Pro one/CTE is hard

mohrt said:
The entire table is involved while addressing the visuals. Only after you are locked on a (fixed) CCB, you can ignore everything else to pocket the shot. Move the CB/OB a hair and you have a different visual, different fixed CCB.
Click to expand...


Are you sure?Seems like people are using the same visuals with the same cb and ob location with different angles.:smile:

Ok lets take the same shot agruement awhile back.If we have the same of ob and cb location with a different angle and you use the same visuals,lineups,sweeps or what ever,hows is it possible to create a different angle?Truth is you cant;)

When you use the A on ob with the edge of cb and a cte visual with the visual sweep for 2 different angles where the cb and ob are the same is your visual sweep the same?
 
8pack said:
Are you saying he had know ideal where the pocket was?
Click to expand...

The system took me to the pockets... If the pockets were moved I could not make the balls and furthermore the system would not work with moved pockets even if I could see the pockets.

Stan Shuffett
 
stan shuffett said:
The system took me to the pockets... If the pockets were moved I could not make the balls and furthermore the system would not work with moved pockets even if I could see the pockets.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

So your actually saying you knew where the pockets were.
And whats this the system took me to the pocket ?MUST we rehash the same same shot with 2 different angles.That was 2 different angles but now if the pockets where moved doing the curtain thing the system wouldnt work if the poket moves.
Sorry im confusing you,its only because im confused.:smile:
 
Primo said:
I have been learning the system. In your opinion can you explain how Stan made the balls with the curtain blocking the pocket? I know everyone has a feel for where the pocket is but that will only help so much, thanks in advanced.
Click to expand...

Yes he knew where the pocket was because he uses certein lineups on the ob.HE MUST KNOW to get the rite line up.He also plays very well.;)
 
Primo said:
I do not think Stan is saying he does not know where the pocket is but he is showing that the "system" makes the ball without the help of the "exact pocket coordinates". I think almost all methods of aim need a visual/imaginary reference coming/going from the pocket to the object ball. Pro1 seems to be opposite and works in reverse. The “reference” starts at the player to the object ball.
Click to expand...

Well said!

Stan Shuffett
 
8pack said:
Are you sure?Seems like people are using the same visuals with the same cb and ob location with different angles.:smile:

Ok lets take the same shot agruement awhile back.If we have the same of ob and cb location with a different angle and you use the same visuals,lineups,sweeps or what ever,hows is it possible to create a different angle?Truth is you cant;)

When you use the A on ob with the edge of cb and a cte visual with the visual sweep for 2 different angles where the cb and ob are the same is your visual sweep the same?
Click to expand...

I don't think we are on the same page when we say "unique visuals". A set of aiming lines and a left/right sweep is not a unique visual. I think sometimes terms are used interchangeably when referencing a fixed CCB and when referencing a set of aiming lines and sweep, causing some confusion (?)

Every CB/OB/Pocket relationship has a unique visual, or unique fixed CCB. (Move your head a fraction of a hair left/right, you have a new visual, new fixed CCB.) For each and every visual, two aiming lines are used along with a left/right sweep to find center pocket. I'll say it another way: Two aiming lines with a sweep can be applied to a wide range of fixed CCB visuals. That said, a specific set of aiming lines and left/right sweep covers a range of shots, not one angle. A specific example:



We are shooting both balls into the upper-left corner pocket. One is pretty much straight-in, one is a slight cut to the right. Both of these shots use the same aiming lines: CTEL/C with LEFT sweep. Two different angles, yet the same procedure on both shots takes you to the center of the pocket. That is because each of these two shots has a unique visual, and therefore a unique fixed CCB. The same procedure also works for the infinite possible range of shots between the 3 and 5 ball positions.

So when I say "Move the CB/OB a hair and you have a different visual, different fixed CCB" I don't mean you have a new unique set of aiming lines. It could be the same aiming lines, or a different set of aiming lines. It depends on the visual.

I hope I'm getting this all right Stan, step in and correct me if I screw up some terminology! :)
 
Last edited:
mohrt said:
I don't think we are on the same page when we say "unique visuals". A set of aiming lines and a left/right sweep is not a unique visual. I think sometimes terms are used interchangeably when referencing a fixed CCB and when referencing a set of aiming lines and sweep, causing some confusion (?)

Every CB/OB/Pocket relationship has a unique visual, or unique fixed CCB. (Move your head a fraction of a hair left/right, you have a new visual, new fixed CCB.) For each and every visual, two aiming lines are used along with a left/right sweep to find center pocket. I'll say it another way: Two aiming lines with a sweep can be applied to a wide range of fixed CCB visuals. That said, a specific set of aiming lines and left/right sweep covers a range of shots, not one angle. A specific example:



We are shooting both balls into the upper-left corner pocket. One is pretty much straight-in, one is a slight cut to the right. Both of these shots use the same aiming lines: CTEL/C with LEFT sweep. Two different angles, yet the same procedure on both shots takes you to the center of the pocket. That is because each of these two shots has a unique visual, and therefore a unique fixed CCB. The same procedure also works for the infinite possible range of shots between the 3 and 5 ball positions.

So when I say "Move the CB/OB a hair and you have a different visual, different fixed CCB" I don't mean you have a new unique set of aiming lines. It could be the same aiming lines, or a different set of aiming lines. It depends on the visual.

I hope I'm getting this all right Stan, step in and correct me if I screw up some terminology! :)
Click to expand...



Yes, each shot uses C and CTE and a left sweep.
The system actually takes you to a slight overcut aim in relation to center pocket.
In other words, throw is factored in as a part of the system.

My evidence concerning THROW will be on DVD2.

Stan Shuffett
 
I think the problem in having a meaningful discussion with some of these guys is it is like trying to explain how to solve a calculus problem to someone who has never studied Algebra, Geometry or Trigonometry. There's no foundation of knowledge to work from.

I understand these guys questions and cynicism to a degree. I remember first looking at CTE and trying to visualize all this CTE, ETA blah blah blah. I'm thinking "WTF are you talking about?" LOL I was SO ready to scrap the entire deal I can't believe it. However, when I looked at Stan and his entire confidence and enthusiasm, look at Stan's skills, Landon's accomplishments, Stevie Moore's belief in the system, I had to believe it was real. Then you saw more really good players such as mohrt, DTL and Gerry (I think that's right) posting videos and reporting their own success, I stuck through it.

So to anybody who is struggling to understand CTE/Pro One or certain aspects of it, you're not alone. I think most people have struggled with it at first, some more than others. However, I've yet to see a naysayer from anyone who stayed the course to where they fully understood the system and had incorporated it into their play.

I'm in the believer camp now in a big way. In fact, if you're truly a pool fanatic and are committed to improving your game as well as willing to put the work in, I don't believe there is anything else out there even close to what CTE/Pro One will do for you.
 
stan shuffett said:
Yes, each shot uses C and CTE and a left sweep.
The system actually takes you to a slight overcut aim in relation to center pocket.
In other words, throw is factored in as a part of the system.

My evidence concerning THROW will be on DVD2.

Stan Shuffett
Click to expand...

Stan, can i ask you one question? Could someone make the 3ball with "a right" using a specific stroke? I will not tell what stroke, but I can make it this way.

Waiting for dvd2.

Thanks
 
ps611846 said:
Stan, can i ask you one question? Could someone make the 3ball with "a right" using a specific stroke? I will not tell what stroke, but I can make it this way.

Waiting for dvd2.


Left makes it in the corner not right.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I do not understand why the CTE/PRO1 detractors need to muddy up the waters all the time with their arguments, if you do not like CTE/PRO1 do not buy the dvd, end of story full stop. I don't think anyone is trying to force you detractors from using the system.
 
mohrt said:
The entire table is involved while addressing the visuals. Only after you are locked on a (fixed) CCB, you can ignore everything else to pocket the shot. ...
Click to expand...
This is not CTE Pro 1 as described on the original video, correct? You've added information: the location of the pocket relative to the balls. But let's say it is part of the method. What do you do with it, for instance, in the two shot examples you provided earlier?

Assuming the two OBs are exactly the same distance from the CB, there is only one edge to C line and one CTE line relative to the line-of-centers of the CB-OB. Sure, they've changed relative to the pocket location, but so what? Where are the instructions that describe how to adjust your head/eye position relative to the CTE and secondary reference lines based on this additional information? Without these adjustments, you're going to slide into the shot with your cue pointed at exactly the same angle relative to the line-of-centers, which will generate the same cut angle in both cases.

Jim
 
fastone371 said:
I do not understand why the CTE/PRO1 detractors need to muddy up the waters all the time with their arguments, if you do not like CTE/PRO1 do not buy the dvd, end of story full stop. I don't think anyone is trying to force you detractors from using the system.
Click to expand...

Im sure the ones mudding up the water own the dvd and have a rite to there opinions,questions,there understanding of how the system works.I own it ,followed the rules and came up a little short on pocketing balls.Just couldnt get it to work on all shots.Im very sure there are others that feel the same.

The instructions aren't to hard to follow,but why is it some of us cant get it to work all the time?Do we just do it rite part of the time?:)

People been going at it for months or longer saying there still learning it.How hard is it to approach a shot and judge if its a ,A,B,C Alinement?Not to tough at all,and your still having trouble.Shouldnt take a few hours to get a really good feel on the rite alinement.
Also I bet some of the guys you call mudding up the waters can play a little to.:wink:
 
Primo said:
I think players like 8pack struggle learning the system because they have some kind of built in subconscious (some kind of steering) adjustments they make on every shot. When shooting pro1 you must learn to free yourself of these adjustments because you will be placed on the correct shot line. You will often hear players that become more advance like gerry willians claim that the system fixed there.stroke. They have learned to just take the subconscious out of the process and shoot straight down the shot line. I think a snooker players mechanics are perfect for pro1.
Click to expand...

No


Its sounds like they had an issue with steering the shot.
We all are built a little different so are strokes may be somewhat different.
Some shots may require a different set up then your normal stroking way.(hand mite have to move on the cue to a different location)
The follow through is what really needs to be taken care of with the stroke.needs to be straight(things tend to go south on the follow through especaily on power shots)and distance is a killer.

A aiming system does not fix a bad stroke.
Maybe fix a bad habbit.

Anthony
 
Last edited:
Jal said:
This is not CTE Pro 1 as described on the original video, correct? You've added information: the location of the pocket relative to the balls. But let's say it is part of the method. What do you do with it, for instance, in the two shot examples you provided earlier?

Assuming the two OBs are exactly the same distance from the CB, there is only one edge to C line and one CTE line relative to the line-of-centers of the CB-OB. Sure, they've changed relative to the pocket location, but so what? Where are the instructions that describe how to adjust your head/eye position relative to the CTE and secondary reference lines based on this additional information? Without these adjustments, you're going to slide into the shot with your cue pointed at exactly the same angle relative to the line-of-centers, which will generate the same cut angle in both cases.

Jim
Click to expand...

You are basing your conclusions on your analytical assumptions of the system. It is a visual system, and the placement of the CB/OB on the table does affect the outcome. However, exactly what is happening is irrelevant to make it work. It is not something you have to think about or adjust. The only way you can discover this is to take the system to the table and see for yourself. Stan may be able to give a better detailed description what is going on, but this is about the best I can do. When I execute a shot precisely with the prescribed steps, I end up at center pocket. Whatever I'm doing is part of the system, and not something I'm adjusting based on previous shot experience.

I can choose an arbitrary CB/OB position on a table and roll through the aiming lines/sweeps and watch which pocket the OB heads to. There is no way this could work if the system was not valid.
 
8pack said:
The instructions aren't to hard to follow,but why is it some of us cant get it to work all the time?Do we just do it rite part of the time?:)
Click to expand...

Everyone has their own pace. It took me several months to really make it click working on it just once a week or so when I had a chance to. Now I have table at home, a luxury I wish I had long ago!

It's not hard, it's just different. If you can recall learning how to ride a bike... it can be frustrating at first but once you get it the learning just accelerates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top