Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems

(long...)

Been trying to stay out of the fray on these threads, but I thought I would add my two cents (maybe a couple bucks...):

Got the DVD, was confused enough initially to where I turned it off about 1/2 way through, it wasn't making sense to me where to aim or align, when to use which aim point or pivot, etc. I reached out to Dave, Joey, and John B. with some questions, they were all helpful in trying to explain or clarify things. I tried some things at the table, some limited success visualizing things and making some balls but was just okay. I rewatched the first half of the DVD (manual CTE portion), reread the email replies I received, read through a bunch of posts here, and tried again. Still just okay, wasn't quite getting it, it wasn't specific enough for me I guess, brain still wanting to know how it worked and why.

At someone's suggestion, I watched the DVD again and diagrammed all of the reference shots in the first half of the DVD and took it to the table. I have to say I was able to make most of the reference shots within one or two attempts using the visuals and pivots provided, and some of the shots were shots where I sometimes would see the ball thinner or thicker than I know I need to hit it. And once I made the reference shots, I started just putting the balls down in the approximate positions, not exactly on the points provided, and I was still making the balls. Wanted to validate that the reference shots weren't just 10 or 20 specific shots that worked with a certain alignment and pivot.

Only had 6 - 8 hours playing with it so far, but I've already started incorporating the Pro One style pivot instead of the manual pivot on most shots, and have even been using the system for a lot of my shots during practice and normal games, including a ring game the other night. Admittedly I still have questions, and sometimes have to make adjustments where the line doesn't look right (I know, that brings the "feel" argument back into play), but I've also had the reverse on some longer or off-angle shots - I lined up and pivoted into position, it didn't look right so I adjusted, and missed to the side I adjusted for, meaning the original line was correct!

Long story short, I think there's something to this. Can it be proven mathematically? Not sure, but given that I'm normally in the math/science camp I would love to help with that or see that happen. Is it just a visual system that is subconciously allowing you to "feel" your way into the shot by dialing you into the closest 5 or 10 or 15 degree increment? Maybe. But even if that's so, I'm already a decent player, 9 in APA and certainly competitve at a local tournament level, for 20 years on and off I've been a feel aimer, if anything I visualize a track to the ball based on how thick I need to hit it to go into the pocket and based on experience through the hit-a-million-balls method. For whatever reason, after only 4 - 6 hours at the table, I'm feeling more focused on center ball, more locked into the line of the shot, which consequently is allowing me to stroke straight through with more confidence, no steering or useless spin or other bad habits that can occasionally creep into my game. And that's without me even fully understanding how or why it works and not even being close to really dialing in the visualization or pivoting or even knowing all the time which point or pivot to use. It just feels instinctive now that I "get it", and I can certainly empathize with some of the similar posts by others in this and other threads.

I'll try to report back as I play with it some more, for now though it seems to be promising, and if in the end it just puts my eyes in a consistent position at address and makes me focus more on aiming in general well then that might be okay too. I did some tests today, which I'll write up and post when I have time, and for those I really tried to get down on the shots, use my stick and eyes to narrow down my visual aim as accurately as possible, then lined up and pivoted without further looking at the OB, made sure I was at CB and when I looked up at the OB 90%+ of the time I was dead on. Is this feel without even looking, or did I subconciously introduce feel during the initial aiming process, taking into account the future pivot etc.? Maybe, who knows. But I honestly feel better and more confident than I was after just a few days, even if it is just from the additional focus and aim, but since I already play at a pretty decent level that's saying something…


I have to add - I'm trying to stay pretty agnostic about this whole thing, and not get wrapped up in any personal issues or attacks that are ongoing, not my personality to do so. I understand both sides and the passion they have for their point of view. I had to step out of my comfort zone and try something that I didn't think would work to appreciate it, and with only a few hours invested I'm sure I'll continue to experiment and fine tune things. I'd certainly be willing to help describe anything I've done to "get it" and discuss any valid points of view. I think the baseball diagrams someone posted were very helpful in describing exactly what I'm now seeing when I look at a shot and how to perceive the lines.

One last point - regardless of what people say about Stan and his associates and his/their motives, one thing stands out to me - if they were only in this for the money (which isn't much in the pool world anyway), they wouldn't spend so much time discussing it for free when they sense that someone is truly interested in their point of view. In the past Ron V and Dave Segal have spent several hours discussing and emailing their thoughts on the subject, even though I didn't fully grasp it then. This week I emailed a 2+ page email to Stan with some questions, he emailed back quickly to call him and we spoke for 90 minutes, he helped clarify some things (which I tried out today) and offered to help anytime in the future. I even mentioned when I ran into him about 2 years ago that I was interested in taking lessons and was glad to see the DVD came out during by recent absence from the game, not once did he say "You should come on up and I can work with you in person", etc. - what he did is offer to spend more of his time for free to make sure I got whatever info I needed. Whether I adopt this approach or not, whether it's math based or exact or not, either way I can certainly appreciate him taking time to publish this historically "secretive" information and continuing to clarify and help people understand it.

Scott
 
I looked in the mirror and tilted my head at 45 degrees and it brought the two lines of aim closer together and resolved my curiosity about how that worked for some…it does, but the CTE line and the edge of the CB to the 1/8 point line had my head almost parallel to the slate with one eye above the other. I can see the logic but am not convinced about the utility.

When I did this, I noticed that my eyes were off to the side of my neck and torso and may affect my stance negatively, but that’s just me. I don’t think that I will practice like this much.

If it works for you, then get real consistent with it so that you get the same results every time.

I hold that moving the body to get the secondary aim line dialed in is at the core of this system for it changes your stance and stroke angle (whatever it is). I can also do this by closing my eye that is looking at the CTE line so that my stereoscopic image is not affecting my perception of the secondary aim line.

If I am consistent, even with this version of focusing in on the secondary aim line, then I will get consistent cut angle results for A, B, C and 1/8 aiming after I step into the shot from the resulting stances like 15, 25, 40, 50, 60, 70 degrees etc.

I have asked how I can achieve the cut angles in between and I believe that it is said that I can move my bridge forward or backward (within one inch) or move my tip offset to 1/8 cue tip diameter instead of ½ tip etc.. I'll even throw in - aiming between the points will also work.

Even if I get past all of this, I have my doubts about, “One (1/2) tip offset fits all.” A ½ tip offset for a given bridge distance behind the CB is/achieves a finite angle (5 degrees?) post pivot and will sail past the target to the outside when the distance between the CB and OB is greater.

If one were to create a table of the 6 cut angles that is consistently/accurately achieved by the shooter; the results could/would be different depending on if one tilts his head 45 degrees or closes the eye on the CTE line…everything else being equal.

Just saying and not detracting.
 
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
The reality is that you can be making shots even if you have to add "feel" to the system's instructions in order to make it "work". So making shots doesn't mean it's "working" the way you think.


I know how it can't work. What you don't understand is how that's possible, even though it's pretty simple and obvious (at least for me and a few others here).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

Pj has hit a wall :(
 
scottjen26 said:
(long...)

Been trying to stay out of the fray on these threads, but I thought I would add my two cents (maybe a couple bucks...):

Got the DVD, was confused enough initially to where I turned it off about 1/2 way through, it wasn't making sense to me where to aim or align, when to use which aim point or pivot, etc. I reached out to Dave, Joey, and John B. with some questions, they were all helpful in trying to explain or clarify things. I tried some things at the table, some limited success visualizing things and making some balls but was just okay. I rewatched the first half of the DVD (manual CTE portion), reread the email replies I received, read through a bunch of posts here, and tried again. Still just okay, wasn't quite getting it, it wasn't specific enough for me I guess, brain still wanting to know how it worked and why.

At someone's suggestion, I watched the DVD again and diagrammed all of the reference shots in the first half of the DVD and took it to the table. I have to say I was able to make most of the reference shots within one or two attempts using the visuals and pivots provided, and some of the shots were shots where I sometimes would see the ball thinner or thicker than I know I need to hit it. And once I made the reference shots, I started just putting the balls down in the approximate positions, not exactly on the points provided, and I was still making the balls. Wanted to validate that the reference shots weren't just 10 or 20 specific shots that worked with a certain alignment and pivot.

Only had 6 - 8 hours playing with it so far, but I've already started incorporating the Pro One style pivot instead of the manual pivot on most shots, and have even been using the system for a lot of my shots during practice and normal games, including a ring game the other night. Admittedly I still have questions, and sometimes have to make adjustments where the line doesn't look right (I know, that brings the "feel" argument back into play), but I've also had the reverse on some longer or off-angle shots - I lined up and pivoted into position, it didn't look right so I adjusted, and missed to the side I adjusted for, meaning the original line was correct!

Long story short, I think there's something to this. Can it be proven mathematically? Not sure, but given that I'm normally in the math/science camp I would love to help with that or see that happen. Is it just a visual system that is subconciously allowing you to "feel" your way into the shot by dialing you into the closest 5 or 10 or 15 degree increment? Maybe. But even if that's so, I'm already a decent player, 9 in APA and certainly competitve at a local tournament level, for 20 years on and off I've been a feel aimer, if anything I visualize a track to the ball based on how thick I need to hit it to go into the pocket and based on experience through the hit-a-million-balls method. For whatever reason, after only 4 - 6 hours at the table, I'm feeling more focused on center ball, more locked into the line of the shot, which consequently is allowing me to stroke straight through with more confidence, no steering or useless spin or other bad habits that can occasionally creep into my game. And that's without me even fully understanding how or why it works and not even being close to really dialing in the visualization or pivoting or even knowing all the time which point or pivot to use. It just feels instinctive now that I "get it", and I can certainly empathize with some of the similar posts by others in this and other threads.

I'll try to report back as I play with it some more, for now though it seems to be promising, and if in the end it just puts my eyes in a consistent position at address and makes me focus more on aiming in general well then that might be okay too. I did some tests today, which I'll write up and post when I have time, and for those I really tried to get down on the shots, use my stick and eyes to narrow down my visual aim as accurately as possible, then lined up and pivoted without further looking at the OB, made sure I was at CB and when I looked up at the OB 90%+ of the time I was dead on. Is this feel without even looking, or did I subconciously introduce feel during the initial aiming process, taking into account the future pivot etc.? Maybe, who knows. But I honestly feel better and more confident than I was after just a few days, even if it is just from the additional focus and aim, but since I already play at a pretty decent level that's saying something…


I have to add - I'm trying to stay pretty agnostic about this whole thing, and not get wrapped up in any personal issues or attacks that are ongoing, not my personality to do so. I understand both sides and the passion they have for their point of view. I had to step out of my comfort zone and try something that I didn't think would work to appreciate it, and with only a few hours invested I'm sure I'll continue to experiment and fine tune things. I'd certainly be willing to help describe anything I've done to "get it" and discuss any valid points of view. I think the baseball diagrams someone posted were very helpful in describing exactly what I'm now seeing when I look at a shot and how to perceive the lines.

One last point - regardless of what people say about Stan and his associates and his/their motives, one thing stands out to me - if they were only in this for the money (which isn't much in the pool world anyway), they wouldn't spend so much time discussing it for free when they sense that someone is truly interested in their point of view. In the past Ron V and Dave Segal have spent several hours discussing and emailing their thoughts on the subject, even though I didn't fully grasp it then. This week I emailed a 2+ page email to Stan with some questions, he emailed back quickly to call him and we spoke for 90 minutes, he helped clarify some things (which I tried out today) and offered to help anytime in the future. I even mentioned when I ran into him about 2 years ago that I was interested in taking lessons and was glad to see the DVD came out during by recent absence from the game, not once did he say "You should come on up and I can work with you in person", etc. - what he did is offer to spend more of his time for free to make sure I got whatever info I needed. Whether I adopt this approach or not, whether it's math based or exact or not, either way I can certainly appreciate him taking time to publish this historically "secretive" information and continuing to clarify and help people understand it.

Scott
Click to expand...

I think you described a lot of what I personally experienced with CTE/Pro One. I'm glad to hear a one of those on the fence sharing the bottom line of this aiming system.

In my opinion, CTE/Pro One continues to evolve for each individual from a visual perspective, the more you use it. The more you become familiar with the visuals as well as the angles, the more accurate you become at playing pool.

While there's still a lot of ground to be covered, I feel vindicated by the many reports that have come forth in this forum as well as by private email. Some people just don't want to get caught up in the froth that seems to follow CTE/Pro One and I can't really blame them for not jumping in the grease.

It's my opinion that more and more people will "get it" as time passes and more and more people will play better pool.

Thanks for the report.

One thing though, you went straight to the Pro One end of CTE/Pro One much quicker than I did. I wanted to maximize my ability to understand the visuals and the mechanical pivoting before I went to the "automated" Pro One aspect because I was afraid that I would simply be aiming my old way.

Another thing that is a possibility is that after you use CTE/Pro One for a long period of time, you may become so accustomed to lining up perfectly that you may just "fall into the shot" without any conscious effort on the sets of coordinates, pivoting etc. When you no longer have to think about the shot, you have arrived at what all professional players seem able to do. These are just my follow up thoughts and they may change as I continue down the path of CTE/Pro One.

Please keep us posted on your developments are obstacles that you observe over the next couple of weeks. I'm genuinely curious about your improvements or lack of improvements.

For me, I don't give a rat's arse about the math but I know that some of you do and that's great. Have at it.

CTE/Pro One has gone

• FROM: It's stupid to well, it may work but no one that plays worth a damn uses it.
• FROM: Only an idiot would listen to that prattle, to well there may be something to it.
• FROM: It's snake oil and anyone who sells it is a snake oil salesman to Stan Shuffett seems to have refined and defined CTE/Pro One into something that is genuinely an accurate method for aiming.
• FROM: Hal Houle is a blithering idiot to, Hal Houle's original CTE aiming system is the most talked about aiming system in the world.
• FROM: It doesn't work, to, maybe it works but not for the reasons that those idiots think it works.
• FROM: It's a religion to, maybe there's something more to it than the blind leading the blind.
• FROM: That bunch of idiots can't play squat, to, well maybe I don't want to match up with those guys because they seem to have improved their game even though that aiming system wasn't supposed to be an aiming system.
• FROM: Those aiming systems guys are wasting their time and I don't want to hear about it to, a whole lot of people are not only purchasing the CTE/Pro One video by Stan Shuffett, DVD which can be purchased by clicking here, but tuning into AZ Billiards and learning more and more about the most successful aiming system to hit the market in years.

CTE/Pro One is a SUCCESS because IT WORKS.

I hope that those who learn CTE/Pro One will give Hal Houle and even more importantly Stan Shuffett the credit that they are due.

I also hope that those who choose to teach CTE/Pro One will give it's architect, Stan Shuffett credit where credit is due in each of their classes.

No one, INCLUDING HAL HOULE, taught or described CTE/Pro One the way Stan has refined it. The pieces of the puzzle were all there but only one man put it together and that is Stan Shuffett.

Regardless, it is quite apparent that there are still some people having difficulty in "getting it" but it is my belief that if they continue to work at it, they will be able to "get it".

I tip my hat to Hal Houle, Stan Shuffett and the people who had faith in Stan and supported him all this time.

Look, CTE/Pro One is in essence a BRAND NEW PRODUCT and most people on the planet have never seen it and so a lot of people won't think it has value but as I predicted a long time ago, CTE/Pro One is proving to be a valuable, accurate, aiming system that can help improve your pool game.

JoeyA
 
Nice posts scottjen26 and JoeyA...My gut "feeling" (pardon the pun) is this is something that's been tucked away in someone's back pocket for quite sometime..My feeling leads me back to Ralph Greenleaf or possibly sooner than that!! And it's only just begun to come full circle!!
 
scottjen26 said:
(long...)

Been trying to stay out of the fray on these threads, but I thought I would add my two cents (maybe a couple bucks...):

Got the DVD, was confused enough initially to where I turned it off about 1/2 way through, it wasn't making sense to me where to aim or align, when to use which aim point or pivot, etc. I reached out to Dave, Joey, and John B. with some questions, they were all helpful in trying to explain or clarify things. I tried some things at the table, some limited success visualizing things and making some balls but was just okay. I rewatched the first half of the DVD (manual CTE portion), reread the email replies I received, read through a bunch of posts here, and tried again. Still just okay, wasn't quite getting it, it wasn't specific enough for me I guess, brain still wanting to know how it worked and why.

At someone's suggestion, I watched the DVD again and diagrammed all of the reference shots in the first half of the DVD and took it to the table. I have to say I was able to make most of the reference shots within one or two attempts using the visuals and pivots provided, and some of the shots were shots where I sometimes would see the ball thinner or thicker than I know I need to hit it. And once I made the reference shots, I started just putting the balls down in the approximate positions, not exactly on the points provided, and I was still making the balls. Wanted to validate that the reference shots weren't just 10 or 20 specific shots that worked with a certain alignment and pivot.

Only had 6 - 8 hours playing with it so far, but I've already started incorporating the Pro One style pivot instead of the manual pivot on most shots, and have even been using the system for a lot of my shots during practice and normal games, including a ring game the other night. Admittedly I still have questions, and sometimes have to make adjustments where the line doesn't look right (I know, that brings the "feel" argument back into play), but I've also had the reverse on some longer or off-angle shots - I lined up and pivoted into position, it didn't look right so I adjusted, and missed to the side I adjusted for, meaning the original line was correct!

Long story short, I think there's something to this. Can it be proven mathematically? Not sure, but given that I'm normally in the math/science camp I would love to help with that or see that happen. Is it just a visual system that is subconciously allowing you to "feel" your way into the shot by dialing you into the closest 5 or 10 or 15 degree increment? Maybe. But even if that's so, I'm already a decent player, 9 in APA and certainly competitve at a local tournament level, for 20 years on and off I've been a feel aimer, if anything I visualize a track to the ball based on how thick I need to hit it to go into the pocket and based on experience through the hit-a-million-balls method. For whatever reason, after only 4 - 6 hours at the table, I'm feeling more focused on center ball, more locked into the line of the shot, which consequently is allowing me to stroke straight through with more confidence, no steering or useless spin or other bad habits that can occasionally creep into my game. And that's without me even fully understanding how or why it works and not even being close to really dialing in the visualization or pivoting or even knowing all the time which point or pivot to use. It just feels instinctive now that I "get it", and I can certainly empathize with some of the similar posts by others in this and other threads.

I'll try to report back as I play with it some more, for now though it seems to be promising, and if in the end it just puts my eyes in a consistent position at address and makes me focus more on aiming in general well then that might be okay too. I did some tests today, which I'll write up and post when I have time, and for those I really tried to get down on the shots, use my stick and eyes to narrow down my visual aim as accurately as possible, then lined up and pivoted without further looking at the OB, made sure I was at CB and when I looked up at the OB 90%+ of the time I was dead on. Is this feel without even looking, or did I subconciously introduce feel during the initial aiming process, taking into account the future pivot etc.? Maybe, who knows. But I honestly feel better and more confident than I was after just a few days, even if it is just from the additional focus and aim, but since I already play at a pretty decent level that's saying something…


I have to add - I'm trying to stay pretty agnostic about this whole thing, and not get wrapped up in any personal issues or attacks that are ongoing, not my personality to do so. I understand both sides and the passion they have for their point of view. I had to step out of my comfort zone and try something that I didn't think would work to appreciate it, and with only a few hours invested I'm sure I'll continue to experiment and fine tune things. I'd certainly be willing to help describe anything I've done to "get it" and discuss any valid points of view. I think the baseball diagrams someone posted were very helpful in describing exactly what I'm now seeing when I look at a shot and how to perceive the lines.

One last point - regardless of what people say about Stan and his associates and his/their motives, one thing stands out to me - if they were only in this for the money (which isn't much in the pool world anyway), they wouldn't spend so much time discussing it for free when they sense that someone is truly interested in their point of view. In the past Ron V and Dave Segal have spent several hours discussing and emailing their thoughts on the subject, even though I didn't fully grasp it then. This week I emailed a 2+ page email to Stan with some questions, he emailed back quickly to call him and we spoke for 90 minutes, he helped clarify some things (which I tried out today) and offered to help anytime in the future. I even mentioned when I ran into him about 2 years ago that I was interested in taking lessons and was glad to see the DVD came out during by recent absence from the game, not once did he say "You should come on up and I can work with you in person", etc. - what he did is offer to spend more of his time for free to make sure I got whatever info I needed. Whether I adopt this approach or not, whether it's math based or exact or not, either way I can certainly appreciate him taking time to publish this historically "secretive" information and continuing to clarify and help people understand it.

Scott
Click to expand...

OK, naysayers, explain this post away. Or did Stan pay Scott to make the post?
 
Why continue to argue this. Those that don't like it, just use whatever you use. Those that do can discuss on here how to make it work better for them.
 
A question for Dr. Dave. I'm sure you have posted it but I can't find it. What is your phone number where people can call you for free questions and discussions about your DVDs?

I thank you in advance for the phone number.
 
Last edited:
Murdoch7627 said:
A question for Dr. Dave. I'm sure you have posted it but I can't find it. What is your phone number where people can call you for free questions and discussions about your DVDs?

I thank you in advance for the phone number.
Click to expand...

I have a question as well!! If you choke a smirf, what color will it turn? By all means include a link!!
 
All you YAYsayers are hijacking this thread. Please, let's stay on topic. There are countless of other CTE/Pro One threads out there where you can continue to ra ra the system or bash the naysayers.

Now, if you have actual arguments that demonstrate the exactness of the system, then I'm all ears.

Otherwise, can we all finally agree that these pivot aiming systems are NOT EXACT, and thus we should all cease advertising them as such?
 
Murdoch7627 said:
A question for Dr. Dave. I'm sure you have posted it but I can't find it. What is your phone number where people can call you for free questions and discussions about your DVDs?.
Click to expand...
The information in Dr. Dave's DVDs is so clear, sensible and accurate that you'd have to have a learning disability to need much clarification. But if you do, Dave is always available to answer any question you have right here on AzB where everybody can benefit for free.

And this doesn't even mention the volumes of information, years worth of authoritative articles and literally dozens of instructional videos available free on his website.

Dave, his DVDs, his top quality, utterly reliable and utterly free website information, and his dedication to sharing his encyclopedic knowledge of the game as widely as possible are a breath of fresh air compared with just about anything and anybody else in the field. Comparing him with any of them can only make him look good.

Thanks for reminding us.

pj
chgo
 
jsp said:
All you YAYsayers are hijacking this thread. Please, let's stay on topic. There are countless of other CTE/Pro One threads out there where you can continue to ra ra the system or bash the naysayers.

Now, if you have actual arguments that demonstrate the exactness of the system, then I'm all ears.

Otherwise, can we all finally agree that these pivot aiming systems are NOT EXACT, and thus we should all cease advertising them as such?
Click to expand...

I think there is a dvd out on the system and oh yea, you all have dr daves opinion :thumbup: i can respect his opinion but you all just follow it lol :) if dr daves opinion changed you would follow that too :) so basically we are all debating dr daves opinions, so all you guys should shhhhhhhhhhhh and im out of this thread :)
 
Last edited:
champ2107 said:
I think there is a dvd out on the system and oh yea, you all have dr daves opinion :thumbup: i can respect his opinion but you all just follow it lol :) if dr daves opinion changed you would follow that too :) so basically we are all debating dr daves opinions, so all you guys should shhhhhhhhhhhh :)
Click to expand...
You still have absolutely no clue what we're talking about. There is no such thing as "opinion" in math. A mathematical claim is either right or wrong. The Pythagorean Theorem is either right or wrong. I can prove why a^2 + b^2 = c^2. I can also easily demonstrate that the claim a^2 + b^3 = c^4 is false just by providing a single counterexample.

Likewise, the claim that a pivot system is exact is either right or wrong. Absolutely none of you have provided proof that any of the pivot systems are exact. On the other hand, many of us have provided numerous counterexamples demonstrating the falseness of the claim.

Again, opinion does not apply in this discussion. If you want to argue that CTE can help anyone pocket balls better, then take it up in another thread.
 
jsp said:
You still have absolutely no clue what we're talking about. There is no such thing as "opinion" in math. A mathematical claim is either right or wrong. The Pythagorean Theorem is either right or wrong. I can prove why a^2 + b^2 = c^2. I can also easily demonstrate that the claim a^2 + b^3 = c^4 is false just by providing a single counterexample.

Likewise, the claim that a pivot system is exact is either right or wrong. Absolutely none of you have provided proof that any of the pivot systems are exact. On the other hand, many of us have provided numerous counterexamples demonstrating the falseness of the claim.

Again, opinion does not apply in this discussion. If you want to argue that CTE can help anyone pocket balls better, then take it up in another thread.
Click to expand...

You have proved nothing! do you not understand that? show the math to the system or dont talk about it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top