Latest activity
Oops I did it again (Yapp's) foul in a final, a second time!
- By td873
- Main Forum
- 87 Replies
FWIW, I asked ChatGPT to create a physics-based analysis and statistical model (including actual physical parameters as well as information gleaned from Dr. Dave), then run Monte Carlo simulations on extreme right spin shots and then to plot the results of
1) hitting 4 first and
2) hitting 8 first.
I had it run 250,000 attempts and show the results on an overhead of the actual [real world] table. These tests resulted in resting cue ball locations that had no overlap between 8-ball-first and 4-ball-first shots (as would be expected). The estimated end location of the actual shot aligns with a 4-first hit. I then had it run a second simulation at 25% higher speed (10,000 attempts) to show a broader plot.
Below are the graphs and here is ChatGPT's answer: Under standard WPA rules, such contact would constitute a foul. However, absent clear real-time evidence, the original ruling remains valid.
[edit: the object balls are so close, and are separately approximately by the diameter of a ball. Super close hit. The line of centers [arguably] supports that the cue ball path will almost exclusively be because of natural roll after contact. The cue ball contacts the 2nd ball (whatever that is) almost immediately and would lose almost all movement along the tangent line. The resulting location is largely a result roll.
-td
1) hitting 4 first and
2) hitting 8 first.
I had it run 250,000 attempts and show the results on an overhead of the actual [real world] table. These tests resulted in resting cue ball locations that had no overlap between 8-ball-first and 4-ball-first shots (as would be expected). The estimated end location of the actual shot aligns with a 4-first hit. I then had it run a second simulation at 25% higher speed (10,000 attempts) to show a broader plot.
Below are the graphs and here is ChatGPT's answer: Under standard WPA rules, such contact would constitute a foul. However, absent clear real-time evidence, the original ruling remains valid.
[edit: the object balls are so close, and are separately approximately by the diameter of a ball. Super close hit. The line of centers [arguably] supports that the cue ball path will almost exclusively be because of natural roll after contact. The cue ball contacts the 2nd ball (whatever that is) almost immediately and would lose almost all movement along the tangent line. The resulting location is largely a result roll.
-td
