Now that the dvd has been out for several months, is there more or less "buzz" about it? Are there many new people in support of the cte method than before the dvd was released? Is there any conclusion to the many cte debates?
PRO ONE DVD: Answering Questions
- Thread starter stan shuffett
- Start date
Currently, I'm inclined to the first (offset to the CTE line), abetted by the second (other visual or geometric part).
I too would prefer to alter the offset and maintain a comfortable 12” bridge behind the CB. I prefer that the secondary fractional aim points pre-pivot on the OB yield the same cut angle regardless of the separation between the CB and OB.
On paper, I have diagrammed various scenarios – moving the OB 1 foot away, 2 feet away, 3 and 4 away – more than that the offsets become very tiny for the OB appears to be very tine when compared to the CB just in front of my bridge and my eyes about 2 feet behind my bridge.
For any fractional aim point on the OB, the offset is very large when the CB and OB are close together up to 2.5 cue tip diameters at one foot separation between the CB and OB. At 2 feet the offset drops to ½ cue tip dia. And 0.1 cue tip dia. when the separation is 4 feet. This is comfortable to me at the table.
I diagrammed the other cut angles based on the ½ tip offset for the other secondary aim points with similar results where for a thick cut the range is more narrow like 1.5 cue tip dia. At 1 foot separations, ½ tip at 2 feet and .05 cue tip dia. for a 4 foot separation.
I also view the edge of the CB to the secondary aim points on the OB with the eye closest to the pocket/target and stroke between my eyes under the center of my chin - ~ 1.125” to the side of the secondary aiming eye.
I don't distinguish much between the "visual" and "geometric" parts. The geometry of the alignment, bridge placement, and pivot-to-center-CB process is based solely on what the player sees (and visualizes).
Different strokes for different folks.
As for other interpretations of the visual data, humans are (or can learn to be) fairly good at distinguishing small angles. In the context of manual CTE, the question would then be "To what extent, if at all, does the visual difference between a 16-degree cut and a 29-degree cut affect (perhaps subconsciously) the way in which the player initially aligns themselves to visualize the CTE and secondary aim lines?" (Those two angles were chosen because their prescribed alignments are the same.) For example, would it cause the player to approach the CTE line at 35 degrees instead of 30 degrees? At the moment, I have no idea, though I'd be a bit surprised if was no influence whatsoever.
I approach/diagram always starting aligned with the CTE line and the move my secondary aiming eye, head and body until the edge of the CB is lined up with the fractional aim points on the OB that I recall from my diagrams and time at the table.
I one uses a different bridge distance behind the CB or strokes under the aiming eye or the dominant eye, then the results will be different, but whatever the resulting cut angles are, the should be remembered for recalling later.
Is there something else at work which isn't understood? If CTE is like most things, the answer has to be "probably - that's one of the things we're trying to find out".
To get consistent results, one needs to be consistent in the mechanics of all of the elements.
It works for me, but I’m probably wrong for I didn’t buy or have the DVD. Months ago I said that it works using what I read from Hal’s instructions and other posters here that explained how they used CTE back then.
I too would prefer to alter the offset and maintain a comfortable 12” bridge behind the CB. I prefer that the secondary fractional aim points pre-pivot on the OB yield the same cut angle regardless of the separation between the CB and OB.
On paper, I have diagrammed various scenarios – moving the OB 1 foot away, 2 feet away, 3 and 4 away – more than that the offsets become very tiny for the OB appears to be very tine when compared to the CB just in front of my bridge and my eyes about 2 feet behind my bridge.
For any fractional aim point on the OB, the offset is very large when the CB and OB are close together up to 2.5 cue tip diameters at one foot separation between the CB and OB. At 2 feet the offset drops to ½ cue tip dia. And 0.1 cue tip dia. when the separation is 4 feet. This is comfortable to me at the table.
I diagrammed the other cut angles based on the ½ tip offset for the other secondary aim points with similar results where for a thick cut the range is more narrow like 1.5 cue tip dia. At 1 foot separations, ½ tip at 2 feet and .05 cue tip dia. for a 4 foot separation.
I also view the edge of the CB to the secondary aim points on the OB with the eye closest to the pocket/target and stroke between my eyes under the center of my chin - ~ 1.125” to the side of the secondary aiming eye.
I don't distinguish much between the "visual" and "geometric" parts. The geometry of the alignment, bridge placement, and pivot-to-center-CB process is based solely on what the player sees (and visualizes).
Different strokes for different folks.
As for other interpretations of the visual data, humans are (or can learn to be) fairly good at distinguishing small angles. In the context of manual CTE, the question would then be "To what extent, if at all, does the visual difference between a 16-degree cut and a 29-degree cut affect (perhaps subconsciously) the way in which the player initially aligns themselves to visualize the CTE and secondary aim lines?" (Those two angles were chosen because their prescribed alignments are the same.) For example, would it cause the player to approach the CTE line at 35 degrees instead of 30 degrees? At the moment, I have no idea, though I'd be a bit surprised if was no influence whatsoever.
I approach/diagram always starting aligned with the CTE line and the move my secondary aiming eye, head and body until the edge of the CB is lined up with the fractional aim points on the OB that I recall from my diagrams and time at the table.
I one uses a different bridge distance behind the CB or strokes under the aiming eye or the dominant eye, then the results will be different, but whatever the resulting cut angles are, the should be remembered for recalling later.
Is there something else at work which isn't understood? If CTE is like most things, the answer has to be "probably - that's one of the things we're trying to find out".
To get consistent results, one needs to be consistent in the mechanics of all of the elements.
It works for me, but I’m probably wrong for I didn’t buy or have the DVD. Months ago I said that it works using what I read from Hal’s instructions and other posters here that explained how they used CTE back then.
Let's suppose the answer is "yes" to all three. All that means is that various angles can be achieved by adjusting something in the set-up. That's what we're talking about by "visual intelligence" or "feel."
The hypothetical robot, on the other hand, does not know exactly where the pocket is and does not make such adjustments. It just knows that the operator pushed the button for "A/left," and it shoots "A/left" the same way every time and gets the same cut angle every time (for a given CB-OB distance).
Last edited:
LOL. There aren't even any conclusions about what the debates are about.
pj <- we don't need no stinkeen conclusions!
chgo
You're asking about using a CTEL and an A, B, or C secondary alignment line for manual CTE and just going straight from that alignment to center CB with no pivot.
I'd say that, yes, adding that to the menu would increase the discrete number of cut angles. But I'm not sure where the A/C-with-no-pivot option and the B-with-no-pivot option would fit in with the other choices. You could just as easily increase the number of secondary alignment points on the OB.
But Stan's research obviously tells him that no additional options are needed. Once one develops the proper "visual intelligence," he is able to fill in the gaps nicely using only the A-B-C-1/8 alignment points with pivots.
Incidentally, if you like the idea of an x-angle system that does not involve any pivoting yet provides a larger number of "built-in" cut angles, I recommend CJ Wiley's "The Ultimate Aiming System" to you. But that's on another DVD.
I concur and have cut the secondary aim points on the OB into 1/8ths, 1/8, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4 and 7/8 with good results. The secondary aim points can be effected with a right offset and left pivot or a left offset with a right pivot but I found that they sometimes this result in the same cut angle, and is disgarded so I pivot from the same side.
As an example, for cuts to the left, I diagrammed a bridge distance of 12" behind the CB, 2 feet separation between the CB and OB, 1/2 tip offset to the left of center of CB pre-pivot and pivot to the right to center.
The results for the secondary aim point of 1/8 on the left is 38 degrees, 1/4 "A" is 43 deg., 1/2 "B" is 55 deg. 1/4 "C" is 75 deg. and 7/8 "1/8" is 84 degrees. These are not what Pro-1 yields it has been posted. I must doing it wrong, but no matter for it works for me.
If I insert 3/8 I get 49 deg, and 5/8 is 62 deg. So instead of 38, 43, 55, 75 and 84 degrees, I get two more cut angles for 38, 43, 49, 55, 62, 75 and 84 degree cut angles. If I can do this and the desired cut angle is in between, I can divide down to 1/16ths or cheat the 1/2 tip offset a bit or....no offset and no pivot....which I have not diagrammed yet to add my collection of cut angles "menu" or look up table. :wink:
These are all cut angles greater than 30 degrees and is what I am interested in - points on the OB and not on the cloth outside of the edge of the OB as in double distance aiming. Though I am liking pj's DD from the contact point to the edge of the OB aiming with the edge of the CB for these angles for it is more parsimonious.
Thanks.:thumbup:
Last edited:
I thought the idea was to have the robot emulate a human being. No? Your way has a human doing the decision making for the robot. That doesn't seem like a pool-playing robot to me, and it's certainly no fun.
I don't have any problem with labeling the black box "visual intelligence", "feel" or anything else people might want to call it. I just want to know what's inside it. Except maybe "etaoin" - I might have a problem with that ("shrdlu" would be ok, though).
Anyway, only the first one of those is important (the second and third follow from it). I got to thinking about it quite a while ago when someone (you?) brought up the "featureless plane". That got me to thinking about how there isn't enough information in that model to make "aiming" meaningful. Which led me to thinking about exactly what type and amount of information is needed to make it meaningful. Which led to the first question. Mostly I'm looking for ways to test things. I've generally found it useful when I can't clearly define a problem to muck about with things around it that I can clearly identify to see if something useful turns up.
LOL! Thanks - I'd forgotten about that. I'll have to get a copy - don't think my wife's ever seen it. I thought of ETAOIN SHRDLU because I've been thinking about linotype for a couple of days.
If your robot emulates a human being, then the "visual intelligence" for CTE is built into the robot (and it may even be doing things that a player using CTE could not).
[Aside: If you were trying to build a robot to pocket balls without further human instruction, I don't think you'd try to program it to do CTE or Pro-One maneuvers. You'd simply have it find the GB position (or the base of it, or the center of it, or ...) for the shot and then shoot the CB into the GB position.]
My robot is ignorant of the precise cut angle needed for a shot (because so is a player). It's just a machine that responds to a "call-out" of one of the alignment-menu options, and it then performs the set of instructions for that menu choice. And it does it exactly the same way, with precision, every time that menu item is called. So, yes, a human has to decide which menu item or instruction set my machine should use for each shot. So every time the CB-OB distance is 34 inches, and the prescription is "CTEL to right; B secondary alignment; right pivot," my machine produces the same cut angle (to the left).
Last edited:
Joey,
This is what I've been saying! If CTE/Pro One involves feel at any time, then it's an absolutely amazing "feel based" system. Many are experiencing solid results to say the least, so there must be something about the system that is giving the player the necessary input needed. I'm telling you I could never aim by feel like I can now :grin:
your the only one debating, and not doing very good at it.
IF you do not take the precise location of the pocket into account (a thing many here have claimed is not required) as you obtain your "visuals", then how can you NOT be aligned exactly the same each time? There would be absolutely nothing (again, NOT considering the precise location of the pocket) that would cause you to align yourself any differently.
Maybe CTE/Pro One should have been advertised as "THE BEST "feel" AIMING SYSTEM.
Glad you are "feeling it". LOL
JoeyA
I think that's a good way of saying it - however it works, there is obviously something that is providing the necessary "input" to our eyes/brain that is allowing those of us using it to consistently land on the proper shot line, no matter what the angle, even though on paper it looks like we are starting from only 6 reference shots per side. It's this "something" that would be nice to figure out, at least from an academic standpoint.
I keep waiting every week for something not to work, or degrade, thinking maybe this would be like those quick fix tips you get in various sports where you play great, or when you get a new piece of equipment - for a day, or two, then everything goes back to normal. But every week my perception of the visuals gets stronger and quicker and more seamlessly blends with my routine, I am trusting the shots more and more, learning new ways to use it for banks, and overall playing better. Can't imagine going back to the way I used to aim.
I know that has nothing to do with how the system works, just saying...
Scott
AtLarge,
I have diagrammed the no shift and no pivot option and the results are a "phase shift" (almost).
A mechanical discrete 1/2 cue tip dia shift and pivot to the center of the CB if executed "perfectly" can yield the cut angles that I posted earlier and those same angles can be effected without the shift and pivot.
The phase shift is 1/4 OB so the cut angle of the secondary aim point of left Edge yields a 34 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can be effected with a straight on hit at 0 + 1/4 = 1/4 aim point.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 1/8 that yields a 38 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can be effected with a straight on hit at 1/8 + 1/4 = 3/8 aim point.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 1/4 that yields a 43 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can be effected with a straight on hit at 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2 aim point.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 3/8 that yields a 49 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can be effected with a straight on hit at 3/8 + 1/4 = 5/8 aim point.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 1/2 that yields a 55 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can be effected with a straight on hit at 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 aim point.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 5/8 that yields a 62 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can almost be effected with a straight on hit at 5/8 + 1/4 = 7/8 aim point. The actual straight hit angle is 65 deg.
Now things are not linear for:
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 3/4 that yields a 75 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can almost be effected with a straight on hit at 3/4 + 3/16 (<1/4) = 15/16 aim point. The actual straight hit angle is 72 deg.
The cut angle of the secondary aim point of 7/8 that yields a 84 deg cut angle with shift and pivot can almost be effected with a straight on hit at 7/8 + 1/8 (<1/4) = Edge aim point. The actual straight hit angle is 85 deg.
So take your choice.
:thumbup:
aiming
works perfect! Great Job!!!!!!
tried them all.
Now you need a few more reference points to compensate for throw for example when balls are close together, when you are playing slowly, or when you use a punch stroke.
Don't you ruin my potential sellings of my aiming system that I want to bring out ....(worked on it for months) :grin-square:
Anyway it's a pivot system....
Best from EKKES
works perfect! Great Job!!!!!!
tried them all.
Now you need a few more reference points to compensate for throw for example when balls are close together, when you are playing slowly, or when you use a punch stroke.
Don't you ruin my potential sellings of my aiming system that I want to bring out ....(worked on it for months) :grin-square:
Anyway it's a pivot system....
Best from EKKES
Last edited:
LAMas -- I certainly do admire your persistence in looking for alternatives.
With your no-shift/no-pivot "phase shift" approach, are you really now talking about secondary alignment lines, or just single alignment lines. In other words, are you still sighting CTE plus those other lines, or are you kind of ignoring the CTEL and just sighting the other, single line. Certainly for the last few alignments, I doubt you could simultaneously sight two lines, as the CTE would want to be way off into space past the OB.
So it kind of sounds to me like you're just arriving at a straightforward x-angle aiming system where you aim the edge of the CB at one of 8 reference points on the OB: 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8, 15/16, and edge-to-edge. So that would give you 8 cut angles in each direction, plus straight.
If you tried to overlay this on top of, say, Stan's CTE method, producing offsets and pivots for some shots but not others, I think it might be hopelessly difficult to discern, distinguish, and implement all of the menu choices it would present.