PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

cookie man said:
Can you put in cte lines for the 2 shots extended through the rails and we can discuss more after that. It should be obvious though that you can use the same alignment visuals and get different results.
Click to expand...

cookie -- if you're asking me to do that for my two-shot scenario, I'm going to decline tonight. I'm wei challenged and don't want to explore learning more about that software right now.

But I think Stan has given us good input tonight, calling the critical factor "experience." So he is acknowledging that any particular alignment-menu option does not, of itself, lead to multiple cut angles for the same CB-OB distance. Maybe we can, at last, all agree that what allows the 6 sets of instructions to produce many more cut angles (for a given CB-OB distance) is not some inherent geometric magic, but, rather, "experience," "visual intelligence," or feel.
 
Neil said:
It's easier to find the center of the cb is you just look at the top of it. The highest point is always the center from your perspective to it.
Click to expand...

That's fine. The highest point is in the plane I defined (as is the lowest point).
 
I used the word experience as a reference to knowledge.

In other words it is easy to over the possibility that any CB/OB relationship can be viewed as a straight-in shot ad long as ones eyes are positioned like so. Actually, that's a simple concept but a relative newcomer to the system might not pick that up for weeks or even longer.
Stan
 
cookie man said:
... Take your 2 shots you diagrammed earlier. Use Stans A reference line for both as he says, can you see that the ctel goes through different points for both shots? You should use the outermost edge in relation to the pocket for the ctel visual.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I don't follow what you mean. Both shots, on the DVD, were CTEL to the left side of the OB, "C" for a secondary alignment point, and pivot from left to right. The cut angles needed are 0 and 20. Stan says that a difference in alignments results from different eye placements, developed from experience.
 
stan shuffett said:
I used the word experience as a reference to knowledge.
Click to expand...

Just like a snooker player might base his aim on the 3-angle system, but, based on experience/knowledge, knows to go a little thinner or a little thicker off one of the basic alignments?

In other words it is easy to over the possibility that any CB/OB relationship can be viewed as a straight-in shot ad long as ones eyes are positioned like so. Actually, that's a simple concept but a relative newcomer to the system might not pick that up for weeks or even longer.
Stan
Click to expand...

You've lost me here. I can certainly view any CB/OB relationship as a straight-in shot, but I'll then hit most of them into the cushions.:)
 
Zero angle shots have specific eye placements as well do cut shots using OBA and OBC. A beginner can learn this very quickly through experience. All learning occurs through experience. The lesson or concept I referenced was very objective.
Stan
 
Atlarge, A safety play might use a zero angle shot and yes the OB could go directly to a cushion. Sorry for not being more clear.
 
Stan,
Does one have to adjust for the dominant eye if he has one, or does he have to adapt to a defined visual, and ignore his dominant eye?
Thanks
 
stan shuffett said:
Zero angle shots have specific eye placements as well do cut shots using OBA and OBC. A beginner can learn this very quickly through experience. All learning occurs through experience. The lesson or concept I referenced was very objective.
Stan
Click to expand...

stan shuffett said:
Atlarge, A safety play might use a zero angle shot and yes the OB could go directly to a cushion. Sorry for not being more clear.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. A zero-angle shot is either an R/A/R or an L/C/L in terms of CTEL / secondary alignment point / pivot.
 
My take away is that Hal chose CTE as a starting point for it was extremely easy to define and easy to see. It is also a mid point between thick and thin cuts on the OB.

The different cut angles were accomplished by different offsets of the cue or bridge distances of the bridge behind the CB pre-pivot.

You further developed 1/8, A, B, C and 1/8 as another set of discrete starting points – all of which are points/vertical lines on the OB - to further define starting points for a secondary aim line/s that define in finer detail more cut angles of the OB.

By using these added fractional points on the OB along with the original CTE line, one can, with experience/time at the table to be able to adjust between these points, say between A and B, i.e. closer to A or closer to B with respect to the original CTEL. Add to that the decision to use a right or a left pivot, again based on experience and remembering the resulting cut angles achieved with time at the table.

Kudos for this is what I thought and why I was intrigued by CTE/Pro One – to be able to aim all cut angles referenced to fractional points on the OB and not on the cloth as in DD for thin cuts.

I don't think that I can meaningfully diagram this geometrically.

I am probably wrong, but thanks.:):thumbup:
 
Last edited:
AtLarge said:
Here's my concept of the CTEL....
Click to expand...

If you drew a line on your CTE plane from the center of the CB to the OB edge at the OB's equator, which of these would it do?

1. Originate at the top of the CB.

2. Originate on the equator of the CB on the side away from the player.

If it's the former, then I agree that your description gets the line in the right place as described on the DVD. If it's the latter, then I don't quite agree, though I'm inclined to think that it might not make much practical difference as long as you can use that concept to visualize it the same way every time.
 
AtLarge said:
But I think Stan has given us good input tonight, calling the critical factor "experience." So he is acknowledging that any particular alignment-menu option does not, of itself, lead to multiple cut angles for the same CB-OB distance. Maybe we can, at last, all agree that what allows the 6 sets of instructions to produce many more cut angles (for a given CB-OB distance) is not some inherent geometric magic, but, rather, "experience," "visual intelligence," or feel.
Click to expand...
I think this is a realistic and fair conclusion that can be applied to align-and-pivot (e.g., CTE and 90/90), fractional-ball (e.g., SAM and Hal's 3 angles), or any other "x-angle" aiming system that is based on a limited number of lines of aim.

Also, as many people have pointed out over many years, this conclusion in no way diminishes the potential benefits of these systems.

Regards,
Dave
 
jwpretd said:
If you drew a line on your CTE plane from the center of the CB to the OB edge at the OB's equator, which of these would it do?

1. Originate at the top of the CB.

2. Originate on the equator of the CB on the side away from the player.

If it's the former, then I agree that your description gets the line in the right place as described on the DVD. If it's the latter, then I don't quite agree, though I'm inclined to think that it might not make much practical difference as long as you can use that concept to visualize it the same way every time.
Click to expand...
Both of these lines are within the CTE plane, so the shooter's eyes must be within the CTE plane (i.e., in the same place) to sight either of them.

pj
chgo
 
jwpretd said:
If you drew a line on your CTE plane from the center of the CB to the OB edge at the OB's equator, which of these would it do?

1. Originate at the top of the CB.

2. Originate on the equator of the CB on the side away from the player.

If it's the former, then I agree that your description gets the line in the right place as described on the DVD. If it's the latter, then I don't quite agree, though I'm inclined to think that it might not make much practical difference as long as you can use that concept to visualize it the same way every time.
Click to expand...

John, I intentionally did not specify the precise line in the center-to-edge plane because I thought it probably would vary from person to person and I didn't think it would matter. Both of the lines you specified above are in the plane, right? It just depends on how high off the playing surface you want to do the sighting. I actually like to visualize planes rather than lines in aiming systems more generally. For Stan's CTE, don't you think both the CTEL and the secondary alignment line could be viewed as planes (perpendicular to the playing surface) rather than lines?

But last night's discussion with Stan (in this thread) was revelatory to me and, hopefully, will put an end to all the dichotomous debate. I may have more to say about this later today.
 
dr_dave said:
I think this is a realistic and fair conclusion that can be applied to align-and-pivot (e.g., CTE and 90/90), fractional-ball (e.g., SAM and Hal's 3 angles), or any other "x-angle" aiming system that is based on a limited number of lines of aim.

Also, as many people have pointed out over many years, this conclusion in no way diminishes the potential benefits of these systems.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Dave, this is from your website concerning lines of aim-
"If the OB is left in place and the CB is moved around it in an arc, the cut angle needed to make the shot changes. If the pocket was exactly as wide as a ball, then the cut angle would have to change with every infinitesimal movement of the CB and it would take an infinite number of cut angles to make shots from all possible CB positions. But with a 2.25" margin of error in the pocket, the cut angle only needs to change with every 3.6-degree movement of the CB (25 times as the CB moves through a 90-degree arc for all the cuts in one direction).

This is why it is often said that any system must define more than a handful of cut angles in order to work "without adjustment". For example, if a system defines only 6 cut angles for each cut direction, then the system by itself can only make 6/25 (~1/4) of all possible spot shots into a 4.5" pocket, and the other 3/4 of all possible cut angles are in the gaps between the 6 system-defined cut angles."

Now if the QB is moved around the OB in an arc the shot angle changes, we agree, does not the ctel also rotate around and change where it contacts the OB thereby creating a new cut angle?
 
cookie man said:
dr_dave said:
I think this is a realistic and fair conclusion that can be applied to align-and-pivot (e.g., CTE and 90/90), fractional-ball (e.g., SAM and Hal's 3 angles), or any other "x-angle" aiming system that is based on a limited number of lines of aim.

Also, as many people have pointed out over many years, this conclusion in no way diminishes the potential benefits of these systems.
Click to expand...

Dave, this is from your website concerning lines of aim-
"If the OB is left in place and the CB is moved around it in an arc, the cut angle needed to make the shot changes. If the pocket was exactly as wide as a ball, then the cut angle would have to change with every infinitesimal movement of the CB and it would take an infinite number of cut angles to make shots from all possible CB positions. But with a 2.25" margin of error in the pocket, the cut angle only needs to change with every 3.6-degree movement of the CB (25 times as the CB moves through a 90-degree arc for all the cuts in one direction).

This is why it is often said that any system must define more than a handful of cut angles in order to work "without adjustment". For example, if a system defines only 6 cut angles for each cut direction, then the system by itself can only make 6/25 (~1/4) of all possible spot shots into a 4.5" pocket, and the other 3/4 of all possible cut angles are in the gaps between the 6 system-defined cut angles."

Now if the QB is moved around the OB in an arc the shot angle changes, we agree, does not the ctel also rotate around and change where it contacts the OB thereby creating a new cut angle?
Click to expand...
Cookie,

Of course the CTEL is different for every CB-OB relationship; but for a given CB-OB relationship, there is a need for a large number of cut angles, based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB. For example, with Stan's version of CTE, the six different alignment/pivot choices can create only six different cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (i.e., a given distance apart), assuming the instructions are followed consistently and accurately.

If you can use CTE effectively over a wide range of cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship, it is because you are able to adjust your alignment and/or bridge placement and/or pivot to create more than 6 cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB). I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but it is a clear reality. If people want more info and explanations for what all of this means, see:

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, I am not interested in debating this stuff any longer. I am happy to provide clarifications and links to useful resources, but I no longer wish to argue or try to convince people.
 
dr_dave said:
Cookie,

Of course the CTEL is different for every CB-OB relationship; but for a given CB-OB relationship, there is a need for a large number of cut angles, based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB. For example, with Stan's version of CTE, the six different alignment/pivot choices can create only six different cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (i.e., a given distance apart), assuming the instructions are followed consistently and accurately.

If you can use CTE effectively over a wide range of cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship, it is because you are able to adjust your alignment and/or bridge placement and/or pivot to create more than 6 cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB). I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but it is a clear reality. If people want more info and explanations for what all of this means, see:

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, I am not interested in debating this stuff any longer. I am happy to provide clarifications and links to useful resources, but I no longer wish to argue or try to convince people.
Click to expand...

The adjustment in alignment comes from the ctel rotating around the OB for a give QB-OB relationship.
I know you won't debate, but you will continue to drop in once in awhile with your links.
 
cookie man said:
dr_dave said:
Cookie,

Of course the CTEL is different for every CB-OB relationship; but for a given CB-OB relationship, there is a need for a large number of cut angles, based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB. For example, with Stan's version of CTE, the six different alignment/pivot choices can create only six different cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (i.e., a given distance apart), assuming the instructions are followed consistently and accurately.

If you can use CTE effectively over a wide range of cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship, it is because you are able to adjust your alignment and/or bridge placement and/or pivot to create more than 6 cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (based on where the pocket is relative to the CB and OB). I don't think there is anything wrong with this, but it is a clear reality. If people want more info and explanations for what all of this means, see:

Regards,
Dave

PS: BTW, I am not interested in debating this stuff any longer. I am happy to provide clarifications and links to useful resources, but I no longer wish to argue or try to convince people.
Click to expand...
The adjustment in alignment comes from the ctel rotating around the OB for a give QB-OB relationship.
Click to expand...
For a given CB-OB relationship and cut direction, there is only one vertical plane or line through both the center of the CB and the outer edge of the OB (i.e., the CTEL), in 2D or 3D. If you are able to visualize more than one, that might explain how you are able to create a wide range of cut angles for a given CB-OB relationship (i.e., withe the CB and OB a fixed distance apart).

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top