Important VISUALS info for CTE PRO ONE

[BC21]

I got immediate results from CTE. From the very first ball i hit with Hal Houle on the other end of the phone

I got immediate results also, when the CB was within 2' of the OB. This was using the manual pivot like a friend showed me. But he didn't​ explain what to do when the CB was 4' or farther from the OB at the same angle. My pivot then caused drastic​ overcuts. He had no problems though, so I assumed he was holding out on me and just didn't want to share the extra stuff. I didn't hound him anymore because I wasn't a system player anyway.

It's probably all in the visuals.

 

[stan shuffett]

My attidude hasn't moved. I was replying to a question directed to me. I'm sorry that one can't mention cte without you assuming an attack is at hand. I am not attacking you or cte. But cte does exist, and therefore it comes up in aiming discussions. I don't see a need to be uncivil or insulting or belittling. Obviously you feel that cte is the only professional aiming system out there, and you'd be embarrassed to show a pro anything resembling fractional aiming. I, on the other hand, feel that established pro players don't need to waste their time learning an aiming system, ANY aiming system. But if they're lining up outside your door, good for you. I'm just grateful for those that have given my little book a chance, regardless of whether or not you call it a "slop-pocket" or "unprofessional" system. Oh, and what makes it simple is this: It requires no additional skills other than the basic fundaments all pool players learn when they first start playing the game. But it also helps create a feel for shots, and eventually this feel is what makes the balls hit the pockets.

I apologize that this has nothing to do with your thread topic.

Your posts are a parade of negativity toward CTE. The one YOUTUBE video that I saw of yours was a great big negative toward CTE as well and your info was horribly incorrect.
Dan nailed your work as a slop pocket system. I going to be very honest with you. I have better things to do than teach guess-work slop systems. The last time I taught fractions was to my son well over a decade ago. He literally cried at the thought of using fractions. That led me to Hal Houle and when he asked how would I like for my son to aim like Efren Reyes, I was all ears. Landon went on to win 7 national championships after switching to CTE.
I have made it my life study to understand CTE so that no one else will have to go through what I have had to endure in figuring it out. But anyway, if it weren't for CTE, Id high-tail it. I have zero interest in ever teaching any system where slop is needed.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

Your posts are a parade of negativity toward CTE. The one YOUTUBE video that I saw of yours was a great big negative toward CTE as well and your info was horribly incorrect.
Dan nailed your work as a slop pocket system. I going to be very honest with you. I have better things to do than teach guess-work slop systems. The last time I taught fractions was to my son well over a decade ago. He literally cried at the thought of using fractions. That led me to Hal Houle and when he asked how would I like for my son to aim like Efren Reyes, I was all ears. Landon went on to win 7 national championships after switching to CTE.
I have made it my life study to understand CTE so that no one else will have to go through what I have had to endure in figuring it out. But anyway, if it weren't for CTE, Id high-tail it. I have zero interest in ever teaching any system where slop is needed.

Stan Shuffett

Negativity goes both ways. Every new product compares itself to the competition. Even you do that when you sell CTE, no? "It's the only 100% objective system...It is a professional system..." Brian has every right to promote the benefits of his system, and I don't think he even used the word CTE, but even if he did, so what? The benefit of his system is that it can be learned very quickly. It is "stupid easy" and it is beyond me why someone hasn't come up with this before. It only requires one alignment, not two. For people like sacman, maybe that's important.

It's called competition, get over it!

Also, "slop system" is a cute way to ridicule Brian's aiming system. Everyone knows what I meant by "slop" which is why I used that word rather than something like "taking advantage of the pocket width." The fact is, the system is mathematically correct as far as I can see so far. There is a little more or less error depending on where the ob is on the table, but that error is not great enough to cause a miss because, wait for it... there is room for error (some call it slop) in the pockets.

Can't we all just get along? A little competition never hurt anybody. The truth is the winner is the player because there are now more systems for them to try and see what suits them.

 

[Dan White]

I don't know about that. Dan White gave a brief description with a picture and it still seemed pretty complicated. Look at this, compare to this, figure out the numbers.

It sounds complicated because I'm trying to give a feel for the system without giving it away. I just went over the system for Zone A (most of your shots) in my head and I have gotten the complete procedure worked out to four sentences. That's how easy it is.

You guys like to go on about how cheap I am. How about a big $10 for Poolology?

Tell you what cookie man -- buy the online version, show us that you have learned how it works and tried it on the table. After that, if you say it doesn't work, and work REALLY well, I'll paypal you the $10. I trust that you will be honest in your assessment. It's $10 after all.

PM me if you would like to try that.

 

[stan shuffett]

Negativity goes both ways. Every new product compares itself to the competition. Even you do that when you sell CTE, no? "It's the only 100% objective system...It is a professional system..." Brian has every right to promote the benefits of his system, and I don't think he even used the word CTE, but even if he did, so what? The benefit of his system is that it can be learned very quickly. It is "stupid easy" and it is beyond me why someone hasn't come up with this before. It only requires one alignment, not two. For people like sacman, maybe that's important.

It's called competition, get over it!

Also, "slop system" is a cute way to ridicule Brian's aiming system. Everyone knows what I meant by "slop" which is why I used that word rather than something like "taking advantage of the pocket width." The fact is, the system is mathematically correct as far as I can see so far. There is a little more or less error depending on where the ob is on the table, but that error is not great enough to cause a miss because, wait for it... there is room for error (some call it slop) in the pockets.

Can't we all just get along? A little competition never hurt anybody. The truth is the winner is the player because there are now more systems for them to try and see what suits them.

The last thing that I am concerned about concerning CTE is competition with a fractions system. My negative responses, every single one of them concerning zone aiming, were prompted by negatives toward my work. I asked Brian over a month ago to leave CTE out of his discussions. You will never see me discuss my work with the need to put his work down or anyone else's.

Stan Shuffett

 

[Dan White]

I suppose mentioning cte is taboo, like in the movie Spinal Tap when the guitar player is being interviewed, and he says referring to one guitar, "Don't touch it! Don't even look at it!"

This amplifier here is really special. You see, it goes to 11. Most blokes are rocking out at 10 and what if you need that little extra something? Where do you go from there?

"I don't know."

Exactly, nowhere. But I can go to 11 for that little extra that I need.

"Why don't you just renumber the volume knob with 1 to 10 and space them a little farther apart rather than use 11 numbers?"

[long pause]...This one goes to 11.

Funniest bit since "Who's on First"?

 

[cookie man]

It sounds complicated because I'm trying to give a feel for the system without giving it away. I just went over the system for Zone A (most of your shots) in my head and I have gotten the complete procedure worked out to four sentences. That's how easy it is.

You guys like to go on about how cheap I am. How about a big $10 for Poolology?

Tell you what cookie man -- buy the online version, show us that you have learned how it works and tried it on the table. After that, if you say it doesn't work, and work REALLY well, I'll paypal you the $10. I trust that you will be honest in your assessment. It's $10 after all.

PM me if you would like to try that.

Your explanation of it was quite complicated and if its so easy why are you still on zone A?
I have no real interest in trying out poolology, why would I ?
I am proficient in pro-one aiming. Now that is very simple and complete to use.
Stan's finished product is really second to none.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It sounds complicated because I'm trying to give a feel for the system without giving it away.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You're trying to give a feel for the system without giving it away so others will buy it, but you and the gang want everything spoon fed to you in detailed minutia about CTE without buying it and learning from Stan's DVDs themselves? What kind of convoluted thinking is that?

You aren't OWED anything and it's been going on for 20 years, although Stan hasn't been involved with it for that long.

When the info is given to you either by Stan or other users it's twisted, distorted, picked apart, thrown into the geometry and math tank, but most of all used as a
PINATA along with Stan and any of us! The system and we become huge sitting duck targets.

I just went over the system for Zone A (most of your shots) in my head and I have gotten the complete procedure worked out to four sentences. That's how easy it is.

Guess what? Hal wrote about his 3 Line Aiming System two decades ago which was called a fractional aiming system by all of you and deemed to be impossible for making all of the shot angles on the table.

Now we have the same fractional aiming lines based on which line to choose depending on where the balls are located on the table (zones) and it works like a charm with 100% accuracy. How can that be?

Btw, Hal's system was NOT, let me repeat, WAS NOT a fractional aiming system even though it had the same visuals. There were in fact 20 DIFFERENT aiming systems he created BASED on those "fractional lines". None of which were CONTACT POINTS that had the heads of all the PH.D.s swimming and crying "fraud" to the tops of their lungs. They had no clue and still don't.

You guys like to go on about how cheap I am. How about a big $10 for Poolology?

You first for CTE DVDs, big spender.

Tell you what cookie man -- buy the online version, show us that you have learned how it works and tried it on the table. After that, if you say it doesn't work

That never worked on you when we said it, why should Cookie or anyone else do it?

Now, go ahead and report my post for whatever reason your little heart desires. It's just as much on subject as anything you've said.

 

[BC21]

.......
I have no real interest in trying out poolology, why would I ?
I am proficient in pro-one aiming. Now that is very simple and complete to use.
Stan's finished product is really second to none.

And that's how it should be -- if you've found something that works for every shot, then you're doing a fine job with what you've got.

I had a friend come over to the house last night. For years he's been using a pivot system similar to a manual cte pivot. He learned the system from Tom Simpson years ago. My buddy tweaked it a bit to make it work better for him on shots when the distance between the CB and OB is greater than a couple of feet. He likes it because he uses the same procedure on every shot, which has created a routine for him. On each shot he visualizes a certain line from CB to OB, depending on the angle, which is estimated (though he's been doing it so long his estimations are spot on), then he pivots to center CB and has his aim line.

We talked about using different systems and how each can be looked at like a pair of shoes.....Not everyone's feet are the same, so what fits and feels comfortable to one person may cause another person to walk funny or develop sore feet or back pain.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I had a friend come over to the house last night. For years he's been using a pivot system similar to a manual cte pivot. He learned the system from Tom Simpson years ago. My buddy tweaked it a bit to make it work better for him on shots when the distance between the CB and OB is greater than a couple of feet. He likes it because he uses the same procedure on every shot, which has created a routine for him. On each shot he visualizes a certain line from CB to OB, depending on the angle, which is estimated (though he's been doing it so long his estimations are spot on), then he pivots to center CB and has his aim line.

As I stated in another post, Hal Houle had over 20 other aiming systems beside CTE.
ALL of which had a pivot including CTE. Stan took it beyond the pivot by making it a true visual system which is Pro1.

All of Hal's systems used the 3 line fractions. Tom Simpson was 20 years younger than Hal. Hal openly shared his knowledge and techniques with certified and interested instructors.

I wonder if Tom got the information directly from Hal or Randy Goettlicher who Hal probably confided in more than anyone else at the time.

Did Tom invent the system on his own? Maybe but I highly doubt it because what you described your friend using with a pivot to center ball sounds exactly like what Hal named as Shiskebob. Hal was the only one who ever thought so far outside the box to be including a pivot with alignment and aiming. Tom opened his school in 2004, I think. Well after Hal hit the internet talking about CTE.

It IS deadly once someone practices, learns, and possibly makes some small tweeks to fit their eyes, stroke, and distance..

I almost have to wonder if your system would be more deadly on certain shots if you incorporated a pivot and knew when and where it could be most beneficial.

 

[BC21]

.........
....
Did Tom invent the system on his own? Maybe but I highly doubt it because what you described your friend using with a pivot to center ball sounds exactly like what Hal named as Shiskebob. Hal was the only one who ever thought so far outside the box to be including a pivot with alignment and aiming. Tom opened his school in 2004, I think. Well after Hal hit the internet talking about CTE.

It IS deadly once someone practices, learns, and possibly makes some small tweeks to fit their eyes, stroke, and distance..

I almost have to wonder if your system would be more deadly on certain shots if you incorporated a pivot and knew when and where it could be most beneficial.

That's it, Shish Kabob!! That's what he called it, only he tweaked it a bit because Tom said it would get the ball in the vicinity of the pocket and rote would take care of the rest. As far as a pivot in Poolology possibly making it more precise...well, it's​ not needed. This notion that every ball must fall center pocket is unrealistic. Watch any match between the greatest shooters in the world and you quickly realize this. But I guess it can be called a pivot when a player uses the pivot motion to apply english, like outside spin when the CB is less than 4 or 5 inches from the OB in Poolology. The system hits slightly thick when that close, and outside spin can be used to thin it up.

Anyway, Stan has refined the manual pivot style into visual sweeps and renamed it Pro1. I don't know how that works. And that's not an attack on cte. I do, however, understand how manual pivots work, though I don't know how pivot players adjust for distance between the balls. The cool thing about it is that I don't have to know it or understand it. When I mention pivots and distance in a video clip, it's not in a malicious manner with intent to discredit any system. It's to let players know that something more has to happen from a distance in order to make the pivot work with a standard bridge length, which is an honest statement.

Damn, off topic again. Sorry.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

That's it, Shish Kabob!! That's what he called it, only he tweaked it a bit because Tom said it would get the ball in the vicinity of the pocket and rote would take care of the rest.

Then Tom learned it from Hal. However, he didn't learn it good enough because as Hal taught Shiskebob, it did a lot more than get balls in the vicinity of the pocket. They went IN. I know because I used it for a long time along with CTE.

As far as a pivot in Poolology possibly making it more precise...well, it's​ not needed.

So are you saying it's a 100% accurate system from anywhere on the table with all cut angles from 0-90 if done as specified? If so, you better jump on all the pros because they MISS SHOTS. Pros need it even more than a hack pool player because it's MONEY won or lost. It's their livelihood. They can't afford to miss a shot because the other player will run out unless they're tied up some how.

This notion that every ball must fall center pocket is unrealistic. Watch any match between the greatest shooters in the world and you quickly realize this. But I guess it can be called a pivot when a player uses the pivot motion to apply english, like outside spin when the CB is less than 4 or 5 inches from the OB in Poolology. The system hits slightly thick when that close, and outside spin can be used to thin it up.

Anyway, Stan has refined the manual pivot style into visual sweeps and renamed it Pro1. I don't know how that works. And that's not an attack on cte. I do, however, understand how manual pivots work, though I don't know how pivot players adjust for distance between the balls. The cool thing about it is that I don't have to know it or understand it. When I mention pivots and distance in a video clip, it's not in a malicious manner with intent to discredit any system.

If you're mentioning it or talking about it, you certainly SHOULD have to know or understand it. Otherwise you're speaking either incorrectly or out of a hole located in the lower back half of your body.

It's to let players know that something more has to happen from a distance in order to make the pivot work with a standard bridge length, which is an honest statement.

With a manual pivot system and distance there are two things that have to happen...a thicker visual alignment on the OB and less tip offset prior to the pivot if going back to center. No big deal and still deadly. And I don't mean getting the OB in the vicinity of the pocket. I mean deadly.

When it comes to CTE, other systems that involve pivots, it would behoove you to not even bring them up because you really don't know what you don't know and what there is to know. Nothing can come of it positively.

 

[stan shuffett]

That's it, Shish Kabob!! That's what he called it, only he tweaked it a bit because Tom said it would get the ball in the vicinity of the pocket and rote would take care of the rest. As far as a pivot in Poolology possibly making it more precise...well, it's​ not needed. This notion that every ball must fall center pocket is unrealistic. Watch any match between the greatest shooters in the world and you quickly realize this. But I guess it can be called a pivot when a player uses the pivot motion to apply english, like outside spin when the CB is less than 4 or 5 inches from the OB in Poolology. The system hits slightly thick when that close, and outside spin can be used to thin it up.

Anyway, Stan has refined the manual pivot style into visual sweeps and renamed it Pro1. I don't know how that works. And that's not an attack on cte. I do, however, understand how manual pivots work, though I don't know how pivot players adjust for distance between the balls. The cool thing about it is that I don't have to know it or understand it. When I mention pivots and distance in a video clip, it's not in a malicious manner with intent to discredit any system. It's to let players know that something more has to happen from a distance in order to make the pivot work with a standard bridge length, which is an honest statement.

Damn, off topic again. Sorry.

For the record: I have not refined manual pivoting into Pro 1 sweeps.

My total body of work is CTE PRO ONE. There are 3 CTE approaches within that heading that essentially do the same thing.
MANUAL PIVOTING Is still manual pivoting. My understanding of the manual version
Is complete.
DISGUISED PIVOTING is a mimic of the manual version but no observable angling of one's cue can be seen.
PRO ONE is the sweeping version.

I will explain the nuances of these approaches in my online presentation.

Stan Shuffett

 

[BC21]

With a manual pivot system and distance there are two things that have to happen...a thicker visual alignment on the OB and less tip offset prior to the pivot if going back to center. No big deal and still deadly. And I don't mean getting the OB in the vicinity of the pocket. I mean deadly.

When it comes to CTE, other systems that involve pivots, it would behoove you to not even bring them up because you really don't know what you don't know and what there is to know. Nothing can come of it positively.

Ok. So I am correct in telling people that something must change as the distance changes. I already knew this because I sketched it out. Pivot systems are very easy to sketch. There are no mysterious factors, and I do know this. I see young novice players pivoting here and there, wondering why it works on some shots and not others, and I tell them there's more to it that they'll have to figure out. Nothing negative or false or misleading about that.

Concerning Pro1 CTE, that's a totally different concept than manual pivots, according to Stan himself. In fact, he specifically says there is no pivot, that it's not a pivot system. I readily admit I know nothing about it and offer no solutions or possible fixes to make it work. You either know it or you don't, and I don't. But all other systems that rely on pivots, not "visual sweeps", are simple enough to understand, and anyone with the slightest knowledge can openly discuss an opinion of them. It's called a debate, or a discussion, and most of the time something positive emerges. I tell a player there's more to it, but don't waste the time explaining the "more", and that player just may look for the solution. Everyone wins....the player finds a way to make the pivots work, and I don't waste my time.

Oh, and the system I've presented is very accurate on all shots between a 1/8 fractional hit and straight in. A different tool can be used on thinner cuts, or a player could actually learn how to spin those shots into pocket.

This is my last time replying or posting on something unrelated to the thread, as I feel like we're hijacking an old thread intended to help people with Pro1 visuals.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Ok. So I am correct in telling people that something must change as the distance changes.

If you aren't teaching pivots, I don't see the need to tell them anything. Are you teaching a pivot system or your own? Stick to what you know best.

I already knew this because I sketched it out. Pivot systems are very easy to sketch. There are no mysterious factors, and I do know this.

I know this because I've hit thousands of balls since Hal taught it to me. To hell with sketches. Balls either go in or they don't.

I see young novice players pivoting here and there, wondering why it works on some shots and not others, and I tell them there's more to it that they'll have to figure out. Nothing negative or false or misleading about that.

Yeh right. Like what to aim and align at for starters on the OB as well as the amount of tip offset. You do know a pivot can start from inside to center or center to outside, don't you? Did you sketch that out? Again, I hit thousands of balls along with the correct training directly from Hal.

Concerning Pro1 CTE, that's a totally different concept than manual pivots, according to Stan himself. In fact, he specifically says there is no pivot, that it's not a pivot system. I readily admit I know nothing about it and offer no solutions or possible fixes to make it work. You either know it or you don't, and I don't. But all other systems that rely on pivots, not "visual sweeps", are simple enough to understand, and anyone with the slightest knowledge can openly discuss an opinion of them. It's called a debate, or a discussion, and most of the time something positive emerges.

Not true at all! Why in the world do you think this "debate" (actually WWIII) has gone on for 20 years? Any one with the slightest knowledge or no knowledge is exactly why the entire thing goes South and ends up in flame wars.

I tell a player there's more to it, but don't waste the time explaining the "more",

From what I've gathered based on what you've written you don't know the "more".

and that player just may look for the solution. Everyone wins....the player finds a way to make the pivots work, and I don't waste my time.

Typically they won't know how to ever get the pivots to work because they don't have the other parts to the puzzle.

Oh, and the system I've presented is very accurate on all shots between a 1/8 fractional hit and straight in. A different tool can be used on thinner cuts, or a player could actually learn how to spin those shots into pocket.

So again, it's 100% accurate on all shots from anywhere on the table from 0-90 degrees if done exactly as your EBook says to do it, correct?

This is my last time replying or posting on something unrelated to the thread, as I feel like we're hijacking an old thread intended to help people with Pro1 visuals.

That's up to Stan to determine since he is the creator of Pro1 and what we're discussing is a creation of Hal and a precursor to all of the pivot systems including Pro 1.

 

[stan shuffett]

Ok. So I am correct in telling people that something must change as the distance changes. I already knew this because I sketched it out. Pivot systems are very easy to sketch. There are no mysterious factors, and I do know this. I see young novice players pivoting here and there, wondering why it works on some shots and not others, and I tell them there's more to it that they'll have to figure out. Nothing negative or false or misleading about that.

Concerning Pro1 CTE, that's a totally different concept than manual pivots, according to Stan himself. In fact, he specifically says there is no pivot, that it's not a pivot system. I readily admit I know nothing about it and offer no solutions or possible fixes to make it work. You either know it or you don't, and I don't. But all other systems that rely on pivots, not "visual sweeps", are simple enough to understand, and anyone with the slightest knowledge can openly discuss an opinion of them. It's called a debate, or a discussion, and most of the time something positive emerges. I tell a player there's more to it, but don't waste the time explaining the "more", and that player just may look for the solution. Everyone wins....the player finds a way to make the pivots work, and I don't waste my time.

Oh, and the system I've presented is very accurate on all shots between a 1/8 fractional hit and straight in. A different tool can be used on thinner cuts, or a player could actually learn how to spin those shots into pocket.

This is my last time replying or posting on something unrelated to the thread, as I feel like we're hijacking an old thread intended to help people with Pro1 visuals.

Something must change if the pivot is strict. There is no strict manual pivot in CTE, period. In manual pivoting, the cue is placed away from one's vision so that the eyes can do their work without any stinking cue in the way.
Same goes for standing......The cue is positioned away from one's eyes so they can work.
There is no mechanical pivot.....only an alignment to what is seen. There are no distance rules in any aspect of real CTE.
Hal taught manual for visual reasons not for locating shot lines. The eyes do that.

Stan Shuffett

 

[SpiderWebComm]

Just to clarify something before anyone wants to jump in slamming Stan or me by saying we're contradicting each other, not true.

I wasn't referring to CTE, it's another system of Hal's and it's different in most all respects. Stan is telling it like it is specifically for CTE.

Don't know what we're talking about? Can't help you. Don't want to help you. Stick to what you're using and just be happy.

 

[BC21]

Something must change if the pivot is strict. There is no strict manual pivot in CTE, period. In manual pivoting, the cue is placed away from one's vision so that the eyes can do their work without any stinking cue in the way.
Same goes for standing......The cue is positioned away from one's eyes so they can work.
There is no mechanical pivot.....only an alignment to what is seen. There are no distance rules in any aspect of real CTE.
Hal taught manual for visual reasons not for locating shot lines. The eyes do that.

Stan Shuffett

The visuals I get, or at least I can see what you mean by "no distance rules" because the "manual" pivot in cte is not actually a physical pivot of the cue stick, as it is in traditional pivot-style systems where the bridge is the pivot point. It's a visual thing.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

The visuals I get, or at least I can see what you mean by "no distance rules" because the "manual" pivot in cte is not actually a physical pivot of the cue stick, as it is in traditional pivot-style systems where the bridge is the pivot point. It's a visual thing.

To clarify what I was referring to had to do with Shiskebob. Completely different from CTE which is a visual system.

Hal referred to Shishkebob as a "Stick Aiming System". You used the shaft, ferrule, and tip of the cue to line up with the specific fractional aim points on the OB. The tip was also a main focus for the amount of inside offset before pivoting back to center for the shot. (1/4 tip, 1/2 tip, full tip)

The pivot isn't done by pivoting the backhand. It's done by pivoting the hip. The same way to pivot with 90/90, another pivot system by a different instructor, Ron Vitello.

Since Shiskebob uses the tip to sight, a good portion of the OB is covered by the tip because the OB is a "small ball" when long distances occur. Kind of like the Large moon covering the Small sun in an eclipse Again, totally different from what Stan teaches with CTE Pro1.

That having been said, stick with poolology and zones. It's your baby and creation. Pivots aren't your forte or anything you know enough about to discuss with us who may use them on the forum or what you see by others in person.

 

[BC21]

To clarify what I was referring to had to do with Shiskebob. Completely different from CTE which is a visual system.

Hal referred to Shishkebob as a "Stick Aiming System". You used the shaft, ferrule, and tip of the cue to line up with the specific fractional aim points on the OB. The tip was also a main focus for the amount of inside offset before pivoting back to center for the shot. (1/4 tip, 1/2 tip, full tip)

The pivot isn't done by pivoting the backhand. It's done by pivoting the hip. The same way to pivot with 90/90, another pivot system by a different instructor, Ron Vitello.

Since Shiskebob uses the tip to sight, a good portion of the OB is covered by the tip because the OB is a "small ball" when long distances occur. Kind of like the small moon covering the large sun in an eclipse. Again, totally different from what Stan teaches with CTE Pro1.

That having been said, stick with poolology and zones. It's your baby and creation. Pivots aren't your forte or anything you know enough about to discuss with us who may use them on the forum or what you see by others in person.

Oh yeah, I figured that. My buddy's​ been doing it for years, but he sort of made his own version of it. That seems to be typical of most systems. Each player tweaks it his or her own way .