I have talked a bit to some good players i know about cte and they have no clue what it is. They just brush off the system quickly like most guys on here have, even after trying to show them. For Cte to work for you, you have to want to learn it and not try and figure out why it works. You can try and figure that out later when you have learned it. I think it is best for people to see it on a video first, then try it, this is my opinion.
CTE/Pro One, the lesson.
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
That is an interesting point.
If I didn't have such strong convictions about what I see and what I do when using CTE/Pro One I would stop posting about it.
I think that wanting to learn it, practicing it and most importantly having the visual capabilities of seeing the things I see are the critical things that will make one successful. I really am stunned that my friend had difficulty in making balls consistently; granted it was a 30 minute lesson.
I like it. Thanks Dave. You make sense on all these points.
How would you know?
pj
chgo
There's an article in today's LATimes about how your skill level changes how you perceive things. In a nutshell, using tennis as the example, the better players saw the net as being lower, the ball moving slower, etc.
http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-athletics-perception-20101202,0,3129717.story
I know that from my own experience as a pool player I see things differently now than I did, even just five years ago. I feel that when I look at the balls I am seeing far more information nowadays than before. Things like the cue ball are larger in this sense because I can "see" more spots to hit it with my cue tip. I can see carom angles with way more clarity. I can see small degrees of elevation in my cue shaft, as it relates to going through the cue ball.
Stepping back, when it comes to things like 1pocket or 14.1, when I look at the layout of the table I know that I am seeing far more possibilities than I ever did before because I am interpreting what I am seeing with more sophistication than I formerly had.
So, I doubt your student is capable of seeing things the way you are seeing them.
Lou Figueroa
Last edited:
You are probably correct but I guess I just assumed that if I told a person to do some simple things and they had half a brain, they would be able to do it with reasonable success. The difference has to be the visual intelligence that Stan talks about. Hopefully, my student friend can improve his visual intelligence through experience and practice.
I also tried to graphically draw images the way that I see them using Adobe Illustrator but was unable to express what I see. I believe a CAD program would work FAR BETTER but unfortunately, I don't work in CAD.
I think Dave has the right answer. A C player probably isn't using his eyes correctly to line up on the shots like you do. He is using a different perspective and won't be able to align properly. Like Dave says, you need to check it out for them until they see what you see.
Lou brought up a good point about this also and how it relates to your lesson. As I learn more about the game I look at the shots differently and hopefully improve with the feedback.
Best,
Mike
What is the patter you talk about? You mentioned a Half ball hit and a little patter? Please define patter?
Good post...and so true. I know I see "pool" differently now than I did a year or two ago (which was WAY different than how I viewed it 15 years ago).
I pretty much look at a shot and think--- "Oh-- just hit it this way, make it, and come around to this point" like it's no big deal... as if it is expected. Years ago, I'd look at the same shot and think how immense the distance between the CB/OB was....how tiny the pocket looked....how I had to get lucky to hit it perfect.
Perception is everything in pool.... and it's a developed ability. I think that's why some people never get better after years of playing.... they never learn to perceive the shots correctly.
SWC,
You neglected to say that besides how tiny the pocket looked...how tiny the OB looked as well. But you could still see the center of the small looking OB from that perspective while behind the CB setting up for that shot.
You could also see a spot between the center of th OB and the edge on the equator that some call that 1/4 OB. These I accept are points of interest (edge, center and 1/4) that Hal taught from what I have read read posted by those that learned from him or those that did from others.
You could look closely at a spot between the 1/4 ball and the edge of the OB on the equator that some call 1/8 ball....which could be a fourth spot.
I have followed CTE threads that requires a parallel shift away from the CTEline (CTEL)...there are other ways to set up for the pivot (prepivot).
I have read that some feel more comfortable, visually, using the edge of the CB and not it's center. Some here that use the edge of the CB also mention that they reference that edge to the 4 spots mentioned above on the OB.
I am convinced that both have value for the reference points ala center or edge of the CB aimed at the edge of the smaller appearing OB is the origin of the shot. I tried different parallel shifts to the side of the CTEL, many were metioned, and many didn't work for the same cut angle at all distances between the CB and OB.
It wasn't until I surmized that a shift from CTEL to the center of the OB from it's edge was a smaller appearing distance on my "focal plane" as the OB appeared smaller and smaller as the OB was farther down table. I got down on the table without a CB and started to parallel shift my cue tip from the edge of the OB to it's center of the smaller appearing OB at various distances.
Sidebar:
If you look through a window (focal plane) at a car parked across the street and drew with a crayon on the window the diameter of one of the tires, the circle that you drew would be smaller than the actual tire. The distance from an edge of the tire to it's center would also be smaller...and the 1/4 and the 1/8...
It wasn't until I ignored the relative points on the CB that I started making progress. This was when I realized that I could use a non parallel shift that I called "aparallel" shift of the cue shaft, say to the center of the OB, without referencing anything on the CB...except the pivot back to the center of the CB. When I did this, I started getting the same cut angle with the same 12 inch bridge distance behind the CB regardless of the separation between the CB and OB...except when they were very close to each other.
This was also true when I aparallel shifted 1/4 ball inside of the edge of the OB....and true for 1/8 ball.
I was able to get:
30 degree cut with no shift from the edge of the OB
~45 degree cut with 1/8 inside of the edge of the OB
~60 degree cut with 1/4 inside
~85 degree cut with 1/2 (center) of the OB.
I, being able to recognize the angle from the pocket to the OB to the CB am able to adjust these 3 shots thick or thin for other angles from 30 to 90 degree cut angles.
I believe that Hal recognized the angle to the pocket and adjusted the shot for that angle and without looking at the pocket after deriving the angle was able to pocket the shot.
If the shooter's bridge distance is different than 12 inches, the the results will be plus or minus a few degrees.
Thanks for this an other threads and PMs that lead me to diagram CTE and it's derivatives in AutoCad and time at the table.
I am not comfortable with the steps that CTE requires to begin and when you spend hours using it, it can become intuitive and like other "systems" of aiming...you might get into "dead stroke".
I didn't address shots from 0 to 30 degrees for I find double the distance aiming easier for me.
Thanks for reading.:smile::thumbup:
Last edited:
Spidey, Just tonight I was thinking how I really do not think about missing the ball anymore, (but of course I do miss some) I really do expect to always make the shot. Most of my concetration is on getting the desired position. It is amazing how much less pressure I feel, in very tough situations, when I really need to sinch a ball. I am really looking forward to see if Pro One creates more positive results.
Last edited:
Here's what I said (in the thread about 30-degree cuts):
I said I think CTE essentially works by using a half ball alignment as a fixed reference from which to adjust by feel to other cut angles. And what I meant by "patter" is all the additional "instructions", which I think probably sound like they're saying more than they really are.
pj
chgo
Example CTE instructions can be found here:
Many reasons why the "patter" can be beneficial can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
Patrick,
Most of the aiming for any aiming system is done standing upright before you get down on the shot but you already know that and most others on this forum also know this.
With CTE/Pro One, one may allow the "big computer" to "FINE-TUNE" adjust your aiming but the majority of aiming is very conscious and not subconscious.
The fine-tuning of your aiming can be conscious or subconscious and I seem to do both at different times during the game. I wish I were able to just turn the subconscious on and let it do all of my fine-tune aiming but the other side of me is willful.
I think where some of the consternation comes from is that people who use Stan Shuffett's CTE/Pro One see their aiming as very precise and CONSCIOUS because they aim a specific way each time. And yes, there are adjustments for some shots but for the most part CTE/Pro One users aim the same way each time.
I did not realize how much has been written about CTE and if I were a new person reading what has been written about CTE I would probably turn around and go another direction.
I recently read in greater detail some of the postulations made by different individuals which Dave has posted on his website. Some of the information that Dave has collected and that he and others have surmised, parallels what I have come to find out about CTE/Pro One and other information seems convoluted, twisted and just plain different from what I have learned. There is just too many difference of opinions and perspectives about one aiming system.
I didn't realize just how much different information about CTE was out there. I guess I should get out of the pool hall more often.
Apparently, there has been a shift in the thinking about CTE over the years from it's worthless, to it may help some players, to it does seem to help some players, to it probably helps some players, to it does helps some players. I guess that means that it is a little less than "silly" or "delusional" and a few other incendiary descriptive words that have been used to describe it.
After my attempt to teach CTE/Pro One to one person, I can safely predict that there will be additional consternation by some who come to learn it but fail and toss it on the side and euphoria by others who come to embrace it and find it a beneficial way of aiming.
I think that CTE/Pro One has taught me the importance of hitting the cue ball MORE accurately. You would think that after all these years I would have gotten that but apparently I missed that chapter. It appears also that CTE/Pro One has helped increase the amount of focus that I am able to bring to the shot. Also, I can see that there is an inclination now for me to move toward a less manual method of shooting but still clinging to the principles that Stan teaches in his CTE/Pro One. I find some solace in the manual pivoting similar to the propensity that Dave Segal mentions and a part of me doesn't want to veer far from that. I'll just have to see where all of this takes me.
Anyway, that's all for now. Hopefully my response doesn't make inflate the bellows of the fire on CTE and decent, civil responses can be maintained. As ususal, I appreciate your efforts in the pool world. You do put a lot of thought into many different areas of pool and make a valuable contribution to the forum.
Would you please stop posting so many links!!! :angry:
... just kidding. :grin-square:
Regards,
Dave
CTE, BHE, and VEPS are a lethal combination (for the people who can use CTE effectively). And regardless of which aiming system you use, VEPS is still awesome.
:thumbup:Regards,
Dr. Dave, co-author of VEPS
CTE, BHE, and VEPS are a lethal combination (for the people who can use CTE effectively). And regardless of which aiming system you use, VEPS is still awesome.
Regards,
Dr. Dave, co-author of VEPS
At times you can be shameless. :smash:
lol...............
CTE, BHE, and VEPS are a lethal combination (for the people who can use CTE effectively). And regardless of which aiming system you use, VEPS is still awesome.
Regards,
Dr. Dave, co-author of VEPS
At times you can be shameless. :smash:
Joey,
Lighten up.
I was just teasing you since you're always giving me a hard time about posting links. Although, I agree with you that the VEPS links were shameless plugs, as are your periodic links to Stan's website that is strictly commercial and contains absolutely no online learning resources or information.
I won't post anymore shameless-plug commercial links unless I see shameless-plug commercial links from others. Although, I will continue to provide links to useful learning and instructional resources (from me and others) when I think the links provide information pertinent to a particular discussion or debate. Many people find the information, illustrations, videos, and articles at these links interesting and useful (based on the comments, rep points, and PMs I often receive). If you or others don't like the links, don't click on them. Problem solved!
Regards,
Dave
- Status