Why CTE/Pro One Works

[stan shuffett]

Thanks Stan, but how do you define the 2 fixed edges of a CB?

Jim

Jim,

The same way you could define 2 fixed edges of a round barn out in the middle of a field.

Stand away from the structure by a significant number of yards so that you have an entire side view of the round barn in your sights. That round barn has 2 fixed edges. If you move by a lateral step, you change the edges of the barn.

On the minature side of things, a CB can be thought of in the same way. A CB has 360 edges. When you view a CB, you are seeing 2 fixed edges that can provide you with a fixed vertical axis as well.

**Thanks to Hal Houle for the round barn analogy.

Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

Thanks Stan, but I think it may demonstrate something else. At any rate, how do you define the 2 fixed edges of a CB? In other words, the 1/2 tip offset will be parallel to a plane going through the center of the cueball and which is also perpendicular to one or more of the reference lines. The visuals which you defined (CB edge to A, C or 1/8'th balls) aren't parallel to the CTE line, thus a plane can't be perpendicular to both the CTE and one of those references (CB edge to B is the exception). So which visuals are used to define it?

By the way, while this is critical to a quantitative evaluation of Pro 1, it's not at the heart of the objections we've been raising.

Jim

There you go with your perpendicular lines and your 2D stuff. You will never figure out CTE PRO ONE in that manner.

CTE PRO ONE is so far beyond the scope of your 2D analysis that you are wasting your time at this juncture. Perhaps DVD2 will give you a boost in the right direction.

You must learn CTE PRO ONE and experience this new dimension in aiming before you will have ANY chance of getting out your paintbrush.

Stan Shuffett

 

[JC]

If technology was really improving anything about pool play level then there would be more, better players than 75 years ago when smoking still aided digestion, polio was feared worldwide and computers that used punch cards were a distant dream.

But there isn't. The players then were as good as the players now and there were more of them.

Kind of makes all this arguing seem silly.

Is it interesting? Of course. Is it going to "revolutionize" the process of aiming? Not likely.

JC

 

[stan shuffett]

If technology was really improving anything about pool play level then there would be more, better players than 75 years ago when smoking still aided digestion, polio was feared worldwide and computers that used punch cards were a distant dream.

But there isn't. The players then were as good as the players now and there were more of them.

Kind of makes all this arguing seem silly.

Is it interesting? Of course. Is it going to "revolutionize" the process of aiming? Not likely.

JC

Aiming will change!

Stan Shuffett

 

[JC]

Aiming will change!

Stan Shuffett

Will that result in more, better players?

JC

 

[stan shuffett]

Will that result in more, better players?

JC

CTE PRO ONE will result in a much improved approach to our game, visually and physically.

Over time, Yes!

Stan Shuffett

 

[DTL]

......................

 

[Neil]

If technology was really improving anything about pool play level then there would be more, better players than 75 years ago when smoking still aided digestion, polio was feared worldwide and computers that used punch cards were a distant dream.

But there isn't. The players then were as good as the players now and there were more of them.

Kind of makes all this arguing seem silly.

Is it interesting? Of course. Is it going to "revolutionize" the process of aiming? Not likely.

JC

Do you really think that there were more and better players in the past? There are FAR more great players today than in the past. The very top players all have close to the same skill level now as then, but there are a lot more of them today.

 

[Jal]

Jim,

The same way you could define 2 fixed edges of a round barn out in the middle of a field.

Stand away from the structure by a significant number of yards so that you have an entire side view of the round barn in your sights. That round barn has 2 fixed edges. If you move by a lateral step, you change the edges of the barn....

Stan Shuffett

The part in bold is why I asked the question.

There you go with your perpendicular lines and your 2D stuff. You will never figure out CTE PRO ONE in that manner.

CTE PRO ONE is so far beyond the scope of your 2D analysis that you are wasting your time at this juncture. Perhaps DVD2 will give you a boost in the right direction.

You must learn CTE PRO ONE and experience this new dimension in aiming before you will have ANY chance of getting out your paintbrush.

Stan Shuffett

Stan, I realize that under these circumstances, you don't have much of an incentive to answer my question. But why don't you just say "Given your attitude toward the whole thing, I don't wish to answer any of your queries" or "I really don't understand the question, could you rephrase it" or "For the sake of sales of my second DVD, I'd rather withhold that information for now, even though it probably should have been made clear on the first DVD." I could understand and accept any of those, but this supposed 2D limitation is just, well, lame. And it's old lame, not new lame. Not that I'm a math wizard, but I doubt that you have much of an idea of what can or can't be done in that arena.

I might also point out that for years the CTE advocates referred to some fabled post or thread that was supposed to fill in all the obvious gaps in the method. Instead, at best, we got what Patrick labeled as "Hal's numerology post." Then Dave S. promised us a mathematical treatment that never came about. Next, you indicated that your first DVD would provide such mathematical justification. Not only was it absent, but then there was the glaring omission of just where one's cue should be pointed after "acquiring the visuals," the question I just asked. At this point, could you blame us for doubting that DVD #2 will offer up any real answers (which I'll likely never see anyway)?

Jim

 

[BeiberLvr]

The part in bold is why I asked the question.

Stan, I realize that under these circumstances, you don't have much of an incentive to answer my question. But why don't you just say "Given your attitude toward the whole thing, I don't wish to answer any of your queries" or "I really don't understand the question, could you rephrase it" or "For the sake of sales of my second DVD, I'd rather withhold that information for now, even though it probably should have been made clear on the first DVD." I could understand and accept any of those, but this supposed 2D limitation is just, well, lame. And it's old lame, not new lame. Not that I'm a math wizard, but I doubt that you have much of an idea of what can or can't be done in that arena.

I might also point out that for years the CTE advocates referred to some fabled post or thread that was supposed to fill in all the obvious gaps in the method. Instead, at best, we got what Patrick labeled as "Hal's numerology post." Then Dave S. promised us a mathematical treatment that never came about. Next, you indicated that your first DVD would provide such mathematical justification. Not only was it absent, but then there was the glaring omission of just where one's cue should be pointed after "acquiring the visuals," the question I just asked. At this point, could you blame us for doubting that DVD #2 will offer up any real answers (which I'll likely never see anyway)?

Jim

Wha???!

You want to know where the cue points after you find the visuals, while you're still standing?

 

[Jal]

Below, in blue, is my response to a similar question (in red above) from a previous thread:

Not sure if you've seen DVD1, but in it Stan describes a CB with 360 small "ticks" (tiny dots) around the equator of the ball. You don't need any lines to get a "fixed" CB. Just stand still in front of any lone CB anywhere on the table and stare at it.......from there you have a fixed CB (like looking at a 2D picture on a piece of paper). At the extreme edges are 2 of those dots or ticks.....lets call them dot #1 and dot # 180. Now, if you tilt your head or move your body ever so slightly to the right your fixed edges change.........like looking around the edge of the CB. When doing so you're now seeing dots #2 and #181 at the extreme edges, go a tiny bit further right and you'll see dots #3 and #182, etc, etc. From our starting point above move your head or body to the left and you'll see dots #360 and #179. Hope this part makes sense.

CTE Pro One has improved my game.

DTL

Thanks and it does make sense. In the case where the shot calls for the CB edge to middle of the OB (point B) reference, this line is parallel to the CTE line. Apparently then, you'd align your cue perpendicular to a plane perpendicular to both those lines, at a half-tip offset. But, the other reference lines, edge to A or edge to C, for example, are not parallel to the CTE line. So when these references are called for, which plane would you choose, one perpendicular to the CTE line or the edge to A/C line? Or, something else?

Jim

 

[pablocruz]

........................

 

[stan shuffett]

Thanks and it does make sense. In the case where the shot calls for the CB edge to middle of the OB (point B) reference, this line is parallel to the CTE line. Apparently then, you'd align your cue perpendicular to a plane perpendicular to both those lines, at a half-tip offset. But, the other reference lines, edge to A or edge to C, for example, are not parallel to the CTE line. So when these references are called for, which plane would you choose, one perpendicular to the CTE line or the edge to A/C line? Or, something else?

Jim

There are multiple intelligences and you are spinning your wheels in the math area. You should change gears to the visual/perceptual mode if you REALLY want to get out of your rut. You are at an impasse.

Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

The part in bold is why I asked the question.

Stan, I realize that under these circumstances, you don't have much of an incentive to answer my question. But why don't you just say "Given your attitude toward the whole thing, I don't wish to answer any of your queries" or "I really don't understand the question, could you rephrase it" or "For the sake of sales of my second DVD, I'd rather withhold that information for now, even though it probably should have been made clear on the first DVD." I could understand and accept any of those, but this supposed 2D limitation is just, well, lame. And it's old lame, not new lame. Not that I'm a math wizard, but I doubt that you have much of an idea of what can or can't be done in that arena.

I might also point out that for years the CTE advocates referred to some fabled post or thread that was supposed to fill in all the obvious gaps in the method. Instead, at best, we got what Patrick labeled as "Hal's numerology post." Then Dave S. promised us a mathematical treatment that never came about. Next, you indicated that your first DVD would provide such mathematical justification. Not only was it absent, but then there was the glaring omission of just where one's cue should be pointed after "acquiring the visuals," the question I just asked. At this point, could you blame us for doubting that DVD #2 will offer up any real answers (which I'll likely never see anyway)?

Jim

What's lame is the idea that you even remotely think that your basic math is going to unlock what visually happens in CTE with spheres on a rectangular surface.

Your visual intelligence is totally asleep to what really happens in actual play.

In all likelihood you are a lowly skilled player. I will bet high on this. You can't really play the game visually and physically at any kind of significant level so you must derive your satisfaction at attempting to unlock the game with pencil and paper.

There is no glaring omission of where the cue is to point in what I teach. Your weak understanding of CTE PRO ONE is your problem. If you understood CTE PRO ONE you'd have the answer to that.

CTE PRO ONE will continue to grow in number while the number that you garner to your corner with your lame grasp of CTE will continue to dwindle.


Stan Shuffett

 

[stan shuffett]

Thanks and it does make sense. In the case where the shot calls for the CB edge to middle of the OB (point B) reference, this line is parallel to the CTE line. Apparently then, you'd align your cue perpendicular to a plane perpendicular to both those lines, at a half-tip offset. But, the other reference lines, edge to A or edge to C, for example, are not parallel to the CTE line. So when these references are called for, which plane would you choose, one perpendicular to the CTE line or the edge to A/C line? Or, something else?

Jim

JIM, JIM, If you had been paying attention, you'd be aware of the fact that CTE is based on an offset. Your understanding of what I teach is so flawed that there is no need for you to go forward with your study at this time. You seem to be unwilling to explore visual intelligence and what is happening on the table with those little round balls.

Stan Shuffett

 

[DTL]

.................................

 

[Jal]

What's lame is the idea that you even remotely think that your basic math is going to unlock what visually happens in CTE with spheres on a rectangular surface.

Your visual intelligence is totally asleep to what really happens in actual play.

In all likelihood you are a lowly skilled player. I will bet high on this. You can't really play the game visually and physically at any kind of significant level so you must derive your satisfaction at attempting to unlock the game with pencil and paper.

There is no glaring omission of where the cue is to point in what I teach. Your weak understanding of CTE PRO ONE is your problem. If you understood CTE PRO ONE you'd have the answer to that.

CTE PRO ONE will continue to grow in number while the number that you garner to your corner with your lame grasp of CTE will continue to dwindle.


Stan Shuffett

Given the history of ad hominem attacks associated with discussions of this topic, it's quite shocking to get such an insightful response. Thanks Stan, that just about cleared it up.

Jim

 

[Jal]

After I perceive the proper visuals for any given shot I then just erase the lines (CTE / Aim lines) from my mind. From there I have a fixed CB and all is needed is a right or left Pro One sweep to CCB.

One can master the sweeps by practicing them on a simple 3 foot straight in shot.......say in line between the side and corner pocket (diagonal). Right sweep for CTEL to right edge of OB with left edge of CB to A. Left sweep for CTEL to left edge of OB with right edge of CB to C. Once you make the sweeps right or left to CCB one can quickly tell if they're ON at this short distance. The sweet thing is that these simple moves right or left are the same for every shot.

DTL

I appreciate the descriptive answer (I really do). When you say "...one can quickly tell if they're ON...," that seems to be suggesting that you're using whatever aiming method you employed before taking up Pro 1 to judge the final outcome of the initial alignment and sweep. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so I'm asking is this true? With a straight in shot, not much judgement is required, of course, but what about other cut angles?

Jim

 

[scottjen26]

No, what he's saying is that when you graduate from manual pivots to visual pivots or "sweeps", you must "groove your move", so to speak, so that your visual sweep mimics the action of the manual 1/2 tip pivot. That's why, as DTL described, you practice the visual sweep moves on simple shots to begin with so that you can visually verify that the sweep is ending up in the same place as the previously practiced manual movement.

To answer your previous question, Stan showed where to point the cue on DVD 1, but admittedly it was not called out as much as it should have been. It has since been discussed here multiple times, and Stan recently put out a support video that leaves no doubt about this area of the system. Since it's already out there, and even though I don't think you understand the full system, I'll reiterate it.

You align using the proper visuals. You end up with a fixed cue ball as Stan described. Once you have that fixed cue ball, you now move into the shot directly toward that fixed cue ball, with your tip ending up 1/2 tip offset from center. Your tip does not point at a specific spot - CTE line, A, etc. - but rather you move into an offset position from the center of the acquired fixed cue ball.

How this works mathematically I gave up worrying about a long time ago, it just works. From all positions, all distances, all normal shots from 0 - 90 degrees and including banks. Would love to see some enhanced geometry to support it, but that's not necessary. And despite everyone arguing the point constantly, there is a challenge in transforming 3D visual information into a simplified 2D drawing and trying to prove or disprove the system. I believe it could certainly be done, just not by a lay person using pencil and paper, probably not without some sort of computer assisted help that would take into account the reduction in visual size as distance increases between the cue ball and object balls, as this has a large impact on how our eyes perceive the lines and ultimately the fixed cue ball.
Scott

 

[stan shuffett]

Given the history of ad hominem attacks associated with discussions of this topic, it's quite shocking to get such an insightful response. Thanks Stan, that just about cleared it up.

Jim

My comments were quite appropriate in response to your recent post(s).

Stan Shuffett