines correctly at the same time.
 
Last edited:
nobcitypool said:
Tony, the key to CTE/Pro One and the primary source of disputes has not been pivoting. It has been the visual perceptions and the idea the user uses their pool experience and feel to "adjust" their aim instead of the system being objective. Your idea for the pivoting mechanism is fine but it doesn't serve to resolve the primary issues. I will agree with you however, there has been debates over the pivot. It was discussed with AtLarge and Colin a couple of months ago. Even then, it wasn't fully resolved and the two of them didn't really understand how the bridge hand slides along the perception line to the fixed pivot point and how this offsets varying bridge differences. In general, "I think" we agreed (to an extent - that's a lot of caveats) the varying bridge lengths would have some effect but it was so small that it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Also I think you missed the point. With my cut-out, it shows how pivoting will naturally give you the right amount to turn to make the shot. If you're trying to land in the center of the cueball, there is a point that is to far, a point that is not far enough, and a point that is just right. If you can act like that cut-out, you would theoretically never miss a shot.

So:
"Cut-Out"
-Line-up visual points to visual points in the exact order each time (ex: Edge to Edge to Back-Foot)
-Your visual will always be the same
-Your pivot will vary based on the shot.

CTE:
-Line-up visual points to visual points in the exact order each time (ex: Edge to A and Center to Edge)
-Your visual will vary based on the shot.
-Your pivot will always be the same.

Do you see how each system is just solving for a different part of the same equation?

As for the varying bridges you're right, it doesn't take into account bridge length. Once you've turned to face the cue ball center, you're on the correct shot line, but it's you're job to put your cue along that that line to make up for the differences in bridge length.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Sorry, Neil, but your (CTE's?) definition of objective doesn't seem to be the same as mine.

CTE's "visuals" involve two fractional alignments. Describe objectively how to align yourself with them. Choose any two you like.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Can't help you if you are going to make up your own definitions to words. Strange though, that you have no problem finding the edge or center or quarter of a ball when using fractional aiming, but can't find it when using CTE.
 
As I reread through this thread I could not help but stop for a moment and sit in gratitude for the many that have responded in support of my work. I also appreciate those have challenged what I do......it makes it easy to keep going.
Everyone have a great day!

Stan Shuffett
 
By the way, Perceptions can't be accurate in reality if its drawn in 2D,
I mean every line in principle is drawn correctly but It will fail upon visual analysis

see image, this is how it should be drawn and presented.

cte.JPG
 
Neil said:
Can't help you if you are going to make up your own definitions to words. Strange though, that you have no problem finding the edge or center or quarter of a ball when using fractional aiming, but can't find it when using CTE.
Click to expand...
So you're saying, like everybody else so far, that you position yourself so your eyes are aligned with both the CTE and ETA (edge to aim point) lines simultaneously? That's the consensus of CTE users for how to acquire the visual?

pj
chgo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top