you will struggle with some banks but other than that I will have no problem using pro1 on what ever size table..you guys have all the answers staring at you right the face on here and you still dont get it year after year.
Stevie's CTE video
- Thread starter gazman100
- Start date
you will struggle with some banks but other than that I will have no problem using pro1 on what ever size table..you guys have all the answers staring at you right the face on here and you still dont get it year after year.
This post is directed to Sloppy Pockets. So, if you are reading it, and are in disagreement with the sentiments he expressed, I can save you from reading any further, since I am in agreement with the sentiments he expressed, and I liked the way he expressed them. I am posting this instead of PMing it, because he deserves the respect of a public affirmation.
Thank you, Sloppy Pockets.
Early in my own CTE research, I was intrigued by the idea that there might be some special, and useful, relationship between the 3 fundamental angles of the System and the proportions of the rectangular table, as is suggested by the idea that if a given CTE solution doesn't pot the ball in the intended pocket, it does pot it in some other pocket after one or more rail contacts.
So I used those values (i.e., the 2:1 ratio, and the 15°, 30° and 45° angles), to search for meaningful patterns in the geometry. I found no useable relationships. If you tessellate that 2:1 rectangular geometry across the plane, and then project lines oriented at the aforementioned angles across the tessellation (which would replicate geometrically idealized single, or multi-rail, 'bank' shots), you might expect those projections to result in useful intersections with pockets. They don't. The 45° case is degenerate; i.e., it intersects either 2 pockets or no pockets, and so there's no point in even using it in this test. But even the 15° and 30° angles don't produce anything interesting.
Of course, there are no idealized banks in reality. All banks are subject to the lengthening or shortening effects of spin, roll, and force (i.e. rail compression), but I thought that if there was, at least, an idealized solution, that it might reasonably be extrapolated to real-world conditions.
This failure, coupled with the notion of the system putting you into a 'slight overcut', as you mentioned, completely wrecked any chance of my own use of the system (well, there were a few other things :smile
.And, by the way, I don't recall anything about this 'slight overcut' in the material that predates the CTE2 DVDs... Was it there before, and I missed it?
- s.west
I have a lot easier time getting behind this answer. It doesn't make me want to learn CTE any less, and it feels less uncomfortable then:
-"2x1 table system that takes you to the geometry of the table."
or
-"You just don't know anything."
I love CTE. I just don't like all the transparent cloak and dagger that comes along with trying to pretend to be certain about a subject in which we don't fully understand. If someone comes along and gives a decent explanation that I can understand, sweet, if not, I'm still going to practice CTE. Just don't keep spouting the same weak nonsense that is so easy to tear down.
I understand the concern that you can't publicly put on your product that you don't know for certain why your product works, b/c it's bad marketing. I would never suggest that. But I think it should be okay for the CTE community to be able to say they don't know, without fear of backlash. I don't think it will deter newcomers any more then the 100+ threads they have to slug through of CTE flame wars to find zero useful information. If image is a concern, I'm not sure this is really the way to go about it.
In short, good honest answer, and I understand where it's coming from, and I respect its sincerity.
In Pro One the 15, 30 and 45 are NOT angles. They are perceptions.
Your initial alignment is on the center to edge line AND (say) the inside edge of the CB to the inside quarter of the object ball (15 degree perception).
For someone who owns or owned both DVDs it seems astonishing you missed this fundamental point about CTE.
Maybe less theorizing and more table time.
But of course this isn't going to happen because you gave your DVDs away, didn't you?
Last edited:
Really, can you show some video of a few shots on that table?
I'm sure you got it all figured out Robin Hood.
Does the system work on a 3c billiard table?
Yes it does.
There's no pockets so how can that be ?
Doesn't matter What table.
Because its a 2 to 1 ratio so i know where the ball is going.
Just want to see a 4 by 8 and a half.
I'm just curious to know if the distance of the object from the cue ball has anything to do with the varying degrees of each perception. We line up each perception the same, but within a single perception, each shot is unique. I'm wondering that depending on how far or close an object ball is, the object ball will look bigger or smaller. Does this change in the "size" of the object ball offer an explanation for anything?