PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions

[Patrick Johnson]

Stan:
OBC is not an accurate aim point for .5 tip pivots for left cuts within the context of CTE/PRO ONE.

Me:
How is OBC "aiming into space" and 1/8-1/8 not? They're geometrically the same CB/OB alignment (although presumably different eye positions).

LCBE to OBC places CCB into space. 1/8 LCBE to 1/8 ROBE obviously places CCB into space.

So they're both "aiming into space" - that's my view too. But didn't you say on your DVD that the reason to substitute 1/8-1/8 is because "C for thin cuts" makes you aim into space? Now you agree that 1/8-1/8 does that too... ??

Me:
2. If OBC and 1/8-1/8 are both thinner than OBB but different, how can one be "wrong"? Are you saying there's no thin cut angle that corresponds to OBC?

OBB and 1/8 aim points complete the system for left cuts. OBC is not needed. OBC is flawed in the context of CTE/PRO ONE. I learned that at the table. I just did not go to 1/8 out of the blue.

But if OBC is between OBB and 1/8-1/8, doesn't it define a cut angle between the other two? Don't we need that in-between cut angle to make some shots?

STan:
It does take work on the table to know that.

Why isn't it simply pointed out on the DVD?

Why did I need to say it on the DVD?

Because you brought it up on the DVD.

OBC as an initial aim point is simply not needed for left cuts.

If it's "flawed", then it's a different cut angle than 1/8-1/8, right? If it's different, then leaving it out leaves out a cut angle, doesn't it?

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

So they're both "aiming into space" - that's my view too. But didn't you say on your DVD that the reason to substitute 1/8-1/8 is because "C for thin cuts" makes you aim into space? Now you agree that 1/8-1/8 does that too... ?? C doesn't take you to edge as im thinking about it sitting in front of my comp and drop the aim in space stuff, you dont know the system!


But if OBC is between OBB and 1/8-1/8, doesn't it define a cut angle between the other two? Don't we need that in-between cut angle to make some shots? hmmm i think i have given this answer before and you talk about others giving miss information out,you dont even know the cte/pro1 shot selections, you dont know the system !


Because you brought it up on the DVD.


If it's "flawed", then it's a different cut angle than 1/8-1/8, right? If it's different, than leaving it out leaves out a cut angle, doesn't it? Its not needed and a inside B shot takes you too 1/8 shot, you would know this if you knew how to shoot the system on a table rather than just shooting your mouth off, you dont know the system!

pj
chgo

Wow, for someone who claims to know more about this cte/pro1 then everyone else you really dont know much at all about the system, I told you that you can not go any further into this discussion with us! stick to FEEL and EXACT and let us knowledgeable guys discuss cte/pro1 and i am now encouraging people to use feel if thats what they think they need to help make a certain shot, how do you like them apples!!

 

[scottjen26]

I thought the same thing Patrick, and asked those questions of Stan when I was trying to make sense of this. Seemed if there were "notches" so to speak in the system, then when you move from A to B the next step would be C, regardless of the aiming into space issue.

I'll let Stan answer your question directly, but I can verify from the table perspective that somehow the 1/8 alignment does pick up at the limit of the B alignment, there are even some shots that can be made with either (B/inside or 1/8/outside) although one typically goes clean in the pocket and the other can only be made at pocket speed. That experimentation was enough for me to understand that however it works, the transition seems to work from A to B to 1/8 without skipping any specific cut angles or shots.


I think this is where everyone keeps going round and round. I know on paper there seems like there can be only 6, or 8, or 10, or 11 specific cut angles (depending on which numbers you go with), but at the table it just doesn't work that way. Why is still a mystery to me, so I'm agnostic for now on the feel vs geometry issue, but it works.
Scott

 

[pearlcabrezos]

I've learned a lot about billiard through this forum,

 

[LAMas]

I've learned a lot about billiard through this forum,

Welcome to this thread. Do you shoot pool? How do you aim? Did you buy Stan's DVD:wink::thumbup:

 

[cookie man]

Really? Explain how 1/8-1/8 differs from edge-1/4.

pj
chgo

Answered by Stan.

 

[cookie man]

So they're both "aiming into space" - that's my view too. But didn't you say on your DVD that the reason to substitute 1/8-1/8 is because "C for thin cuts" makes you aim into space? Now you agree that 1/8-1/8 does that too... ??


But if OBC is between OBB and 1/8-1/8, doesn't it define a cut angle between the other two? Don't we need that in-between cut angle to make some shots?


Because you brought it up on the DVD.


If it's "flawed", then it's a different cut angle than 1/8-1/8, right? If it's different, then leaving it out leaves out a cut angle, doesn't it?

pj
chgo

Do you really think we are leaving out cut angles? With all the excitement and the many testimonials do you really think we can only make shots from 6 angles? Seriously go to the table work on it and come back in a few weeks.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I'll let Stan answer your question directly, but I can verify from the table perspective that somehow the 1/8 alignment does pick up at the limit of the B alignment

Well, 1/8-1/8 it is the same CB/OB alignment as edge-1/4, so it wouldn't be that surprising. However, sighting along the 1/8-1/8 line is not the same as sighting along the edge-1/4 line, so it seems CTE should produce different aiming solutions for them.

...the transition seems to work from A to B to 1/8 without skipping any specific cut angles or shots.

As you probably know by now, I don't believe this is possible.

I know on paper there seems like there can be only 6, or 8, or 10, or 11 specific cut angles (depending on which numbers you go with), but at the table it just doesn't work that way. Why is still a mystery to me, so I'm agnostic for now on the feel vs geometry issue, but it works.

This is where CTE users get illogical. The logical thing would be to assume that the most obvious answer (that CTE is substantially feel based) is true until something indicates oherwise. Yet CTE users (including you?) want to assume the logically obvious answer is untrue until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's logically backwards, and indicates a strong prejudice against the very idea that feel is involved.

Why are CTE users so allergic to the possibility that their system is substantially feel based? It's not a crime, is it? Since it works so well for you either way, what's the objection? I would think that CTE users should be the most interested in learning the truth of the matter, but they seem the most resistant to approaching it objectively.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Do you really think we are leaving out cut angles? With all the excitement and the many testimonials do you really think we can only make shots from 6 angles? Seriously go to the table work on it and come back in a few weeks.

Seriously, try to say something in one of your posts sometime. But don't do it for me; I won't see it.

Bye.

pj <- another content-free CTE poster into the bit bin
chgo

 

[JoeyA]

Well, 1/8-1/8 it is the same CB/OB alignment as edge-1/4, so it wouldn't be that surprising. However, sighting along the 1/8-1/8 line is not the same as sighting along the edge-1/4 line, so it seems CTE should produce different aiming solutions for them.


As you probably know by now, I don't believe this is possible.


This is where CTE users get illogical. The logical thing would be to assume that the most obvious answer (that CTE is substantially feel based) is true until something indicates oherwise. Yet CTE users (including you?) want to assume the logically obvious answer is untrue until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's logically backwards, and indicates a strong prejudice against the very idea that feel is involved.

Why are CTE users so allergic to the possibility that their system is substantially feel based? It's not a crime, is it? Since it works so well for you either way, what's the objection? I would think that CTE users should be the most interested in learning the truth of the matter, but they seem the most resistant to approaching it objectively.

pj
chgo

Why don't you learn to play well with CTE/Pro One? Seriously....you spend an incredible amount of time thinking about it, writing about it, why not become proficient with it?

You seem to have so many questions about it. Maybe your questions would all be answered if you could play well with it, then you could share your findings with us.

JoeyA

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I've learned a lot about billiard through this forum,

The most valuable thing to learn here is how to select the good info and ignore the bad. Generally, the good info is simple and straightforward, like pool. If it's confusing or complicated, there's a good chance it isn't true - especially in discussions about how to aim.

pj
chgo

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

Maybe when he hits that ignore button he considers that a win?

IDK, but I made no derrogatory statements nor did I call him any names I was simply pointing out the holes in so called "anologies" that he was comparing CTE to (you can go back and read the posts, I don't have many on here yet) and trying to decifer is "logic" and then says I don't understand the topic so I go in the bit bin.

I wonder how he deals with this in real life. Because had we had the same convo in person and he puts me on "ignore," there would be a size 13 steel toe up is back side...if you catch my drift....

He won't ever accept any facts you lay our for him. He keeps asking for it, gets it, then claims it's nonsense. But my question to him is WHERE IS YOUR PROOF GENIUS? And no your "logic" doesn't mean sh*t.

 

[cookie man]

Seriously, try to say something in one of your posts sometime. But don't do it for me; I won't see it.

Bye.

pj <- another content-free CTE poster into the bit bin
chgo

Put me in your bit bin, so what. I'll still dispute your idiotic logic.
Pj
should be eating crow
not filling up his bit bin.

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

Put me in your bit bin, so what. I'll still dispute your idiotic logic.
Pj
should be eating crow
not filling up his bit bin.

See what I mean, question him just a little and he gets his panties in a bunch.

Go cry home to momma PJ.

Party in the bit bin at Cookie's place, I'll provide the booze.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Why don't you learn to play well with CTE/Pro One?

Because I understand it and (fortunately) have no need for it. I already have an effective aiming method (not a system) that doesn't rely on "things that can't be explained". I also have no need for aiming with light reflections, shadows or phases of the moon.

I suppose it's nice for you to like CTE so much that you post nothing but advertisements for it. Too bad it's made you a completely uninteresting (and not so credible) poster.

pj
chgo

 

[champ2107]

Because I understand it and (fortunately) have no need for it. I already have an effective aiming method (not a system) that doesn't rely on "things that can't be explained". I also have no need for aiming with light reflections, shadows or phases of the moon.

I suppose it's nice for you to like CTE so much that you post nothing but advertisements for it. Too bad it's made you a completely uninteresting (and not so credible) poster.

pj
chgo

We have read how you understand it in the above posts, lmao

 

[eezbank]

Because I understand it and (fortunately) have no need for it. I already have an effective aiming method (not a system) that doesn't rely on "things that can't be explained". I also have no need for aiming with light reflections, shadows or phases of the moon.

I suppose it's nice for you to like CTE so much that you post nothing but advertisements for it. Too bad it's made you a completely uninteresting (and not so credible) poster.

pj
chgo

An object ball can be cut from 1 degree to about 87 degrees. Since you say that CTE has only 6 cut angles covered, which of the other 81 degrees are consistenly going to be missed?* List them.

 

[eezbank]

IDK, but I made no derrogatory statements nor did I call him any names I was simply pointing out the holes in so called "anologies" that he was comparing CTE to (you can go back and read the posts, I don't have many on here yet) and trying to decifer is "logic" and then says I don't understand the topic so I go in the bit bin.

I wonder how he deals with this in real life. Because had we had the same convo in person and he puts me on "ignore," there would be a size 13 steel toe up is back side...if you catch my drift....

He won't ever accept any facts you lay our for him. He keeps asking for it, gets it, then claims it's nonsense. But my question to him is WHERE IS YOUR PROOF GENIUS? And no your "logic" doesn't mean sh*t.

Are you really on ignore or does he just say you're going to the "bit bin" to discourage you from debating his nonsensical point of view? :thumbup:

 

[Neil]

Because I understand it and (fortunately) have no need for it. I already have an effective aiming method (not a system) that doesn't rely on "things that can't be explained". I also have no need for aiming with light reflections, shadows or phases of the moon.

I suppose it's nice for you to like CTE so much that you post nothing but advertisements for it. Too bad it's made you a completely uninteresting (and not so credible) poster.

pj
chgo

You have got to be kidding me! Your method, or system, (which it is, despite the fact that you won't even acknowledge that) explains almost nothing! All of your technical explanations amount to "feel". Please explain "feel". And, if it is the same as the rest of the universe, it means "take an educated guess". If your "feel" is on that day, you might make some shots, if it's not "on", good luck.

 

[Mikjary]

Because I understand it and (fortunately) have no need for it. I already have an effective aiming method (not a system) that doesn't rely on "things that can't be explained". I also have no need for aiming with light reflections, shadows or phases of the moon.

I suppose it's nice for you to like CTE so much that you post nothing but advertisements for it. Too bad it's made you a completely uninteresting (and not so credible) poster.

pj
chgo

As soon as you learn to use the words, "visual intelligence", and start learning the details of the system, will your ideas be accepted by the users. Your insistence on down playing the system with the catch all phrase, "feel", is about as precise as the explanations you ridicule from the Cte/Pro One users.

You want to play in the pool? Don't piss in it! Put me in the bit bin. I want to go to the party, too. :thumbup:

Best,
Mike