CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, here's another update. The last couple of days I have been practicing my bank shots using CTE/Pro One.

I have always had a little trouble in splitting the pocket on off angle banks playing one pocket. Like where the object ball is 1" off the side rail on the middle diamond and the cue ball is at the middle diamond on the other side of the table, maybe 12" off the side rail. You are trying to bank the object ball into your corner pocket one rail. It isn't the easiest shot in the world and maybe all of you guys can make it with regularity. For me it is a difficult shot. In the past, I pick different contact points on the object ball or add spin to the cue ball to get the object ball to track to the hole and it is a CHALLENGE. Now I simply use CTE/Pro One with "PIVOT" and I can tell you without a doubt I a FAR MORE CONSISTENT now than I was before. It's that way on a lot of shots.

Believe me when I tell you I am not trying to get you guys pumped up so that you will buy the DVD. I am reporting exactly what is happening to me as I experience using CTE/Pro One. ALSO, when I first come up to the table before warming up a few shots, I STILL miss balls no matter how well I line up using CTE/Pro One. There are more things at stake than just CTE/Pro One that influence the making of the object ball.

I can now make a spot shot more consistently than I have ever been able to do so, controlling the cueball all the while.

Do I still miss balls? ABsolutely. MY gambling sessions will be coming up soon as I groove the use of CTE/Pro One. It will be interesting and exciting to find out if I can play at a high level using CTE/Pro one under pressure conditions.
 
Jal said:
peteypooldude said:
Sorry Pete, but there's no way that's possible.

What you say about throw is very true. But throw varies all over the place depending on cut angle, CB spin, and even the speed of the shot. Generally speaking, we can assume unless otherwise told, that descriptions of aiming methods are for the nominal case: a center-ball hit with (perhaps) a rolling CB such that throw is reduced to smallish value (i.e., less than a degree). (The time it takes for the balls to compress and then decompress also counteracts friction generated throw to some extent, but not too much.)

Or, the targeted direction is already modified to account for throw. That is, the raw OB direction, geometrically speaking, would be off to the side of center-pocket, but throw re-directs it.

Throw is not the savior of CTE - that's the job of ghostball in one of its several incarnations. The responsibility has been assigned to it because no one else can do it. This is not a mystery at the frontiers of science. For those who've had high-school geometry, and several that haven't, it's very straightforward stuff.

Jim
Click to expand...

Glad Pete got the name thing fixed. I'm James BTW:

I'm just trying to understand how CTE works. Below are my premises, some are no doubt wrong or incomplete.

1. All the aiming techniques I have used up to now pretty much boil down to finding the aiming line by first finding the contact point, then adjusting my aim line so as to hit the contact point, (duh). However, unless the shot is pretty close to dead in, or the OB is close to the pocket, I have to adjust for throw, either by picking a modified target point up front, adjusting my line of aim on the back end, or using BHE to roll off the contact point and minimze the throw.

2. All my compensation techniques require a "feel". Modify the target point is easy to say, not so easy to do. The same is true of the other methods.

3. What I believe I've heard from the CTE proponents appears to boil down to: Find CTEL, shift, pivot, shoot, ball splits pocket. I have no reason to believe they're lying to me, why should they, there's nothing to be gained. However, I haven't heard any mention of compensating for throw either before or after they do their pivot. So I'm just trying to speculate where that happens. Bridge placement, amount of shift, amount of pivot, all or none of the above? How is this possible without some sort of "feel" for the shot? Like I said earlier, I have every reason to believe CTE works, I'm just looking for more insights.

I realize the answers will probably become clear after Stan's DVD comes out. However, being an engineer I'm genetically predisposed to trying to figure things out myself without being spoon feed the answers. Unfortunately I'm just not getting it, and that frustrates me to no end. There also doesn't seem to be anyone in my area, (Tucson), I can go to for help. So while I wait for the DVD I'm going to keep plugging away at it.

Bt the way, they just passed the medical marijuana law here in Arizona. I wonder if it can help with CTE thread addition? :eek:

James
Click to expand...
 
champ2107 said:
In ghost ball, do you not need to find the "point of contact" on the object ball, through feel? I know where/how to set up to find the exact point of contact with cte consistently, using just the QB/OB and a pre shot set up routine, which i will repeat from shot to shot, Cte will find the point of contact for me, is what im sayng. Am I missing something here or maybe I don’t understand ghost ball because i do suck at pool? :)
Click to expand...


Perhaps some do it that way...but the answer is...no you don't......I personally would never make a ball if I had to shoot by alingning to make the contact point of the CB strike the contact point of the OB....

I use GB for a conversion to an "alingment" line..but I never bother with the actual contact points (of either balls)...as a matter of fact I don't think I have ever (conciously) looked at the actual contact point for many years.

All the ALs end up right around center to 1/4, center to edge, 1/4 to edge, or edge to edge....(perhaps sometimes a hair inside or outside those ALs....

Here is a question for anyone that uses CTE....After you have done your pre-shot alignments (center to edge, adjust and pivot)....You are now ready to pull the trigger....

What are you ending up looking at? (right before you see the ball going into the pocket)

My bet is....that you are not alinged via contact point to contact point....and that you are alinged with one of the above 10 ALs.

It does not matter how you get there...it only matters that you "somehow" get there. :wink::)
 
James,
This thread is to promote the sale of the much awaited (several months) DVD. The answers that you seek will not be divulged here. You may want to start another thread asking for the geometric basis of CTE for free.:wink:
 
I am a double distance aim shooter...except for close to the OB shots where I use a little outside english. I point my cue at the center of the OB and the pocket/target that I want to hit to get a reference angle to the CB ala 15, 45, 75 degrees etc..

Having done this many times over the years, I generally aim double distance. I have found that my perception of angles is more based on successful hits than pure geometry. The CTE line is the classic 30 degree cut angle that is geometrically correct, but I have to adjust for the fact that it, for me is a little less than 30 degrees.

I have always shot a spot shot from the side rail in the kitchen while aiming at the edge of the OB on the spot....and I thought that was 30 degrees, but I was wrong.

30 degrees is actually a little inside of the corner pocket near the side rail.
So my perception of a 30 degree cut angle is always a bit less than 30 degrees and whenever I see that less than 30 degree angle, I aim center of the CB to the edge of the OB.

That's just me.:)
 
Aim and Pivot Geometric Proof

A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.

This is the hard proof and it is nothing more.


There will be success and failure, much of which will be the subject of conjecture, but most of the systemic performance problems will probably be with the fact that we are working with a blunt 12 to 13 mm. thick aiming device.
 
richard s said:
A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.

This is the hard proof and it is nothing more.


There will be success and failure, much of which will be the subject of conjecture, but most of the systemic performance problems will probably be with the fact that we are working with a blunt 12 to 13 mm. thick aiming device.
Click to expand...

Please diagram the geometry for say every 5 degree angle from 5 to 90 degrees.
Thanks in advance.
 
I do not have a working scanner to send diagrams. Just read the information. It's really so simple it's almost unbelievable.
 
LAMas said:
James,
This thread is to promote the sale of the much awaited (several months) DVD. The answers that you seek will not be divulged here. You may want to start another thread asking for the geometric basis of CTE for free.:wink:
Click to expand...

What a strange thing to say. I'm not looking for freebees, I've already purchased the DVD. I didn't think that someone having a DVD for sale meant the subject was closed for intellectual discussion. And if in fact the purpose of this thread is to simply promote the sale of the DVD why isn't it in the Wanted/For Sale forum?

I'm not going to get into it any deeper here other than to say something seems very wrong to me about this. I've participated in many discussions about pivot systems in the past, most, (if not all), based upon Hal Houle's concepts, which he freely shared with anyone interested. This is the first time I've seen discussion stiffled because someone has a DVD coming out.

Oh well, if that's how it is then so be it. I'll sit back and wait with everyone else. Just thought it would be a good exercise to try and work it out up front ourselves and exercise the grey matter a bit. Perhaps after Stan releases his DVD this forum can get back to what it is supposed to be about, an open exchange about pool. Or perhaps I should start a thread looking for that for free as well.

James
 
It
jconant44 said:
What a strange thing to say. I'm not looking for freebees, I've already purchased the DVD. I didn't think that someone having a DVD for sale meant the subject was closed for intellectual discussion. And if in fact the purpose of this thread is to simply promote the sale of the DVD why isn't it in the Wanted/For Sale forum?

I'm not going to get into it any deeper here other than to say something seems very wrong to me about this. I've participated in many discussions about pivot systems in the past, most, (if not all), based upon Hal Houle's concepts, which he freely shared with anyone interested. This is the first time I've seen discussion stiffled because someone has a DVD coming out.

Oh well, if that's how it is then so be it. I'll sit back and wait with everyone else. Just thought it would be a good exercise to try and work it out up front ourselves and exercise the grey matter a bit. Perhaps after Stan releases his DVD this forum can get back to what it is supposed to be about, an open exchange about pool. Or perhaps I should start a thread looking for that for free as well.

James
Click to expand...

Joey went to see Stan as an unbiased test, so to speak.
This is his review thread . He wants it to be about his review.
We are trying not to get on a big discussion on this thread,
Happy Holidays
Petey
 
peteypooldude said:
It

Joey went to see Stan as an unbiased test, so to speak.
This is his review thread . He wants it to be about his review.
We are trying not to get on a big discussion on this thread,
Happy Holidays
Petey
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I'll untwist my panties now. :wink:
Happy Holidays to you as well.
 
duckie said:
Doesn't this kinda go out the window with this kinda shot where you are shooting the 8 ball.

Oh, I can find the exact spot on the table to put the CB to make the OB.
Click to expand...

Actually if you use the double the distance method combined with CTE then shots like these become child's play.

If you use the double the distance method with GB they are not so easy.

But the real answer is that there is no one method for ALL shots. A good player has an arsenal of methods at his disposal to handle any shot that comes up.

Why are you against CTE? If GB works for you then great. Go start some threads about the Arrow and how it's the most awesome GB trainer out there.

If you want to advance GB then do it. You posted a method you use that seemed logical in another CTE thread. Why not start your own thread that is dedicated to EXPLORING how to better use GB?

After all there are only dozens of GB aim training devices out there. None of which can be used in a game. So any methods which allow the shooter to use the GB method in a game and get as close as humanly possible would be appreciated. But putting them here is jsut going to mean they get buried.

Here is someone who needs help with GB http://pool.bz/ask-pro-instructors/11865-how-see-ghost-bal-right-place-l.html Your efforts are better spent there helping people who want to learn GB than campaigning here against CTE.

Why not simply accept that there are alternative methods out there to aim? So you don't use them and don't intend to use them. That's fine. But why do you want to prevent others from trying them.

There are only two possible outcomes here. Either the CTE method works and helps people or it doesn't. The only way to really find out is to get more people trying it so that we build up a bigger experience base.

It is my personal feeling that CTE/Hal's ball-to-ball methods are better for aiming than GB. But that doesn't mean GB is "bad". I think that for some people (me included) GB is hard to apply for certain shots.

So although you probably won't listen I still would like to ask you to consider dropping the campaign against CTE. You posted a shot a while back that Dave Segal showed how to use CTE to make on video. I went to the table yesterday and tried it and I was able to make this shot ten out of fifteen tries using CTE.

With Ghost Ball the success rate is far lower and is truly guessing.

CueTable Help

 
Last edited:
richard s said:
A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.

This is the hard proof and it is nothing more.


There will be success and failure, much of which will be the subject of conjecture, but most of the systemic performance problems will probably be with the fact that we are working with a blunt 12 to 13 mm. thick aiming device.
Click to expand...

I consider mysellf pretty good at following instructions....however....when details of the instructions are left out....It becomes increasingly dilfficult.

Would you care to elaborate on the bolded part of your description?

How much "offset" are you talking about....1, 2, 3 tips....outside edge, inside edge, top, bottom..

When you leave important information (like above) out....it opens up the opportunity for someone to guess wrong and then get the feeling that the method does not work.....

Then we end up with another 100 page thread debating if or if not CTE works.
 
richard s said:
A GEOMETRIC PROOF
Aim at the object ball contact point from an offset position on the cue ball in the direction of the cut.

Pivot the cue to the center of the cue ball for a center ball hit.

These two steps move an inscribed angle inside the ghost ball which forms a right triangle with the 90 degree angle at the contact point.

This is the hard proof and it is nothing more.


There will be success and failure, much of which will be the subject of conjecture, but most of the systemic performance problems will probably be with the fact that we are working with a blunt 12 to 13 mm. thick aiming device.
Click to expand...
LOL. CTE: an aiming system AND a crackpot attracter.

pj
chgo
 
Aim and Pivot Offset

The offset really depends on the length of one's pivot. I have been using one tip for most shopts but can see where 1/2 tip might be better for some and 1 1/2 to two might be better for others.

In any case, the geometric proof holds up.

Hey, if anyone has a problem with aim and pivot methodology, don't do it. I'm not selling anything nor do I have any particular passion for a given method of aiming. I will say I became intrigued by how well aim and pivot worked after getting the basics from Hal several years ago and trying it out and also by the different forms it took on depending on the presenters.

Remember, the magic occurs in the ghost ball and the principles given are proveable.

Here's an idea, since the magic occurs in the ghost ball, we can call this a spiritual method - transcendental aiming.
 
richard s said:
The offset really depends on the length of one's pivot. I have been using one tip for most shopts but can see where 1/2 tip might be better for some and 1 1/2 to two might be better for others.

In any case, the geometric proof holds up.

Hey, if anyone has a problem with aim and pivot methodology, don't do it. I'm not selling anything nor do I have any particular passion for a given method of aiming. I will say I became intrigued by how well aim and pivot worked after getting the basics from Hal several years ago and trying it out and also by the different forms it took on depending on the presenters.

Remember, the magic occurs in the ghost ball and the principles given are proveable.

Here's an idea, since the magic occurs in the ghost ball, we can call this a spiritual method - transcendental aiming.
Click to expand...


When people don't get the complete information....it leads to having problems with it and then (like you say) not doing it.

Seems to me that the tip offset amount is fairly important information.....and it seems to be one of the most inconsistent parts when describing a CTE method.

I also won't get sucked in to your "mocking" of other methods....I have a ton of material that I could use to "mock" methods with....but I won't.....I already got enough grief for that...:wink:

I am simply trying to clarify your intended CTE method so that people can try it and get a fair assesment of if it works for them or not....:wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top