PRO ONE for Dummies, using *GASP* a diagram.

[rubell]

Perhaps it's not obvious (with you, I'm guessing very little is obvious), but I am a proponent. I have a BS Mechanical Engineering degree from the highest rated Private Engineering College in the US for something like 13 years running with the US News & World Report annual survey. Now given Australia's world wide recognition for their technology and science (LMAO), I'm sure that doesn't seem like much in comparison to you. To be blunt mate, based upon your postings here, I doubt you could even be the Janitor at my Alma Mater. Thanks for the entertainment though, it is hilarious viewing somebody who thinks they're brilliant make a complete fool of themselves.

I think you've been riding too many kangaroos mate and it's addled your brain a bit.

nobcitypool. You are saying you have a BS degree in a highest rated College in the US in some category but your words are telling you did not learn what is valued a lot in the US, which is tolerance to people of other nationalities. Making such remarks about people based on nationality? Are you serious? You are living in the past and the civilization is moving forward. The person who is making fool of himself is you.

You missed the whole point of Colin's messages.

 

[nobcitypool]

Rubell, post your address and I'll send you 50 cents so you can call somebody that cares what you think.

 

[JB Cases]

1958. My first exposure to pool was when I was 15 yrs old walking with my dad down an alley in Front Royal, VA. He went in but I was not old enough to enter. It was in the summertime; the windows were open and I remember this character, sounding like a trombone prancing around the pool table playing nine-ball and popping balls into the pockets. I retained that imagery until I returned home and built my pool table scenario. The pool table was our rectangular kitchen table that had a painted surface. I placed those small-sized cereal and pudding boxes on the table as rails. My dad's large marble-like checkers were the balls. The cue stick was a sliver of wood from the bottom of the window shade. Since there was no roll, I had to hit them with authority. The latter was a pretty good lesson-learned. My next exposure to pool was with my brother who lived with Great Aunt Virgie on the other side of the Shenandoah River. However, I had to bicycle 5 miles north to town on the west side of the river and then 5 miles south on the east side. The pool table was just a miniature and the balls were not nearly as large but we learned geometry and physics without even knowing it. Much later in life, an acquaintance asked, "You play good pool because you have a math degree, huh?" I said, "No, the only relative thing I learned from math is the scientific label for what I already knew." Not education, experience! - Surfer Rod Curry, RIP

 

[rubell]

Great! Then awaken your perception to real CTE and then you can have a proper foundation to examine why real CTE connects to a regulation table.
CTE is a visual system and there is a strong probability that the math will never be uncovered but even as I type there are efforts in place to further understand the math behind the reason that CTE does in fact connect one's aim to right angles on a. 2x1 table .
Stan Shuffett

Stan, I believe it is math with a lot of probability theory and other parts of mathematics plus studies on human perception and training. Even if someone comes with a mathematical model, this model shall have some inputs/variables and the human factor is huge in shot making. That's why I think nobody yet came with some good explanation why it works. There is no doubt CTE Pro One works and no system requires to know details how and why it works. Personally for me, it is a question of curiosity. I like knowing how things work and when I master the system, some solution might come to my mind. :smile: By the way, I feel a strong connection between pockets when I do bank shots with CTE. Very often the ball goes to some pocket and the good part, finding what spin and speed to use does not take a lot of time. It is like it is very natural.

 

[ps611846]

Rubell, Colin and ZEROpack, congratulations. You've made my ignore list. That level of trolling has previously been achieved by only one troll, English. You're in select company.

No, no, no !!!!! "Primo" was the "super troll" !!!!!!! I don't think these guys are trolls. At least Anthony and Collin are very good pool players !!! And I am not kidding.

 

[SpiderWebComm]

It's devolved to ad hominems.

The puppet masters of your imagination are rolling in their imaginary 3D perceptions.

... and balls are warping into pockets center-hole.

I'd bet my LIFE that CTE is a geometrically perfect system. Why? Because I try as hard as possible to be objective and not to adjust and balls from WEIRD places go center-hole... as well as banks.

Pool is out-come based... if you objectively do X, Y and Z and the process puts a ball in center-hole... the system is perfect. It's better to start from that end and work forward than to do the opposite. I don't think there's been a good way to connect the aspect of 3D perception, 3D perspective illusions and 2D geometry... which is why we always get to the point of name calling in these BS thread.

Math guy says... "explain WHY the ball goes center hole"

Player says.... "....fvck....dunno....it just does."

Math guys says.... "Well you CAN'T be doing the same objective procedure... it's IMPOSSIBLE"

Player says.... "...but, but.... I AM!!!"

Math guy says...." You MUST be adjusting!!!"

Player says.... "I'm NOT!!!! The ball just goes!"

Math guy says.... "Hogwash.....it's snake oil."

Since no one on this site can really figure out how to tackle the math in a way that ties in perception and perspective, the "math guys" or "contrarians" try to prove why CTE "ISN'T" when the REAL approach should be collaborating to find out why CTE "IS"." The reason for this is the odds are MUCH better that the players' and math guys' understanding of how to connect geometry/perception/perspective isn't good enough for the job versus scores and scores of players (who are stand-up, honest guys) having mass hallucinations.

If scores of players swear on objectivity and have center-pocket results from a huge % of pool shots, that equates to "GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT" with the caveat that the math is unknown (in regards to a detailed mathematical proof). Since pool is outcome based (DID THE BALL GO OR NOT), let's focus on that and work backwards to study the specifics of PERCEPTION, the math behind 3D perspective and connect both to geometry.

There is ZERO question that the system not only works, it works at such an insane level it just wasn't meant to be. We're SOOO not even CLOSE to discussing the root cause of the WHY in this thread it's a joke. We're picking at surface crap that are pretty much all red-herrings. If we joined up to analyze the WHY it WORKS... we'd get so farther as a community.

Forget the bullsh1t politics and vested interests. Stop the name calling. Make a concerted effort to learn the above items and really figure out what Hal knew before his dimensia took hold. I'd bet my LIFE it wasn't that he knew that everyone would have mass hallucinations based on sub-conscious FEEL.

P.S. I asked Hal HOW it works....

His response was, "It's too complicated to explain. It's a 3D proof."
My response was, "Try me.. I'm OK with geometry."
His response was, "Did the ball go in the hole?"
Me, "Yeah, Hal."
Him: "THEN STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!"

 

[Neil]

It's the math savvy folks that have the most doubts. I've a BSc.Hons from Australia's premier university. Other doubters have much higher qualifications.

Can anyone name me a single CTE proponent, ie, not one who just perceives some value in it, who has a strong math background?

Well Colin, you have a high math background, so it seems you should also be somewhat scientific. However, it seems like your scientific method is akin to todays pseudo-science practitioners. I say that, because you sure seem to have things backwards.

In real science, one observes, and then tries to learn the how and why's. In pseudo-science, one says "I can't find the how's and why's, so it doesn't exist". You call CTE a religion. How apt! People say the same things about God that you say about CTE- that is, "I can't figure out how it is supposed to work mathematically, so it must not be real". You, and they, say this despite the evidence right under their noses! You choose to ignore the evidence because you don't understand the "how". Instead of saying "Here's the evidence, there has to be some way of finding the math behind it."

Quite frankly, I only have a high school level of math. Yet, even with only that, I know enough to know that the math behind CTE will require a full study in several fields. The first thing you have to do, is figure out how to apply the math to our vision perception. I suspect, once one is able to do that (and not sure that even can be done at this time), then, the rest of it shouldn't be to hard to figure out mathematically.

 

[8pack]

Rubell, Colin and ZEROpack, congratulations. You've made my ignore list. That level of trolling has previously been achieved by only one troll, English. You're in select company.

ZEROpack....Has a certain ring to it,I like it.:smile:

Thanks Nob nOb.

 

[BeiberLvr]

All I know is this.

If Pro One users are making adjustments, then they're really damn good at adjusting.

 

[Gerry Williams]

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, so I know a little math

It's the math savvy folks that have the most doubts. I've a BSc.Hons from Australia's premier university. Other doubters have much higher qualifications.

Can anyone name me a single CTE proponent, ie, not one who just perceives some value in it, who has a strong math background?

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Rubell, post your address and I'll send you 50 cents so you can call somebody that cares what you think.

Unless you have something substantial to add to this conversation, your next post might be your last for a long time.

 

[LAMas]

Well I have spent the money. Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) Stan says Perception many times thought out the video. Perception is based on what one sees and and believes to be true.

2) Most shots will of coarse find a pocket using a hit of 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, one two or three rails. Now add a variable of a tip of left or right a change of bridge length and one should be able to make most any shot. Oh ya lets not forget the all important vary the speed.

3) Some of Stan's examples are flawed in the presentation. One that stood out is on disk 2 in chap.4 approx.15:50. Explaining why two identical parallel shots do not give the same results with CTE on a rectangular surface. Note first shot is slower, it does hit the rail meaning it did not track to pocket
the shot was also hit thicker see point of impact on rail.
2nd shot was a little firmer and thinner. Had there been a rail there it would have hit rather similar in location.

This POST is NOT intended to BASH Stan's presentation of CTE yet to highlight the point that this aiming system TO ME appears as Stan many times stated is based largely on perception. So how you perceive the shot effects how the shot is preformed by the body and mind.
Stan has put time, effort and money into producing this video there is a monetary point to this and other systems like TOI. Stan has responded to every PM promptly and if location distance was less I would certainly entertain lesson.

Welcome to the thread.

 

[stan shuffett]

... and balls are warping into pockets center-hole.

I'd bet my LIFE that CTE is a geometrically perfect system. Why? Because I try as hard as possible to be objective and not to adjust and balls from WEIRD places go center-hole... as well as banks.

Pool is out-come based... if you objectively do X, Y and Z and the process puts a ball in center-hole... the system is perfect. It's better to start from that end and work forward than to do the opposite. I don't think there's been a good way to connect the aspect of 3D perception, 3D perspective illusions and 2D geometry... which is why we always get to the point of name calling in these BS thread.

Math guy says... "explain WHY the ball goes center hole"

Player says.... "....fvck....dunno....it just does."

Math guys says.... "Well you CAN'T be doing the same objective procedure... it's IMPOSSIBLE"

Player says.... "...but, but.... I AM!!!"

Math guy says...." You MUST be adjusting!!!"

Player says.... "I'm NOT!!!! The ball just goes!"

Math guy says.... "Hogwash.....it's snake oil."

Since no one on this site can really figure out how to tackle the math in a way that ties in perception and perspective, the "math guys" or "contrarians" try to prove why CTE "ISN'T" when the REAL approach should be collaborating to find out why CTE "IS"." The reason for this is the odds are MUCH better that the players' and math guys' understanding of how to connect geometry/perception/perspective isn't good enough for the job versus scores and scores of players (who are stand-up, honest guys) having mass hallucinations.

If scores of players swear on objectivity and have center-pocket results from a huge % of pool shots, that equates to "GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT" with the caveat that the math is unknown (in regards to a detailed mathematical proof). Since pool is outcome based (DID THE BALL GO OR NOT), let's focus on that and work backwards to study the specifics of PERCEPTION, the math behind 3D perspective and connect both to geometry.

There is ZERO question that the system not only works, it works at such an insane level it just wasn't meant to be. We're SOOO not even CLOSE to discussing the root cause of the WHY in this thread it's a joke. We're picking at surface crap that are pretty much all red-herrings. If we joined up to analyze the WHY it WORKS... we'd get so farther as a community.

Forget the bullsh1t politics and vested interests. Stop the name calling. Make a concerted effort to learn the above items and really figure out what Hal knew before his dimensia took hold. I'd bet my LIFE it wasn't that he knew that everyone would have mass hallucinations based on sub-conscious FEEL.

P.S. I asked Hal HOW it works....

His response was, "It's too complicated to explain. It's a 3D proof."
My response was, "Try me.. I'm OK with geometry."
His response was, "Did the ball go in the hole?"
Me, "Yeah, Hal."
Him: "THEN STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!"

Great post, Dave!

 

[stan shuffett]

Well Colin, you have a high math background, so it seems you should also be somewhat scientific. However, it seems like your scientific method is akin to todays pseudo-science practitioners. I say that, because you sure seem to have things backwards.

In real science, one observes, and then tries to learn the how and why's. In pseudo-science, one says "I can't find the how's and why's, so it doesn't exist". You call CTE a religion. How apt! People say the same things about God that you say about CTE- that is, "I can't figure out how it is supposed to work mathematically, so it must not be real". You, and they, say this despite the evidence right under their noses! You choose to ignore the evidence because you don't understand the "how". Instead of saying "Here's the evidence, there has to be some way of finding the math behind it."

Quite frankly, I only have a high school level of math. Yet, even with only that, I know enough to know that the math behind CTE will require a full study in several fields. The first thing you have to do, is figure out how to apply the math to our vision perception. I suspect, once one is able to do that (and not sure that even can be done at this time), then, the rest of it shouldn't be to hard to figure out mathematically.

Neil, Nice post

Stan Shuffett

 

[LAMas]

This is for the head scratchers, trying to get some concept of what is going on with all this CTE and PRO ONE stuff. No doubt some in the faith will poo poo such a simple explanation as it doesn't involve any magical geometry.

The shot below is for a fullish left cut, where upon Edge to A, or Edge to 3/4 OB left side is used in conjunction with the CTE line to establish the mysterious visual... which by magical coincidence happens to be pretty close to where most players align on cut shots, which is a little too full, in the proximity of the contact point.

The sweep, rotation, pivot follows, which established a thinner cut line... hmmm, just like TOI.

A bit of practice and you'll be pre-aligning like a CTE master in no time. :thumbup:

This is just my opinion...assuming we're still free to have one around here. I share in the interest of both learning and helping others to make sense of some of the 'hard to understand & believe' claims made by CTE'ers.

Colin,
Is the red line on the right (CTE) visualized with the right eye?
Is the red line on the left (~A) visualized with the left eye?

As the OB is moved farther downtable and appears to become smaller, does that change the perception and move that line and perhaps one's stance farther to the left to remain on the new ~A?

Happy New Year all.

 

[rubell]

If scores of players swear on objectivity and have center-pocket results from a huge % of pool shots, that equates to "GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT" with the caveat that the math is unknown (in regards to a detailed mathematical proof). Since pool is outcome based (DID THE BALL GO OR NOT), let's focus on that and work backwards to study the specifics of PERCEPTION, the math behind 3D perspective and connect both to geometry.

Completely agree. I think the sweep shall be included into consideration too because this is what brings one to the shooting line.

 

[8pack]

... and balls are warping into pockets center-hole.

I'd bet my LIFE that CTE is a geometrically perfect system. Why? Because I try as hard as possible to be objective and not to adjust and balls from WEIRD places go center-hole... as well as banks.

Pool is out-come based... if you objectively do X, Y and Z and the process puts a ball in center-hole... the system is perfect. It's better to start from that end and work forward than to do the opposite. I don't think there's been a good way to connect the aspect of 3D perception, 3D perspective illusions and 2D geometry... which is why we always get to the point of name calling in these BS thread.

Math guy says... "explain WHY the ball goes center hole"

Player says.... "....fvck....dunno....it just does."

Math guys says.... "Well you CAN'T be doing the same objective procedure... it's IMPOSSIBLE"

Player says.... "...but, but.... I AM!!!"

Math guy says...." You MUST be adjusting!!!"

Player says.... "I'm NOT!!!! The ball just goes!"

Math guy says.... "Hogwash.....it's snake oil."

Since no one on this site can really figure out how to tackle the math in a way that ties in perception and perspective, the "math guys" or "contrarians" try to prove why CTE "ISN'T" when the REAL approach should be collaborating to find out why CTE "IS"." The reason for this is the odds are MUCH better that the players' and math guys' understanding of how to connect geometry/perception/perspective isn't good enough for the job versus scores and scores of players (who are stand-up, honest guys) having mass hallucinations.

If scores of players swear on objectivity and have center-pocket results from a huge % of pool shots, that equates to "GEOMETRICALLY CORRECT" with the caveat that the math is unknown (in regards to a detailed mathematical proof). Since pool is outcome based (DID THE BALL GO OR NOT), let's focus on that and work backwards to study the specifics of PERCEPTION, the math behind 3D perspective and connect both to geometry.

There is ZERO question that the system not only works, it works at such an insane level it just wasn't meant to be. We're SOOO not even CLOSE to discussing the root cause of the WHY in this thread it's a joke. We're picking at surface crap that are pretty much all red-herrings. If we joined up to analyze the WHY it WORKS... we'd get so farther as a community.

Forget the bullsh1t politics and vested interests. Stop the name calling. Make a concerted effort to learn the above items and really figure out what Hal knew before his dimensia took hold. I'd bet my LIFE it wasn't that he knew that everyone would have mass hallucinations based on sub-conscious FEEL.

P.S. I asked Hal HOW it works....

His response was, "It's too complicated to explain. It's a 3D proof."
My response was, "Try me.. I'm OK with geometry."
His response was, "Did the ball go in the hole?"
Me, "Yeah, Hal."
Him: "THEN STOP ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS!!!"

If you did everything with exactness I dont agree. You would see the truth.
Here's what you and I have going for us I also feel this should happen know matter how you connect the ball's.Once the connection begins there's time when you let go and let the mind take over.(until the shot looks rite)
Maybe us being human and not perfect is really a good thing.

Just my opinion. Anthony

 

[JB Cases]

If you did everything with exactness I dont agree. You would see the truth.
Here's what you and I have going for us I also feel this should happen know matter how you connect the ball's.Once the connection begins there's time when you let go and let the mind take over.(until the shot looks rite)
Maybe us being human and not perfect is really a good thing.

Just my opinion. Anthony

In my opinion there are a lot of shots where I use CTE and I have no clue if it's right or not. I just trust the line and the ball goes in. Then there are some where I get on the line and I consciously adjust the hit because of what I want to do with the cue ball. Then there are others where I still second guess the line and try to steer the ball.

But I don't believe that using CTE just gets you close and then the mind takes over. If so then it's so damn close that any adjustment is so small that it is truly not measurable. If that close then it's still the system doing what it's advertised to do.

Here is a bigger problem, when you are given the perfect shot line then it's really easy to dog the shot with a poor stroke. In essence perfect shot lines amplify stroke issues.

CTE is conscious and if followed strictly it produces perfect shot lines every time. But a poor stroke, poor stance, second guessing, steering, etc...dogs shots.

 

[8pack]

In my opinion there are a lot of shots where I use CTE and I have no clue if it's right or not. I just trust the line and the ball goes in. Then there are some where I get on the line and I consciously adjust the hit because of what I want to do with the cue ball. Then there are others where I still second guess the line and try to steer the ball.

But I don't believe that using CTE just gets you close and then the mind takes over. If so then it's so damn close that any adjustment is so small that it is truly not measurable. If that close then it's still the system doing what it's advertised to do.

Here is a bigger problem, when you are given the perfect shot line then it's really easy to dog the shot with a poor stroke. In essence perfect shot lines amplify stroke issues.

CTE is conscious and if followed strictly it produces perfect shot lines every time. But a poor stroke, poor stance, second guessing, steering, etc...dogs shots.

Were dealing with a '1 1/8 ,the ball has 4 aim spots, add human error.I would say your close or on the money.

Bottom line we make it or any system what they are.

 

[Colin Colenso]

Colin, can I ask something? The great Francisco Bustamante said that he uses an "aiming system". You can find the TAR video with Alex Pagulayan on youtube. In my opinion he is the best shotmaker in the world. And he plays any game including bank pool !!!! Do you think he knows the "math" that stands behind the system he uses ???

Panagiotis

Yes, I'm aware that Busta uses some system/s. His pivot to the CB appears similar to CTE. I don't know the details of it, but I agree, he doesn't need to know the math, or geometric logic.

Though I'm sure if he explained it, the analytical types would investigate the geometric logic.