PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[trob]

Why does it seem that those who aren't cheering for CTE are considered trolls?

Because you keep posting on every thread anegative crap. If you don't like it that's fine... Let the people who do and want to discuss it alone.

Here's an example since you fail to understand what a troll is. Im not a fan of szambotti cues. They look plain to me and our insanely over priced but I don't get on every thread talking about these cues telling people theyre junk and our being ripped off BECAUSE IM NOT A TROLL! I let the people who do enjoy them and find value in them alone to enjoy them. See the difference?

 

[jsp]

Pat -- the six cut angles in each direction are, of course, after pivoting. In other words, if Stan's CTE could be performed in a robotically perfect manner (perfect visuals, perfect perpendicular slide into the face of the cue ball with exactly a 1/2-tip offset from center CB, perfect bridge length, perfect pivot to CB center), it would produce a particular line of aim. That line of aim might or might not pass exactly where it needs to (i.e., through, or very close to, the center of the ghost ball). If it does not, then the "feel" can be introduced in a number of ways, not just through the initial pivot. Perhaps the cue is pivoted again slightly one direction or the other. Perhaps the bridge hand is "deformed" slightly to create a different effective pivot point. Perhaps the bridge hand is moved slightly. Perhaps the player stands up and starts over, this time slightly modifying one or more of the prescribed steps before even getting to a pivot. ... and on and on.

Great points.

But if you contend that these "feel" components are necessary on the many shots where the aim line doesn't "pass EXACTLY where it needs to", then you must certainly agree the system by itself is far from being "exact". Right?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

trob:
If you don't like it that's fine... Let the people who do and want to discuss it alone.

Most CTE users have nothing to say but "works for me!". CTE users don't just "discuss" CTE; they advertise and promote the CTE product on this public forum.

There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with questioning the claims of advertising. In fact, when a product is promoted as heavily as CTE is promoted on AzB, it's the responsibility of those with questions and reservations to speak up.

CTE users who complain about "naysayers" are really saying they should be permitted to promote the product they like without allowing any questions or comments that aren't pre-screened to be totally positive. Nonsense.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

AtLarge
Pat -- the six cut angles in each direction are, of course, after pivoting. In other words, if Stan's CTE could be performed in a robotically perfect manner (perfect visuals, perfect perpendicular slide into the face of the cue ball with exactly a 1/2-tip offset from center CB, perfect bridge length, perfect pivot to CB center), it would produce a particular line of aim. That line of aim might or might not pass exactly where it needs to (i.e., through, or very close to, the center of the ghost ball). If it does not, then the "feel" can be introduced in a number of ways, not just through the initial pivot. Perhaps the cue is pivoted again slightly one direction or the other. Perhaps the bridge hand is "deformed" slightly to create a different effective pivot point. Perhaps the bridge hand is moved slightly. Perhaps the player stands up and starts over, this time slightly modifying one or more of the prescribed steps before even getting to a pivot. ... and on and on.

jsp:
Great points.

But if you contend that these "feel" components are necessary on the many shots where the aim line doesn't "pass EXACTLY where it needs to", then you must certainly agree the system by itself is far from being "exact". Right?

Let's count "the many shots where the aim line doesn't pass EXACTLY where it needs to":

This chart shows the number of cut angles needed to pocket all shots at various distances from the pocket (and at the optimum straight-in angle), including "pocket slop" for pockets that are 4" to 5.25" wide. Cut angles needed for OBs 2 feet and 4 feet from the pocket are highlighted in yellow.

For easy shots (2 feet from the pocket), you need 13 to 22 cut angles depending on the amount of pocket slop (size of the pocket) - that's two to four times the number defined by CTE's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 50%-80% of 2-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

For common shots (4 feet from the pocket) you need 25 to 43 cut angles, or four to seven times the number of CTE's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 75%-85% of 4-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

Does this mean CTE isn't useful? No. It only means it isn't even close to "exact" as advertised.

pj
chgo

(NOTE: These numbers are for shots where the OB is perfectly straight out from the pocket - for the vast majority of shots, where the OB is not perfectly straight out from the pocket, "pocket slop" is reduced and the number of needed cut angles increases.)

 

[justadub]

Most CTE users have nothing to say but "works for me!". CTE users don't just "discuss" CTE; they advertise and promote the CTE product on this public forum.

There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with questioning the claims of advertising. In fact, when a product is promoted as heavily as CTE is promoted on AzB, it's the responsibility of those with questions and reservations to speak up.

CTE users who complain about "naysayers" are really saying they should be permitted to promote the product they like without allowing any questions or comments that aren't pre-screened to be totally positive. Nonsense.

pj
chgo

These are all valid points. Everyone on these threads need not agree, else why have the thread at all.

BUT, there is a difference between discussing the topic at hand, and the specifics of it, AND those who simply chime in to stir the stuff. Those who have no intent to try and contribute to the discussion, only to antagonize. Those folks are the trolls, and contribute nothing to the conversation.

Yes, I realize every forum everwhere has trolls. It's a package deal with the internet. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate them.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

justadub:
I realize every forum everwhere has trolls. It's a package deal with the internet. That doesn't mean we have to tolerate them.

I agree. But the "troll" label is often used in these aiming threads as a blunt weapon against those who simply have different views.

pj
chgo

 

[cookie man]

I agree. But the "troll" label is often used in these aiming threads as a blunt weapon against those who simply have different views.

pj
chgo

Yes you have different views, but then again you haven't even watched the video. Keep an open mind.

 

[justadub]

I agree. But the "troll" label is often used in these aiming threads as a blunt weapon against those who simply have different views.

pj
chgo

Also agreed. I do think that so long as emotions are kept reasonably intact, and name-calling held to a minimum there would be no need for the "troll" description in regards to those with opposing viewpoints. (As seems to be the case this time around, compared to the last several CTE threads... a few contibutors to those are noticably absent, from both sides of the aisle.)

The "troll" label really should be used for those who continue to incite disagreement, without adding to the conversation.

I for one am glad that you are back here, PJ, even though I don't always agree with you. (I don't stuff from shine-ola regarding CTE, but I enjoy the discussion trying to learn things.) When the discussions are on topic, you add a tremendous amount. I think you'd find a few of those on the other side of this particular aisle would probably agree with that. Healthy discussion is good.

 

[dr_dave]

CTE clearly describes alignments for only a handful of angles. You cover the rest by "pivoting", which you're convinced is not "feel", but you're unable to explain it any other way. The only apparent difference between CTE and Hal Houle's old "fractions" system is that the "feel" part is now called "pivoting". That seems to be convincing enough for CTE users.

Pat -- the six cut angles in each direction are, of course, after pivoting. In other words, if Stan's CTE could be performed in a robotically perfect manner (perfect visuals, perfect perpendicular slide into the face of the cue ball with exactly a 1/2-tip offset from center CB, perfect bridge length, perfect pivot to CB center), it would produce a particular line of aim. That line of aim might or might not pass exactly where it needs to (i.e., through, or very close to, the center of the ghost ball). If it does not, then the "feel" can be introduced in a number of ways, not just through the initial pivot. Perhaps the cue is pivoted again slightly one direction or the other. Perhaps the bridge hand is "deformed" slightly to create a different effective pivot point. Perhaps the bridge hand is moved slightly. Perhaps the player stands up and starts over, this time slightly modifying one or more of the prescribed steps before even getting to a pivot. ... and on and on.

I hope you take the time to view and analyze the DVD in the near future. That would certainly give you additional insights regarding the method. We who enjoy analytical observations and comments will appreciate your efforts.

Excellent posts by both of you. For people who want more information or background on these topic, I have many illustrations, detailed explanations, and additional resources here:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/aiming.html#CTE​

I also look forward to PJ's review. I'm sure he'll see both positives and realistic limitations of the system.

Regards,
Dave

 

[STICKBNDER]

let's count "the many shots where the aim line doesn't pass exactly where it needs to":

This chart shows the number of cut angles needed to pocket all shots at various distances from the pocket (and at the optimum straight-in angle), including "pocket slop" for pockets that are 4" to 5.25" wide. Cut angles needed for obs 2 feet and 4 feet from the pocket are highlighted in yellow.

For easy shots (2 feet from the pocket), you need 13 to 22 cut angles depending on the amount of pocket slop (size of the pocket) - that's two to four times the number defined by cte's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 50%-80% of 2-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

For common shots (4 feet from the pocket) you need 25 to 43 cut angles, or four to seven times the number of cte's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 75%-85% of 4-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

Does this mean cte isn't useful? No. It only means it isn't even close to "exact" as advertised.

Pj
chgo

(note: These numbers are for shots where the ob is perfectly straight out from the pocket - for the vast majority of shots, where the ob is not perfectly straight out from the pocket, "pocket slop" is reduced and the number of needed cut angles increases.)

View attachment 172544

this is where i disagree. Now i am not a cte shooter. I did get the dvd, no i dont get all of it. I plan on spending some time learning it correctly. The above chart show all cut angles. When you the cte edge and secondary alinment, u elimate most of the wrong cut angles (where you current cb position is in reference to the pocket). No im sure im not what some of you players are. But i know for a fact that i dont need 23 different cut angles like the chart says. For instance. I use primarly SAM aiming (and feel). It is a fractional aiming system. I have 6 SAM aim points each direction. Depending on the shot and pocket size, some close numbers will still pocket a ball.

I honestly believe there is merit to the system. Is it exact i have no idea. But i do know there is something to it. And for the record there are 12 different angle with cte (from what i understand) 1/8, a, b going left(with a right or left pivot) and b, c and 1/8 going right (with a right or left pivot)

now is there some adjustment needed from experence to the system, i would have to think so. I dont know for a fact or not. But with any system you use( even by feel) there is adjustments. Just like using english. There is a adjustment.


For what its worth, i have been following these threads for sometime, and hate all the bickering. If have something to say state it and move on. No need in constantly stiring the sh!!t.

 

[Dead Crab]

The mechanical CTE system offers only a small set of discrete cut angles. My take from the DVD is that Pro One extends this to a continuous system. the transition between the two is experience-based (feel), which is why it takes 1000 hours or so to become expert. I do not see it as offering any specific advantage over any geometrically-valid system other than it standardizes the pre shot routine. The time taken to masterany aiming method is probably roughly the same, although different approaches are preferred by different people.

 

[JoeyA]

Most CTE users have nothing to say but "works for me!". CTE users don't just "discuss" CTE; they advertise and promote the CTE product on this public forum.

There's nothing wrong with that, just as there's nothing wrong with questioning the claims of advertising. In fact, when a product is promoted as heavily as CTE is promoted on AzB, it's the responsibility of those with questions and reservations to speak up.

CTE users who complain about "naysayers" are really saying they should be permitted to promote the product they like without allowing any questions or comments that aren't pre-screened to be totally positive. Nonsense.

pj
chgo

Patrick,
If you and the rest of the naysayers treated those who use CTE/Pro One with a modicum of respect, you would get answers to all of your questions. They might not be the answers you want to hear but those that use the system would be happy to answer the questions.

In other posts, I continue to see the naysayers taking pot shots at the system users. I continue to see the system users getting hot under the collar from the continued insults and responding in a reactive manner.

It is quite apparent that the bast majority of naysayers do not like the promotional aspects of CTE/Pro One, Perfect Aim or anything else that they can't control.

This jealousy and refusal to understand that this forum is made up of a great number of posters each with their own agenda. The naysayers don't own the forum. They aren't the shack bullies of this forum and can't violate the rules without suffering the consequences.

I have sat back and read some of the posts in this thread and other threads and see the animosity of the naysayers is still alive and well. The resentment just keeps oozing out at every twist and turn.

If those who want to learn how CTE/Pro One works, they should learn to act and treat their fellow posters who have different perspectives about this subject in a more decent and respectful manner. The problem comes when the naysayers make out like they are being respectful in one post but turn around and make sleezy, snide, and mean-spirited remarks in another thread or another post about those who use aiming systems.

 

[Neil]

Let's count "the many shots where the aim line doesn't pass EXACTLY where it needs to":

This chart shows the number of cut angles needed to pocket all shots at various distances from the pocket (and at the optimum straight-in angle), including "pocket slop" for pockets that are 4" to 5.25" wide. Cut angles needed for OBs 2 feet and 4 feet from the pocket are highlighted in yellow.

For easy shots (2 feet from the pocket), you need 13 to 22 cut angles depending on the amount of pocket slop (size of the pocket) - that's two to four times the number defined by CTE's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 50%-80% of 2-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

For common shots (4 feet from the pocket) you need 25 to 43 cut angles, or four to seven times the number of CTE's unadjusted alignments. In other words, at least 75%-85% of 4-foot shots cannot be made without adjustment.

Does this mean CTE isn't useful? No. It only means it isn't even close to "exact" as advertised.

pj
chgo

(NOTE: These numbers are for shots where the OB is perfectly straight out from the pocket - for the vast majority of shots, where the OB is not perfectly straight out from the pocket, "pocket slop" is reduced and the number of needed cut angles increases.)

View attachment 172544

Just goes to show, that as far as CTE, once again you have no clue what you are talking about. Maybe you might get a little credibility if you at least try and learn it from the DVD before you go saying what it is and isn't. Saying why it won't work, when you really don't even know what it is, or how it works is just plain arrogance and makes everything you say suspect.

 

[JoeyA]

I agree. But the "troll" label is often used in these aiming threads as a blunt weapon against those who simply have different views.

pj
chgo

Patrick,
I like your analysis of anything pool related. I genuinely do.

You're a smart guy and when "trolls" pipe in their sentiments on your posts or threads, as long as it meets your agenda, you give the pass to the troll. You know it, I know it and so does everyone else.

If you genuinely wanted cooperation from the CTE/Pro One users you would use some of your tart one liners to send them scurrying away. You also would be more respectful to those with a different mindset.

 

[LAMas]

Pat -- the six cut angles in each direction are, of course, after pivoting. In other words, if Stan's CTE could be performed in a robotically perfect manner (perfect visuals, perfect perpendicular slide into the face of the cue ball with exactly a 1/2-tip offset from center CB, perfect bridge length, perfect pivot to CB center), it would produce a particular line of aim. That line of aim might or might not pass exactly where it needs to (i.e., through, or very close to, the center of the ghost ball). If it does not, then the "feel" can be introduced in a number of ways, not just through the initial pivot. Perhaps the cue is pivoted again slightly one direction or the other. Perhaps the bridge hand is "deformed" slightly to create a different effective pivot point. Perhaps the bridge hand is moved slightly. Perhaps the player stands up and starts over, this time slightly modifying one or more of the prescribed steps before even getting to a pivot. ... and on and on. I hope you take the time to view and analyze the DVD in the near future. That would certainly give you additional insights regarding the method. We who enjoy analytical observations and comments will appreciate your efforts.

Good post.
Once I have mastered the 12 shots and the cut angles that they achieve, I will see if I can shift my bridge to the side of the 1/2 tip offset to fill in the other cut angles...then move on for different distances between the CB and OB...could be promising and a simple solution.

Now if I can remember all of that?

THanks.:thumbup:

 

[peteypooldude]

Why does it seem that those who aren't cheering for CTE are considered trolls?

Here is the thing. The ones I said were trolling do not own the DVD to be
asking questions. They are just stirring sh1t. It is not about cheering or questions, its plain and simple provoking and needling. This is suppose to be
as the title refers PRO ONE DVD Answering Questions. Every time I come to
this thread to maybe help a few understand things they have questions
with all I see is this same old needling . It is wrong to try to sabotoge
and ridicule something or someone you have not spent the time in or even
spent less than 50$ to try and learn it. If you cant put anything in it then your not getting anything back. If you will notice, the thread was on track until the heckling started. Now it is just insult slinging again.Same sh1t diff
day

 

[justadub]

Patrick,
If you and the rest of the naysayers treated those who use CTE/Pro One with a modicum of respect, you would get answers to all of your questions. They might not be the answers you want to hear but those that use the system would be happy to answer the questions.

In other posts, I continue to see the naysayers taking pot shots at the system users. I continue to see the system users getting hot under the collar from the continued insults and responding in a reactive manner.

It is quite apparent that the bast majority of naysayers do not like the promotional aspects of CTE/Pro One, Perfect Aim or anything else that they can't control.

This jealousy and refusal to understand that this forum is made up of a great number of posters each with their own agenda. The naysayers don't own the forum. They aren't the shack bullies of this forum and can't violate the rules without suffering the consequences.

I have sat back and read some of the posts in this thread and other threads and see the animosity of the naysayers is still alive and well. The resentment just keeps oozing out at every twist and turn.

If those who want to learn how CTE/Pro One works, they should learn to act and treat their fellow posters who have different perspectives about this subject in a more decent and respectful manner. The problem comes when the naysayers make out like they are being respectful in one post but turn around and make sleezy, snide, and mean-spirited remarks in another thread or another post about those who use aiming systems.

To be fair, JoeyA, there are a few CTE'ers that can sling the stuff just as easily as a few of the "naysayers." Both camps contribute to these threads becoming a melee.

What happens is that one eggs on another, or call another a name, and the retaliations start. I've watched it happen, from both sides of the aisle. Without knowing or having spoken to him beofre, I'm quite sure it is this specific reason why Stan doesn't want to deal with discussion about CTE/ProOne here on the forum. There is a distinct lack of decorum, especially when it comes to this subject. And the guilt can be spread around to many.

As I said to Patrick earlier, this particular thread hasn't dropped to that level yet. It's mostly been reasonable discussion. At least compared to previous CTE threads. I'm hoping it continues, and you folks make progress towards a greater understanding of it all. I know I'm learning alot, juts following the process.

 

[peteypooldude]

You're not very happy for one who has been "snapping off" tournament after tournament since speaking on the phone with Geno for a few minutes. This must be a bad PMS month, sweetie?

Hank = drama queen

Hi sweetie, as usual you have your facts scrambled. I am a CTE player,
notice above my avatar the I SEE EDGES. Geno did help me with his
Perfect Aim . Knowing what your eyes are doing is a huge factor in
pool. Am I still snapping tournaments? Not every time, But I win enough to stay in the positive. And sweetheart, just to let you know personally. I
really dont give a sh1t how bad and ugly you are. I am an ol country boy who don't fear anyone but God

 

[peteypooldude]

I just had a question about Stan's motives. It's fine for him to make a living off what he does, I just don't want to be taken for a ride.

What kind of ride? 50$ lol You better stick to ghost ball or contact point.
You have not bought the DVD and no lessons which = 0 investment
Can I get a Amen

 

[peteypooldude]

Why all the emotion, Petey? Is this a taboo topic in your AzB?

Where's the drama really coming from here? Chill out.

pj
chgo

You KNOW where its coming from. And the emotion you speak of is Anger.