PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[LAMas]

I don't get it. I really don't. It seems to be working for me but I'm still not clear about the line you address the CB on. I haven't read all 20 some odd pages of this thread but I read about 12 pages and I still don't get it. I'm standing behind the CB, I see the 2 reference lines, and I come directly into the shot with the correct half tip offset (L or R), and pivot to centerball. I pull the trigger and the ball goes in. Great! How did I do it? I dunno. I don't even think I was coming into the CB parallel to either line a lot of the time. I was somewhere in between.

At the end of the day it just left me confused because I'm a solid player anyway. So now I'm asking myself, is it the system and the fact that every shot I shoot with it is center ball or is it just because I've shot thousands upon thousands of balls and I'm simply adjusting so the ball goes in? I never attempted to learn aiming systems before Stan's DVD and I was looking for something to strenthen my shotmaking a bit and give me a solid foundation to fall back on when I'm not playing my best but how can I do that when I don't even know how to address the CB with this system? Thoughts form any CTE experts on here?

I think that you got it but secondary aiming at A, B, C and 1/8 points on the OB are 5 discrete points (add the other 1/8) and a mechanical 1/2 tip shift will/should always result in the same cut angles. There are other cut angles that are not covered, but can be adjusted for.

The advantage over GB aiming is that you no longer have to aim outside of the edge of the OB somewhere on the cloth or the rail behind the OB...when you master CTE/Pro One.


I gather that Hal's CTE has been improved by Pro One that describes the vertical quarters on the OB at A, B, C and 1/8 in from the edges.

Straight in shots are aimed center of the CB to the center of the OB.

Cutting the OB to the right (reverse for cutting to the left):
When I start, I get down on the CTE line as I would the 30 degree cut angle. I then notice that I can see the secondary aim line from my inner most eye (right eye) that is looking at the edge of the CB to the center of the OB (B). From this position/stance, if I parallel shift the cue to the left ½ cue tip diameter and pivot in to the center of the CB and shoot, I am aimed at the left quarter fraction on the OB and can consistently achieve a 15 degree cut angle on the OB.

If I want to cut the OB 30 degrees to the right, I just shoot from the CTE line without shifting or pivoting.

If I parallel shift the cue ½ tip to the right from CTE line and pivot out to the center of the CB, I am aimed just outside of the OB and achieve a 45 degree cut angle on the OB.

The next shot would be with the secondary aiming point ¼ inside of the left edge of the CB (A). In order to accomplish this shift, I have to move my eye/head and body to the right a bit (rotating to the right) with the OB as the axis. I am no longer parallel to the CTE line but at a slight angle from it. My shoulder also having moved to the right, is on the new aiming line when I put my bridge/cue down on the table ½ tip to the right and when I pivot out to the center of the CB, I am aimed about ¼ ball outside of the OB and achieves a ~60 degree cut angle.

The next shot would be with the secondary aiming point 1/8 inside of the left edge of the CB (1/8). In order to accomplish this shift, I have to move my eye/head and body further to the right a bit (rotating to the right) with the OB as the axis. I am no longer parallel to the CTE line but am at a larger angle from it. My shoulder also having moved to the right, is on the new aiming line when I put my bridge/cue down on the table ½ tip to the right and when I pivot out to the center of the CB, I am aimed less than a 1/2 ball outside of the OB and achieves a ~80 degree cut angle.

These are the angles that I achieved, but my perception may be different than others due to dominant eye noise and may be slightly different for others.

This is how I believe CTE/Pro One works and with slight adjustments, with more time at the table, I should be able to fill in the other cut angles. One caveat is that it helps if the shooter recognizes the cut angle to the pocket/target he wants to accomplish.

Just sayin.:thumbup:

 

[jwpretd]

OK - so that makes no sense. Why would he say "per Stan's request... this info is partial" ...

YET--- "AGAINST" Stan's request---- he posts the entire content of his DVD just above that?

Are you saying that that those ten or twelve lines of text; the six line table; and the picture of a ball with 1/8, 1/4 and center line markings; contain all of the information on the DVD related to the mechanical aspects of CTE as Stan teaches it?

I find that a little difficult to believe, but I'll have the DVD in a few days and I guess I'll find out.

 

[peppersauce]

....................

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

Maybe I should...if I can get through. Seems like there's a lot of confusion on this thread, lol.

The confusion is being sown by the skeptics who know not what they are asking. Call Stan and he'll show you the light.

 

[jwpretd]

@LAMas: I'd like to express my appreciation for your posts. If everyone (myself included) followed your example of informativeness, clarity and civility, we'd be a lot better off in this forum. I do have a question, however, with regard to this:

... and a mechanical 1/2 tip shift will/should always....

The question is "what's a tip width"? Please understand that I don't intend this as harassment. I've actually had this question for years but have never before remembered to ask it at an appropriate time, and thought I should take advantage of this opportunity.

For example, if one is using a 12.5mm tip, then I presume that a "1/2 tip shift" would mean shifting the tip 6.25mm (i.e., about 1/4 inch). If that presumption is correct, what would a person do who uses a 14mm tip, or myself with a 10mm tip? Would we shift 7mm and 5mm, respectively, to achieve the same effect? That doesn't seem right, as those are rather large differences on a percentage basis.

Is there some standard distance that's taken as a "tip width" and people who use tips of other widths should adjust their shift accordingly?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
When I start, I get down on the CTE line as I would the 30 degree cut angle. I then notice that I can see the secondary aim line from my inner most eye (right eye) that is looking at the edge of the CB to the center of the OB (B). From this position/stance, if I parallel shift the cue to the left ½ cue tip diameter and pivot in to the center of the CB and shoot, I am aimed at the left quarter fraction on the OB and can consistently achieve a 15 degree cut angle on the OB.

Why is pivoting to this aim line better than simply aiming the CB's center at the OB's left quarter fraction?

...it helps if the shooter recognizes the cut angle to the pocket/target he wants to accomplish.

What does "recognize the cut angle" mean? Chooses the right CB/OB fractions alignment? How is this different from recognizing the approximate CB/OB overlap without reference to the ball fractions? Why is the conversion to ball fractions helpful?

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

Finally, a description that hints at some objective value from CTE - something that anybody might be able to use, not just those who want a whole new "black box" system. Too bad it takes so much mining to find the occasional gem like this.

The main reason I'm not interested in CTE for myself is that it seems to be tailored for players who just want rote steps to follow and don't want to "get under the hood". I'm not interested in "off the shelf" techniques like this - I want to be able to customize it for myself, or maybe even cannibalize it for the parts I like. I'm pretty sure that if there are any real objective lessons to be learned from CTE, they'll be clear and easy to understand by anybody.

pj
chgo

It is a highly visual system. The end result would work for many(not all) people.

 

[cookie man]

Dr. Dave has essentially identified Stan's CTE as what you are calling a "ballpark" system. In his summary table, Dr. Dave shows that the method prescribes six different lines of aim for cuts in each direction.

So for any particular amount of separation between the CB and the OB, the method presents six possible cut angles (in each direction) to make the shot. That will make six shots "center pocket," and a lot more shots because of pocket slop, but certainly not all shots. If the distance from the OB to the pocket is large enough, the "gaps" will be too large for the six cut angles plus slop to suffice for all shots. If someone is using it successfully for all shots, he must be adjusting somehow on at least some of those shots.

Don't go by DR. Dave. There may be six set alignments but there are an infinite amount of cte lines.

 

[cookie man]

Good advice. Thank you. I'm really trying to 'empty my cup' and learn something new here so I greatly appreciate the input. I noticed that using the system on every shot really put me into a good rhythm and smoothed out my preshot routine. I see shots so quickly that sometimes I move too fast and neglect certain things that I shouldn't. Either way, it's working for me so I'm going to keep using it. I don't know if I want to lose the manual pivot or not though. I kind of like it.

Spidey still uses it all the time, nothing wrong with that. In fact most people will always use it on certain shots.

 

[cookie man]

This has been pretty obvious since the first rudimentary descriptions of it, especially for those of us who were involved in the same discussions years ago about Hal Houle's other systems.


This has been analyzed to death over the years, and the fact is that not very many shots can be made center-pocket even with six cut angles.


Not even most.


Adjustments must be made for most shots - if they're more than a couple of feet from the pocket, then it's the vast majority of shots. This is simple to calculate and has been done over and over.

But this doesn't mean the system isn't useful or even essential for some. It's too bad we have to walk on eggs around what should be a mundane topic.

pj
chgo

Keep an open mind PJ. Why do you think we argue against this type of thinking.

 

[cookie man]

Yeah, I get that - for you and just about every other CTE user. In fact it's so uniformly felt by CTE users that I suspect it's an essential perception for the system to work.


Clearly. I think it's the part that makes its "exactness" convincing for its users. But to an analytical person like me the "shift-and-pivot" is obviously an inherently inexact thing that can't possibly add the precision you think it does, except as a Trojan Horse for introducing the element of feel.

But don't get me wrong - I'm not criticizing CTE for working that way, and I don't think that's all there is to how it works. If I thought that I wouldn't be interested at all.

pj
chgo

Again keep an open mind. I hope you learn CTE from the ground up per the dvd, then get back into this discussion.

 

[Mikjary]

@LAMas: I'd like to express my appreciation for your posts. If everyone (myself included) followed your example of informativeness, clarity and civility, we'd be a lot better off in this forum. I do have a question, however, with regard to this:



The question is "what's a tip width"? Please understand that I don't intend this as harassment. I've actually had this question for years but have never before remembered to ask it at an appropriate time, and thought I should take advantage of this opportunity.

For example, if one is using a 12.5mm tip, then I presume that a "1/2 tip shift" would mean shifting the tip 6.25mm (i.e., about 1/4 inch). If that presumption is correct, what would a person do who uses a 14mm tip, or myself with a 10mm tip? Would we shift 7mm and 5mm, respectively, to achieve the same effect? That doesn't seem right, as those are rather large differences on a percentage basis.

Is there some standard distance that's taken as a "tip width" and people who use tips of other widths should adjust their shift accordingly?

Don't get too hung up on exact tip widths or pivots. Stan recommends a half tip pivot which is obviously a relative term that is different for each player's cue. After using pivot systems, I can pocket balls using a half tip or a half ball pivot. It doesn't matter. As long as it's repeatable and you become comfortable with it.

The half tip pivot is easiest to use and reduces the amount of movement in the setup. Less movement = less error.

Best,
Mike

 

[MOJOE]

Mikjary is the man!

Don't get too hung up on exact tip widths or pivots. Stan recommends a half tip pivot which is obviously a relative term that is different for each player's cue. After using pivot systems, I can pocket balls using a half tip or a half ball pivot. It doesn't matter. As long as it's repeatable and you become comfortable with it.

The half tip pivot is easiest to use and reduces the amount of movement in the setup. Less movement = less error.

Best,
Mike

To anyone interested in CTE, listen to Mike.. He has a ton of CTE knowledge and he's very helpful too..

He's gone out of his way to help me and I'm very appreciative. Thanks again Mike.

JoeyK

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Me:
There aren't enough cut angles in CTE.

cookieman:
Keep an open mind PJ. Why do you think we argue against this type of thinking.

I think it's because you don't have an answer.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I can pocket balls using a half tip or a half ball pivot. It doesn't matter. As long as it's repeatable

If you can use any tip offset for the same shot, then pivoting to the correct aim must be accomplished with subjective judgment, not by systematic formula.

The same is true if you use the same tip offset for all shots.

pj
chgo

 

[BobN]

deleted... somehow I double posted while editing.

 

[LAMas]

Wow thanks for all the onfo. The funny thing is I never even aimed using a 'ghost ball' or 'gutters' or 'tracks' or anything else. I tried using the GB long ago when someone told me about it but started missing everything so I quit that. From the first time I picked up a cue I knew where I had to hit the OB to make it, and looking from the CB, I took a mental picture of how much OB was outside the contact point and mirrored that on the CB (just opposite). I don't know what you call that, or if there is a term for it, but thats what I've always seen when I look at a shot. Thanks again everyone for all the helpful insight. I feel like I have a much better grasp on this from the responses I've gotten. I appreciate it! :thumbup:

Thanks for the thanks,

It's called:
contact-point-to-contact-point or parallel-lines system.

It is goemetrically correct but the aim line CPTCP is parallel to the cue aim line and if it's not correct, you will miss.


http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#contact

 

[LAMas]

@LAMas: I'd like to express my appreciation for your posts. If everyone (myself included) followed your example of informativeness, clarity and civility, we'd be a lot better off in this forum. I do have a question, however, with regard to this:



The question is "what's a tip width"? Please understand that I don't intend this as harassment. I've actually had this question for years but have never before remembered to ask it at an appropriate time, and thought I should take advantage of this opportunity.

For example, if one is using a 12.5mm tip, then I presume that a "1/2 tip shift" would mean shifting the tip 6.25mm (i.e., about 1/4 inch). If that presumption is correct, what would a person do who uses a 14mm tip, or myself with a 10mm tip? Would we shift 7mm and 5mm, respectively, to achieve the same effect? That doesn't seem right, as those are rather large differences on a percentage basis.

Is there some standard distance that's taken as a "tip width" and people who use tips of other widths should adjust their shift accordingly?

Take a look at what mikjary says in his answer to your question...post #447.

All of the elements of CTE (like other systems) are opportunities for misalignment:

- Visualization and Parallax view can/is be involved.
- CTE line
- sighting the secondary aim point
- dropping or sliding the bridge/cue to 1/2 tip offset
- pivoting back to the center of the CB.

As I mentioned, your results may be different than mine, but if you practice the steps to perfection, you will get repeatable results...for you, that can/will be usefull.

The 1/2 tip offset is perhaps not the most important factor, for some, when starting out.

I personally think that as the OB is separated from the CB and appears to be smaller and smaller the farther it is separated; that the shift should be less and less and no longer the 1/2 tip to reduce the aim angle necessary - to prevent the CB from sailing past the OB on thin cuts at distance.

Just sayin

 

[LAMas]

Why is pivoting to this aim line better than simply aiming the CB's center at the OB's left quarter fraction?


What does "recognize the cut angle" mean? Chooses the right CB/OB fractions alignment? How is this different from recognizing the approximate CB/OB overlap without reference to the ball fractions? Why is the conversion to ball fractions helpful?

pj
chgo

pj,
You are correct - aiming the CB center at the quarter fraction on the OB is elegant and parsimonious as less susceptible to error.

For me though, I cannot find those quarters to aim at on cuts over 30 to 85 degrees. I have to imagine them on the felt.
----------------------

I relate the angle created by the line exiting from the center of the OB and going to the pocket/target and the other line from the CB to the GB.

Through practice, I am able to relate where I am going to aim on the quartes on the OB if I am using CTE as a tool.

I normally use double distance aiming for it is simpler, but I still need to find the contact/impact point on the OB where the line above exits the OB from the pocket/target.

Perhaps none of this is of use to others...just me.
Just sayin.:wink:

 

[BobN]

So, here's my story and experience with Pro One. Last March, I made the trip to Stan's house in Kentucky to learn Pro One. My ball pocketing went up somewhat, but my "pre shot" routine was reduced GREATLY. My thought process only involved "speed, spin", because the angle took care of itself with Pro One.

On Monday I received the Pro One DVD. OK, some things have changed, and I'd like to call them, IMPROVED, since last year when i learned pro one from Stan. The addition of the ABC lines dialed in Pro One, for me, to insane precision.

I don't see where people are having a hard time understanding the Pivot. You have to listen very carefully to the first part of the DVD where it defines strict CTE aiming to know when to pivot left or right. Don't just listen to it, go to the table and practice it.

Now, I was at an advantage at this point, because I had been studying and in some situations using CTE for years before I learned Pro One. I also had the one on one session with Stan last March, so transitioning from the "old" Pro One to the new Pro One, was a no brainer for me.

My problems with Pro One as it was taught originally is that I found it to be very accurate for 90% or so of the shots that I came across. With the additions of the ABC lines and the 1/8th alignments, I now fined it precise for all shots.

There will be a learning curve. You can't just watch the DVD and start running 100 balls that afternoon. You are going to have to watch it, work it, practice with it and know which pivots (I call them LEANS, but that's me... Stan developed this system so we'll use his word, pivot) are correct for which shots.

Work on the reference shots he put in the DVD. They are golden. If you can nail those reference shots using Pro One, then you can nail any shot using pro one. I use it for everything from Straight In Shots to Banks and find it invaluable in playing safe.

Now, I've worked out my own version of a "pivot" system for Combinations and caroms, but that's nothing to do with Pro One, that's just Bob's strange setups, however, they are loosely based on Pro One. I'm not going to cloud the waters with that on here... this is about Pro One and how it works.

So, down to, as we say it in the South, the nut cuttin'... has it helped me. Yes, definitely. No doubt about it. In the past 5 years, I've had 3 knee replacements and several years ago had my back broken. Want to screw up your alignment, try having to change the way you address the ball and bend over after years of playing. Even with that, I had gone back up to a solid A player here. Since I've started working with Pro One, I've gone from solid to VERY STRONG "A". I have guys in the Master Division that play me in the opens loudly complaining about my ranking, so pretty soon, I won't be an "A" anymore. In Arkansas, where I live, and A is defined as a player who regularly runs 4 or 5 balls and occasionally runs a rack. I have developed, with the help of Pro One and a LOT of practice, WAY beyond that. If someone gives me a shot, they better get comfortable in their chair... because unless there are just too many clusters (or I do something stupid, which happens from time to time ), I'm probably not going to miss and the next time they get up, it will be to rack or to kick or jump at a ball.

Now, I'm mid 50's, crippled up, most times have to take 10 to 20MG of Vicodin and Valium (works great as a muscle relaxer for your back) just to get through a tournament. I will never be a world beater, but if I had learned Pro One at 25 or 30 or even at 40 years old, I'd be just plain SCARY now. The longer I play with Pro One, the better, more precise I get with it. Example, I play the Midwest 9 Ball tour when I can get away from my REAL job (making bamboo fly rods) to do it. I had the great fortune of drawing Gabe Owen three times in a row for my first round match. Really, not complaining... Drawing Gabe will make you bear down and bring your game. The last time I drew him was in Tulsa and yes, he put me in the losers side, but he didn't do it like he used to. By then I had Pro One in it's original version dialed in pretty well... not perfectly, but pretty well. It was a race to 7 and I lost 7-4, after enjoying and blowing a 3-1 lead (remember that comment earlier about "doing something stupid... well, stupid jumped all over me for the last half of the set... trying tough banks, forgetting that safety play was part of the game, etc). 2 years ago, he would have beat me 7-0, 7-1 (and he did)... not anymore. By the way, during the 7-4 loss last year, which was in April 2010, I had been working on Pro One for a little over a month.

Don't get me wrong. If you aren't interested in trying Pro One, or if you don't believe in CTE or Pro One aiming, I'm not trying to convince you that it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm just telling you that it WORKS FOR ME and that I think it would work for most players. Like I said, I wish I had learned it when I was still young enough to be a real force in the pool world. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have used it for 10 years and still be in my 30's or 40's.

If you're a doubting Thomas, and an Anti Pro One, Great! Use whatever you use. Personally, I don't really care if ANYONE ever learns Pro One. It gives me an advantage over many players and I need all the edge I can get, so keep on with what your doing.

I remember the "Doubting Thomas'" on this thread who made a visit to pool school about 6 or 7 years ago. I was there, helping teach a class. He came by as a visitor, not a student. we started talking about CTE and Fractional Aiming (I was using my own little combination of the two at the time, which turns out is very similar in its basics to Pro One) and I fired in a 3 rail bank in the side pocket using it, because he just couldn't believe it worked... he couldn't prove it on PAPER! We all know how important it is to prove something on paper, right! I didn't fire it in once... and I didn't set up the shot. I just threw the cue ball and object ball on the upper end of the table. I fired it in THREE times in a row, then laid my cue down and said "I'm telling you, there's something to this". Every since, he's been trying to prove it on paper, or disprove it, hell, I don't know, I don't pay much attention to paper play these days. I focus on what works, not what should or shouldn't work or what can't be proven or disproven.

In any case, I don't have any financial interest in Pro One, and again, I'm not saying it's for everyone; but it IS for me, and it works great for me. If you're using a method that puts the ball in the center of the pocket 95% of the time (tough thin shots and banks included), then don't buy Pro One.

If you do buy it, don't expect overnight miracles. You need to have good fundamentals for ANYTHING in this game to work well. Work on your fundamentals as well as Pro One. As a BCA Instructor only one thing really bothers me... someone trying something new and in an hour or a day or a week, saying "I tried that and it just ain't workin' for me!" Everything takes time. You have to get it, to work well, to a point where you don't have to think about it. Remember when you first started driving? Same thing. It was awkward... it didn't feel right... the brakes were too touch and the clutch just jerked and made the car buck like a yearling stallion... but now, you don't even think about it... you just DO IT. It's so natural after a certain amount of time. (different times for different people... I don't think my middle son will ever be a natural driver). Same with Pro One, or your Stroke or your Eye Patterns or ANYTHING pool. It takes time, practice, repetition.

Shoot Straight, Stroke Straight, Aim Well,

Bob