Nice, so you understand why I can't challenge GW because of the logistics
Yeah I have heard the term "Peeler Bar" a few times in my life.Cheers.
PRO ONE for Dummies, using *GASP* a diagram.
- Thread starter Colin Colenso
- Start date
Nice, so you understand why I can't challenge GW because of the logistics
Yeah I have heard the term "Peeler Bar" a few times in my life.Cheers.
I'm going to get Deeds to show me how to post pics. I spent an hour in the "Test" category last week and still couldn't figure out how to post em. I'll take the time to explain why the walls are not finished… Lol. I'm waiting for the new-year for your light, only cause my rates increase as of Jan. 1st 2014.
I'm someone that has been watching this from the sidelines for years and there have always been things said regarding CTE (and/or Pro One) that I just shook my head at. But I guess at this point, I don't doubt that this system works for those that praise it,but it sure can be hard to take it seriously when things like the following are said:
Stan may be right about not yet understanding the intricacies of how aiming works -- I'll give him that and certainly he has spent a lot of time trying to unwrap how this all works. However, this idea that somehow the dimensions of the table have something to do with how you go about aiming the balls just seems completely silly to me.
It is quite easy to demonstrate that the 2x1 table dimensions have absolutely nothing to do with aiming so I'm not quite sure why this notion keeps coming up. I do know this is something that Hal Houle use to believe.
Anyway, I guess the only reason I felt compelled to chime in on this was because there was always so much over-the-top hype surrounding CTE by its proponents (and its opponents). It was hard for us common guys to sort through it all in order to try and understand what was really going on. This hyperbole seemed to die down for a while and a lot of guys where really putting out some interesting ideas on here. Now it just seems like we are heading back down the path of putting out ideas that are either demonstrable false or just completely untestable.
Thanks Colin for trying to dumb this down for me.
Stan Shuffet said:
Stan may be right about not yet understanding the intricacies of how aiming works -- I'll give him that and certainly he has spent a lot of time trying to unwrap how this all works. However, this idea that somehow the dimensions of the table have something to do with how you go about aiming the balls just seems completely silly to me.
It is quite easy to demonstrate that the 2x1 table dimensions have absolutely nothing to do with aiming so I'm not quite sure why this notion keeps coming up. I do know this is something that Hal Houle use to believe.
Anyway, I guess the only reason I felt compelled to chime in on this was because there was always so much over-the-top hype surrounding CTE by its proponents (and its opponents). It was hard for us common guys to sort through it all in order to try and understand what was really going on. This hyperbole seemed to die down for a while and a lot of guys where really putting out some interesting ideas on here. Now it just seems like we are heading back down the path of putting out ideas that are either demonstrable false or just completely untestable.
Thanks Colin for trying to dumb this down for me.
One's eyes are used in a completely different manner in CTE PRO ONE compared to any other system. Real CTE allows for one to see 2 perceptions that have never been definable till recent times. Those perceptions connect with a 2 x1 table. CHANGE THE PERCEPTIONS OR THE TABLE DIMENSION AND CTE DOES NOT WORK. It is like DAVE SEGAL SAID, there is ZERO chance that CTE does not connect to table geometry. YES, SIR.. there is no other method anywhere else like it.......It is what it is, AIMING IN A NEW DIMENSION.
Stan Shuffett
Regarding the table dimensions you said:
It's simple really: Set up a shot, any shot, on a typical pool table (dimensions being 2x1). Then set the same exact shot up again, only this time remove the rails,cut off some of the slate on one end and extend it on one side, rebuild the rails, until you have a perfectly square playing surface.
Now go back to that same shot -- are you telling me you will no longer be able to find the proper visuals and address the shot, and do your proper sweep? If you can't, I guess I'm even more confused than I thought.
Gerry Williams said:
It's simple really: Set up a shot, any shot, on a typical pool table (dimensions being 2x1). Then set the same exact shot up again, only this time remove the rails,cut off some of the slate on one end and extend it on one side, rebuild the rails, until you have a perfectly square playing surface.
Now go back to that same shot -- are you telling me you will no longer be able to find the proper visuals and address the shot, and do your proper sweep? If you can't, I guess I'm even more confused than I thought.
Stan, I was able to adopt CTE Pro One for some shots and I use it 100% for bank shots. It’s much easier than trying to count diamonds.
I do not have problem with understanding which lines to use (A,B,C or others). I understand what sweep to use (I or O) and can perform it, have a foot work I like. However, I am still straggling with perception. For me, I have a hard time to align with 2 lines. If it was just one line, like in 1/8 overlap I would just stay behind it and sweep. However, with two lines unless CB and OB are of certain distance range, I cannot see lines coming from my focal point and go via proper points. What I see is asymmetric trapezium, e.g. CBE-A-OBE-CBC and I have to memorize it for each shot, which I do not like.
I remember in one video you mentioned you did not have to do it with CTE Pro One. What do I miss? Can someone describe what the shape looks like? Maybe I just CTE Pro One blind, like some people are color blind? I wish there was some 3D picture of what exactly I have to see. Again, for now I substitute it by memorizing the shapes for different shots but I would like to improve it. Is there any workaround of it?
First off - that would be an expensive experiment.
Secondly, the visuals and sweeps would no longer connect to the pockets. I remember an L shaped table in a bar once - I wish i was close to it now.
Secondly, the visuals and sweeps would no longer connect to the pockets. I remember an L shaped table in a bar once - I wish i was close to it now.
Please work chapters 6 8 and 9. Work them hard. Your experience with these chapters are Key.
Stan Shuffett
It is not necessary to remove the rails. What you speak of up can be tested quite easily on any table.
There is ZERO chance that the system works with phony placed pockets.
Stan Shuffett
I will put up on YouTube a phony pocket test later today.
Stan Shuffett
Stan Shuffett
I think the whole perception thing needs to be clarified. I'm not sure a better term might not be perspective. When you have the right visual, it isn't a perception per se, you can clearly see edge to A, CTE (for example). I believe perception makes some people believe you have to play tricks with your eyes to bring it into focus or you imagine something. That simply isn't the case. IMHO, when you have the correct "perception", it is very objective. To be sure, as I've mistakenly done it enough times, you may not be aligned properly and you allow your eyes to play some tricks in order to bring everything into the "proper focus". I can tell you from 100's of missed shots, this method of "perceiving" doesn't work. I guess the perception part of it could be that once you have this clear, objective visual, you have a perception of the line of the CB to the OB. However, if you are aligned properly when you have the correct visual, you don't need to perceive, you simply drop down and make your visual sweep right or left.
Stan, it's your system and I assume you came up with the idea of calling it a perception. I for one would be curious why you are calling it a perception, the term is used often.
I am going to go out of a limb here and speculate that part of the reason you get a different "perception" for different CB/OB relationships is alignment. I have spent considerable time trying to figure it out and have no provable logic for it. However, it is 100% totally obvious it is there. All you need to do is put the CB in the same spot. Set up the OB for a very thick cut and look at it. Set up the OB for a thin cut that is near the limit of a ETA - CTE or ETC - CTE visual. The moment you step up to it, you see the difference in the "perception". It is frankly a bit mind boggling. If you think the pockets are so critical, then how is it CTE/Pro One works so well with banking?
The myth of minor adjustments being made is mind boggling but I understand the doubt as I too had to wonder about it at one time. When I'm practicing, once my visual is established, I rarely look at the OB at all. It would be impossible for me to be making adjustments once I'm down on the shot because I'm not looking at the OB. The other thing is, if I were going down and tweeking everything, what value is CTE/Pro One anyway?
I think if I hadn't have been an engineering analytical type, I would have probably grasped the system much quicker. Now, I don't need analysis, the results are so factually clear I simply don't care.
Stan, it's your system and I assume you came up with the idea of calling it a perception. I for one would be curious why you are calling it a perception, the term is used often.
I am going to go out of a limb here and speculate that part of the reason you get a different "perception" for different CB/OB relationships is alignment. I have spent considerable time trying to figure it out and have no provable logic for it. However, it is 100% totally obvious it is there. All you need to do is put the CB in the same spot. Set up the OB for a very thick cut and look at it. Set up the OB for a thin cut that is near the limit of a ETA - CTE or ETC - CTE visual. The moment you step up to it, you see the difference in the "perception". It is frankly a bit mind boggling. If you think the pockets are so critical, then how is it CTE/Pro One works so well with banking?
The myth of minor adjustments being made is mind boggling but I understand the doubt as I too had to wonder about it at one time. When I'm practicing, once my visual is established, I rarely look at the OB at all. It would be impossible for me to be making adjustments once I'm down on the shot because I'm not looking at the OB. The other thing is, if I were going down and tweeking everything, what value is CTE/Pro One anyway?
I think if I hadn't have been an engineering analytical type, I would have probably grasped the system much quicker. Now, I don't need analysis, the results are so factually clear I simply don't care.
Last edited:
I reverse engineer shots and have a good memory to remember the trapezuims I mentioned. After that I do not need pockets. However, I would like to simplify the process and remove the memorization part. I guess it comes with experience then.
Last edited:
Doing it. Thanks. It looks I need to train my eyes more so I am able to recognize it.
I would think CTE perception is fundamentally based on pockets at the corners of a perfect square. Hence the 90, 45 and 15 degree lines. If you take a perfectly square table with four pockets at the corners, I think CTE will still work fine. The shot that was long to the corner becomes a bank to the opposite corner. I'm sure the L shaped bar table would be very receptive to CTE, as it follows the same fundamental shape rules and shot lines. I cannot verify any of this without such tables but it makes sense. Stan demonstrates fundamental perception on a plain rectangular surface too.
Yes, a 2x1 table has 2 squares essentially consisting of eight 90 degree angles. CTE PRO ONE works on either square or both together. 14.1 at a high level is at times largely played on one square.
Stan Shuffett
I would like someone to clarify a few things for me if they can objective. One approaches the table they must SEE the/a pocket to consider which angle A,B,C,1/8,7/8 would best be used to make OB ball.
I'll bite on the fact that is highly possibly that any ball can be made in some pocket given this and a little english coupled with correct speed using this system. But that is not always an option do the all the other balls also on the table.
You approach the table to shoot, so a choice is made looks maybe 20* a little more referenced from CB straight line to OB to pocket right or left to pocket. I assume these things must be taken into consideration. yes/no
I get CTE and ETA,B,C etc those are easy for me to pick up together (I think). Next look down at CB to pick center ball ? this is where this go !$%%&(*&(^)(^*&^*...
Seem like at times I look , choose best option, align, sweep and bang center pocket may go 4-5 balls,,,but I usually shot quick and firm using this approach. but then miss,miss, miss.
Frustration apart of trying something different....YEP
I'm sure one on one Stan could help explain some of these hard to write questions and thoughts..As most instructors came pick up on what you may preceive correct but is not. But with only the DVD's the task becomes tougher
I'll bite on the fact that is highly possibly that any ball can be made in some pocket given this and a little english coupled with correct speed using this system. But that is not always an option do the all the other balls also on the table.
You approach the table to shoot, so a choice is made looks maybe 20* a little more referenced from CB straight line to OB to pocket right or left to pocket. I assume these things must be taken into consideration. yes/no
I get CTE and ETA,B,C etc those are easy for me to pick up together (I think). Next look down at CB to pick center ball ? this is where this go !$%%&(*&(^)(^*&^*...
Seem like at times I look , choose best option, align, sweep and bang center pocket may go 4-5 balls,,,but I usually shot quick and firm using this approach. but then miss,miss, miss.
Frustration apart of trying something different....YEP
I'm sure one on one Stan could help explain some of these hard to write questions and thoughts..As most instructors came pick up on what you may preceive correct but is not. But with only the DVD's the task becomes tougher
Last edited:
