Yes I could.
CTE/ PRO ONE with Stan Shuffett
- Thread starter JoeyA
- Start date
- Status
Yes I could.
You guys are @ssh*les! I tried to be stoic, and resist the urge to laugh, but gahdammit... BWAH HA HA HA HA!!! Dang it.
Ok, ok, I'm putting the can of pepper spray back on the wall sconce near the front door. But with the proviso that if one of you two step out of line... (ok, not you, Mike)...
-Sean
LOL. plonk. :wink: You crazy bastitch!
Best,
Mike
LOL. plonk. :wink: You crazy bastitch!
Best,
Mike
Tell Ron (Vitello, of course) I said a hearty hello, and he's got a game of "50 or no count" in straights for dinner, if he's interested. Great, fun guy!-Sean
This is a good point but it misses the point Dave Segal originally made with his light switch analogy. Dave said most people don't dig into the HOW and WHY a light switch works they flip it on and light happens.
The people who care about how to make light go out and GET all the information about how electricity works in order to power their filaments.
They don't sit around and only get PART of the information and then debate whether or not electricity can WORK.
To me people Stan Shuffet, Randy Goetlicher and Scott Lee and Dave Segal and a few others have gotten all the possible instruction that they can from Hal Houle and have then taken that instruction and figured out HOW it works and more importantly how to teach it.
People like you, Lou F., Dave A., GMT etc.... only have part of the instructions and yet you continue to make assumptions about it. Look I will say right now that MAYBE your assumptions are right. People make correct judgments based on partial information all the time. And they make incorrect conclusions as well.
But in this situation you have well respected instructors on one side who one could reasonably expect to have studied the subject in-depth before committing to teaching it. And on the other side you have well-intentioned folks who just want it neatly packaged and thoroughly explained before giving their stamp of approval.
I say again that the people who don't have all the information and who NEED all the information should GO and get it.
The Derby City Classic is held every year 4 hours from Chicago. Pat could easily meet any number of CTEers there for a thorough debate. Dave Alciatore could have made a trip to Pennsylvania for the Super Billiards Expo any time and booked an hour or so with Dave Segal video camera in tow.
So I don't understand the CONSTANT acrimony and put downs. Like you calling CTE users idiots and the sellers of CTE scam artists, which you have said in not so many words.
Why not just let it go if you aren't going to get the full instructions to review? This can't be all that interests you in the world of pool.
You're right, without people who care how electricity works we wouldn't be here. And although I wish that we could have gotten to this point without the name calling and insults we wouldn't be here with finally something tangible on video without your constant objections.
So thanks Pat for that at least. I am glad that this prodded Stan to make a video which I feel will be beneficial to most who watch it. And glad that Hal Houle is finally getting the credit he deserves.
-Sean
That would be about as much fun as anybody could stand! I've been buggi...er, I mean asking him for a dvd, but he's doing other things I guess.
:grin: Oy vey, we should be so lucky. Is that enough guilt yet? J/K I envy you being there with all that knowledge. He's the kind of guy you could talk to for hours about pool. He's got some great stories, too. I'll quit rambling now and steering this thread away from the sniping. :wink:
Best,
Mike
That would be about as much fun as anybody could stand! I've been buggi...er, I mean asking him for a dvd, but he's doing other things I guess.
I envy you being there with all that knowledge. He's the kind of guy you could talk to for hours about pool. He's got some great stories, too. I'll quit rambling now and steering this thread away from the sniping. :wink:
Best,
Mike
Mike:
You know Ron -- he's a barrel of laughs, but at the same time, a veritable library of knowledge. And, that classic NYC street corner humor, that'll keep you in a gut-busting state for extended periods.
For one thing, you *can* just sit there and listen to his stories for hours.
It's good to see this thread get on a positive track. I've got a few Imodium AD pills that I'm going to throw upwards for the crows, in hoping it keeps them "corked up" for a while...
-Sean
I don't have to know anything about CTE to know that's nonsense, and that there's no point in our talking about it. We just don't speak the same language about this stuff.
pj
chgo
No, you couldn't.
pj
chgo
Go ahead.
pj
chgo
I am not so sure Nay Sayers have slide rules or if they did, would know one nor how to use them.
Last edited:
A for effort Bruce!
Would you be using G-Code....sorry but I have to agree with PJ based on the fuzzy-pivot you could not.
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.
- Isaac Asimov
Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest.
- Isaac Asimov
The question of Sniper's has no merit and as such deserves no answer.
However if you want to speak about these thing philosophically then someday robots will be "programmed" to do everything humans can do. Therefore if a human can use something called "CTE" to pocket balls then a robot can someday also use something called "CTE" to pocket balls. The human is not defying physics when they pocket the balls using the CTE method.
Can you program a robot to pocket balls using the GB method? How would that look and what sensory devices would you have to put in place? In fact what would you do to create robot that can pocket balls at all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlGQ02vRlc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J70p-dCfi_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AENJxqR0g48
CTE aside, what instructor or person wouldn't want to have the Augmented Reality option? Virtual Pool made real.
Let me remind you that if you do want to build a robot to use CTE then you will need to know CTE first so that you are starting with the correct parameters.
You can find a great resource right here for that, www.justcueit.com to buy Stan Shuffet's Pro1 DVD.
My question does have merit and deserves an answer. If you can't program a robot with CTE, it is not "exact", it is no system.
This is more of a thought experiment. Don't let technical difficulties of actually constructing a robot get in the way. A robot will only do what you tell him to do.
Here is a GB robot:
Find the line of objectball towards the desired pocket (looking through objectball into the pocket).
Find the spot on that line that is a ball diameter away from the center of the objectball away from the pocket.
Send cueball there.
(omg it's early in the morning here, but everybody understands ghostball)
CTE robot:
Find CTE line
Put cue in line with cueball edge and ???
Pivot around ??? to cueball center
Shoot
This is obviously wrong because I wrote it and it's not CTE.
Translation from Johnbabble to English: Huh?
pj
chgo
And the amount of sensory hardware to do that is what?
Here are the instructions for a human:
Find the approximate line of objectball towards the desired pocket (looking through objectball into the pocket).
Find the spot on that line that is a approximately (or about) a ball diameter away from the center of the objectball away from the pocket.
Stay focused on that spot and find the which runs from that spot back through the cue ball center. Adjust for throw a little to the right or left depending on the direction of the throw.
Send cueball there. You missed the ball? Well maybe you didn't quite get there in finding the spot that is exactly 2.25" from the object ball. Set it up a million times and you'll get it. Don't worry hitting it a million times trains you to "see" it. At around 500,000 shots you won't even need to think about it any more.
It's wrong because you don't know the details to CTE. That's the basic instructions as I wrote them. (nice try though) Were I programming the robot then I would add in the necessary parameters.
Program a robot to see the table like a human does and then you can program it to use CTE.
You see a ROBOT can SEE the ball positions relative to everything else clearly and precisely. A human cannot. The robot can then map trajectories in a split second.
But how do you think that the robots in the videos I linked to are "seeing" the shots. Do you think that the programmers are using Ghost Ball or are they using some other form of sensory data to map the positions of the balls?
It's quite obvious to me that if you take two balls and start with a half ball alignment (bridge hand yet set on the table) that you can from that postion set the bridge hand down and pivot to the right aiming line.
So WHERE to set the bridge hand down to start this process? Well, you could tell the computer to set it down 11" from the object ball and pivot to center. And that may be right for 80% of the shots on the table. Then you can program the computer to recognize the other 20% and to set the bridge down at 8" from teh ball or 17" or what ever works.
In other words it's possible to program the computer to mimic the actions on the human and account for all the variables.
With enough study you could even figure the "subconscious adjustments" if any exist and program those into the computer.
Your question was not worthy of an answer. In the 90s many people thought that robots couldn't be programmed to do their jobs. They were wrong and CTE is child's play compared to some of the intricate tasks industrial robots perform.
The real question is can YOU be programmed to use CTE successfully?
Only you know the answer to that. There is enough on YouTube RIGHT NOW that you SHOULD be able to get it given the amount of intelligence you possess.
Is driving a car more complicated than CTE? Of course it is. Yet cars are now being driven autonomously by computers.
So it's clear that if a car can be driven by a computer in real time in real traffic then a computer can be programmed to use CTE.
The question was not necessary because the answer is obvious and was just ANOTHER attempt to get someone to post up millimeter precise instructions to use CTE.
All you need to learn CTE is on YouTube. If you want professional instruction then buy Stan's DVD. YOU don't need to buy it because I am giving it to YOU for Christmas. Until then however the questions you asked me have been answered already by others on YouTube.
Since you have been SO NICE, I will let you go find the videos which contain the answers.
You are spot on Joey!!!
Your original post spoke of a positive experience you had and then the divisive negative naysayers just had to jump in. Lou is the worst of them... imo. Just a lot of smart-alek back talk that does nothing to help anybody. He's a very smart guy and like to show it off. That's all he's been doing.... telling everybody how smart he is and PJ is just as bad. They love to argue but they do it with no observable good intentions for a helpful outcome. I have lost any positive regard or respect I had for them. I think they are not good men. I think they just like making trouble.
- Status