CTE/ProOne Robotics

[scottjen26]

Thanks Patrick for your reply, I appreciate your civility, I certainly would be open to a discussion off-line, especially once I get more time under my belt to further ascertain my understanding of the system. I'm actually doing as you said, enjoying the ride, and if the ride doesn't end then all the better, for me at least.

I can say that my execution of the system is different than I pictured before starting this weeks ago. I thought it would be much more mechanical with the pivoting and everything, and that if I didn't do this or that correctly then I would miss the shot. However, in practice I find that trying to judge the 1/4 ball positions easier than I envisioned, I don't feel like I have to be 100% exact (but pretty close), I'm not spending an unusual amount of time worrying about which eye is looking at what, where to place my bridge hand, bridge distances, etc. It just sort of happened after spending a few hours working with the reference shots and doing everything very mechanically, now it just happens naturally.

I know that may give credibility to the argument that the system is visual or feel based, but even so I feel very locked in on shots, more so than ever before, and I'm legimately surprised when I miss anything other than a very long difficult shot. When I do miss, I just seem to know why better than I did before - my stroke was poor, my visuals didn't feel right but I shot anyway, or I wasn't sure of the shot and just got down and "guessed". I've also made a ton of shots where I pick up on the visual lines and then as I'm getting down on the shot I never look up at the object ball or pocket again, just pivot into center ball on the way down and hit the cue ball and the object ball goes in. I can't explain this away by feel, at least not at the moment, which makes me still think there's something legitimate to the CTE alignment that makes it resolve to the actual aim line in a structured manner.

As to the system itself, I would agree that with any pivot-based system the system must somehow get your body and bridge position set properly so that when you pivot your bridge hand is already on the correct shot line and pivoting just brings the cue into that same alignment. As one person said that I briefly showed this to, why would you want to set up in one position and pivot into the correct line when you can just set up there in the first place? I would concur, however for me when I played before I didn't always know or have confidence that I was setup correctly for the shot, which sometimes led to steering of the cue, flinching, etc. This happened sometimes even on what most players would consider fairly easy shots. Of course when I was playing well it didn't happen as often, but it happened. Now I guess I feel like I have a more regimented approach to each shot, and once I get lined up my eyes are just giving me that feedback that I'm lined up perfectly and just make a good stroke and the ball goes in.

I wish I had a table at home to really work with this that I could mark up the table or balls, get good video and superimpose lines, etc., but if no one else is successful in a possible explanation how this system resolves to the GB line maybe I'll try something in the next couple of weeks.

Scott

 

[champ2107]

Thanks Patrick for your reply, I appreciate your civility, I certainly would be open to a discussion off-line, especially once I get more time under my belt to further ascertain my understanding of the system. I'm actually doing as you said, enjoying the ride, and if the ride doesn't end then all the better, for me at least.

I can say that my execution of the system is different than I pictured before starting this weeks ago. I thought it would be much more mechanical with the pivoting and everything, and that if I didn't do this or that correctly then I would miss the shot. However, in practice I find that trying to judge the 1/4 ball positions easier than I envisioned, I don't feel like I have to be 100% exact (but pretty close), I'm not spending an unusual amount of time worrying about which eye is looking at what, where to place my bridge hand, bridge distances, etc. It just sort of happened after spending a few hours working with the reference shots and doing everything very mechanically, now it just happens naturally.

I know that may give credibility to the argument that the system is visual or feel based, but even so I feel very locked in on shots, more so than ever before, and I'm legimately surprised when I miss anything other than a very long difficult shot. When I do miss, I just seem to know why better than I did before - my stroke was poor, my visuals didn't feel right but I shot anyway, or I wasn't sure of the shot and just got down and "guessed". I've also made a ton of shots where I pick up on the visual lines and then as I'm getting down on the shot I never look up at the object ball or pocket again, just pivot into center ball on the way down and hit the cue ball and the object ball goes in. I can't explain this away by feel, at least not at the moment, which makes me still think there's something legitimate to the CTE alignment that makes it resolve to the actual aim line in a structured manner.

As to the system itself, I would agree that with any pivot-based system the system must somehow get your body and bridge position set properly so that when you pivot your bridge hand is already on the correct shot line and pivoting just brings the cue into that same alignment. As one person said that I briefly showed this to, why would you want to set up in one position and pivot into the correct line when you can just set up there in the first place? I would concur, however for me when I played before I didn't always know or have confidence that I was setup correctly for the shot, which sometimes led to steering of the cue, flinching, etc. This happened sometimes even on what most players would consider fairly easy shots. Of course when I was playing well it didn't happen as often, but it happened. Now I guess I feel like I have a more regimented approach to each shot, and once I get lined up my eyes are just giving me that feedback that I'm lined up perfectly and just make a good stroke and the ball goes in.

I wish I had a table at home to really work with this that I could mark up the table or balls, get good video and superimpose lines, etc., but if no one else is successful in a possible explanation how this system resolves to the GB line maybe I'll try something in the next couple of weeks.

Scott

good post and i agree and all these guys are hung up on bridging placement and distance, I dont even think about it when i play. The true facts are starting to come out about the system now.

 

[rhyno]

good post and i agree and all these guys are hung up on bridging placement and distance, I dont even think about it when i play. The true facts are starting to come out about the system now.

all these guys = pj lol:wink:

 

[champ2107]

all these guys = pj lol:wink:

he is unbelievable!! I have never met an adult with that kind of thought process, he seems like hes somewhat bright, i dunno? lol he must be loved in his pool room

 

[JoeyA]

he is unbelievable!! I have never met an adult with that kind of thought process, he seems like hes somewhat bright, i dunno? lol he must be loved in his pool room

You talkin' 'bout Silky Johnson?

 

[champ2107]

You talkin' 'bout Silky Johnson?

silky? im thinking more like sweaty Johnson lol

 

[rhyno]

he is unbelievable!! I have never met an adult with that kind of thought process, he seems like hes somewhat bright, i dunno? lol he must be loved in his pool room

yeah seems like an intelligent guy but a bit ott for my liking.....bet there are a lot of ear(l) muff wearers in his room:wink:

 

[eezbank]

You talkin' 'bout Silky Johnson?

LOL!! Silky is a player HATER!

 

[JB Cases]

Thanks Patrick for your reply, I appreciate your civility, I certainly would be open to a discussion off-line, especially once I get more time under my belt to further ascertain my understanding of the system. I'm actually doing as you said, enjoying the ride, and if the ride doesn't end then all the better, for me at least.

I can say that my execution of the system is different than I pictured before starting this weeks ago. I thought it would be much more mechanical with the pivoting and everything, and that if I didn't do this or that correctly then I would miss the shot. However, in practice I find that trying to judge the 1/4 ball positions easier than I envisioned, I don't feel like I have to be 100% exact (but pretty close), I'm not spending an unusual amount of time worrying about which eye is looking at what, where to place my bridge hand, bridge distances, etc. It just sort of happened after spending a few hours working with the reference shots and doing everything very mechanically, now it just happens naturally.

I know that may give credibility to the argument that the system is visual or feel based, but even so I feel very locked in on shots, more so than ever before, and I'm legimately surprised when I miss anything other than a very long difficult shot. When I do miss, I just seem to know why better than I did before - my stroke was poor, my visuals didn't feel right but I shot anyway, or I wasn't sure of the shot and just got down and "guessed". I've also made a ton of shots where I pick up on the visual lines and then as I'm getting down on the shot I never look up at the object ball or pocket again, just pivot into center ball on the way down and hit the cue ball and the object ball goes in. I can't explain this away by feel, at least not at the moment, which makes me still think there's something legitimate to the CTE alignment that makes it resolve to the actual aim line in a structured manner.

As to the system itself, I would agree that with any pivot-based system the system must somehow get your body and bridge position set properly so that when you pivot your bridge hand is already on the correct shot line and pivoting just brings the cue into that same alignment. As one person said that I briefly showed this to, why would you want to set up in one position and pivot into the correct line when you can just set up there in the first place? I would concur, however for me when I played before I didn't always know or have confidence that I was setup correctly for the shot, which sometimes led to steering of the cue, flinching, etc. This happened sometimes even on what most players would consider fairly easy shots. Of course when I was playing well it didn't happen as often, but it happened. Now I guess I feel like I have a more regimented approach to each shot, and once I get lined up my eyes are just giving me that feedback that I'm lined up perfectly and just make a good stroke and the ball goes in.

I wish I had a table at home to really work with this that I could mark up the table or balls, get good video and superimpose lines, etc., but if no one else is successful in a possible explanation how this system resolves to the GB line maybe I'll try something in the next couple of weeks.

Scott

Your friend is missing the point. He says why would you set up in one position and then pivot to the shot line when you could set up there in the first place. The fact is that you ARE setting up in the right position in the first place. All you are doing with the "pivot" is bringing the cue into the shot line as you already know. And as you know now this starts to become very natural with a little practice and does not feel mechanical at all.

Don't bang your head trying to figure out why it resolves to the shot line. Just focus on your game and playing. A lot of us have put up very good explanations of how and why the system resolves to the shot line and the naysayers completely ignore those explanations.

It's like knowing the math behind ghost ball. You don't need it in order to use it. Same here, you don't need the physics to know that it works.

I agree with Pat. Enjoy the ride and don't get involved in the arguing. The naysayers will tear you apart no matter if they are right or not. This will erode your confidence in the system and mess with your head. One thing you will never see is a video of Pat Johnson at the table trying CTE. But he will argue against it incessantly. Same for Duckie, Lou F. Banks and several others who have a flat earth view when it comes to this topic.

Which reminds me I have to film Duckie's challenge.....

 

[LAMas]

In another thread, Mike Page suggested a definition of "exact" that involved programming a robot to find correct pivot points using CTE/ProOne. I started a new thread for this because I don't consider CTE/ProOne a pivot system in the sense intended by the "Proofs of the EXACTNESS of Pivot Systems" thread. Among other things, neither the pivot nor the cue are necessary to apply the system successfully.

This is a brief general outline of how I think a robot could be programmed to use CTE/ProOne. Many details depend on how the robot knows the locations (and orientations where appropriate) of itself, the balls, and the pockets. Fortunately, those details don't matter to the algorithm. It'd be easiest in a VP3-like system where everything is calculated, but almost any visual data acquisition system system would work. Binocular vision might be helpful but isn't necessary and might introduce more difficulties than it'd be worth. The following assumes that a monocular vision system is used to acquire all external data the robot needs. I've attempted to not use any raw data not available to the player, at least in some form; I think that effort was successful, but it should be checked.

The robot starts with a practice phase. An arbitrary (but not straight-in) shot is set up. The robot computes and records the cut angle. The cut angle is used to select the correct secondary alignment point on the object ball (left-1/8, A, B, C, or right-1/8) and cue ball (left edge, left-1/8, right-1/8 or right edge). The robot then aligns itself by iteratively calculating CTE and secondary alignment lines and adjusting its position and orientation until the criteria specified for correct alignment are met. The robot then iteratively makes test shots from candidate bridge positions until it finds two different ones that drive the object ball across the center of the pocket. From the two bridge positions, it calculates the CB-GB line for that shot. The robot then selects some point along that CB-GB line that is fairly close to the CTE line and that gives a fairly normal bridge length; this is the initial bridge position for future shots. The robot considers this point to be the apex of the 90-degree angle of a right triangle that has the CB-GB line as its long side and the CTE line as its hypotenuse (there are other ways of handling this but as a right triangle is probably simplest).

For each subsequent shot, the robot determines the new cut angle and uses that to select the appropriate new secondary alignment points. It iteratively finds new CTE and secondary alignment lines and adjusts its alignment until the halting criteria are met. The change in cut angle plus the angular difference between the old and new CTE lines determines the change in angle between the old and new CTE-to-GB angles; from that last angle change, the robot calculates a new CTE-line-to-bridge-point distance (and/or bridge length if that seems desirable). Once the new bridge point is found, the robot aligns the cue from the bridge point to the CB center, completing the "aiming" portion of the shot.

Assuming all of that actually works (no, I'm not going to write the code to test it), then I think it shows there's at least one reasonably sound theoretical basis for CTE/ProOne, though I expect Stan Shuffett doesn't think about it like this at all. It also meets Mike Page's definition of "exact".

Of course, it doesn't say anything at all about it being "exact" as used by humans. I know of no aiming system that is "exact" when used by humans, perhaps excepting short straight-in shots. It's certainly possible that with practice a human can be come so proficient with CTE/ProOne that they rarely need to "adjust" while moving into bridge position.

Oh... and note that the robot didn't pivot or use its cue at all in this .

NOTES:

It would be interesting to know the bridge point's range of distances from the CTE line over a range of normal bridge lengths. By inspection (of a number of 3D drawings), I think the range is fairly small - in the plus/minus 1/4-inch range and centered around 1/2-inch - over a six to twelve inch bridge length range. Of course, that could be very wrong - I couldn't get SketchUp to measure those distances (admittedly, I didn't try very hard).

It could be argued that the practice phase constitutes "feel" rather than "exactness", especially the use of successive approximations to find the initial CB-GB line. With respect to that I see two points. First, all systems require the user to practice with them to become proficient; people don't seem to complain that practicing visualizing the ghost ball is "feel". Second, a whole lot of people, especially A-to-D builders, would argue that determining a value by successive approximations gives VERY exact results.

It could be argued that explicitly using the cut angle and the old-to-new CTE line angle changes quantitatively constitutes using information in a way that a human player cannot (avoiding that was one of the goals of this exercise). First, I would say that doing so does not invalidate CTE/ProOne as a system that can produce precise results; at worst, it may indicate that using CTE/ProOne to locate a precise bridge point is beyond human capabilities; that an approximation within some limits is the best a human can do. Second, humans are very good at working in 3D perspective space (they get a lot of practice), and I think they use the same information the robot does, but once their vision system "understands" the desired result, it applies the data automatically and simultaneously (rather like an analog computer might, but I really know zip about those).

It would be simpler to use the cut angle change to directly calculate the new CB-GB line, but that doesen't seem to me to be what the CTE/ProOne procedure is designed to do; rather, it finds a bridge point on that line without knowing where the GB is located (sort of).

While the robot "sees" the CTE and secondary alignment lines in 3D space and makes its adjustments accordingly, I think it's safe to do angle and distance calculations in the table's perspective plane. I do think it's necessary to use the perspective plane for calculations, however. For one thing, that's what the player's vision-brain system does (in its analogish way). Also, all of the robot's activity and feedback occurs in perspective space (albeit monocular). Also keep in mind that this perspective space has vanishing points along all three axes, and the robot uses the z-axis for the secondary alignment points, which lie on the equator or top of the ball as seen by the robot in perspective and will therefore be slightly "tilted" with respect to the plane of the table).

If we were going to build a real pool playing robot, then during the practice phase it could also acquire information such as cloth speed, how subject this set of balls is to throw and transferred english (i.e., how "sticky" they are) on a per-ball basis, how the cushions respond on bank shots, etc. If it wanted to be really picky, it could also determine each ball's exact diameter and use that information to adjust the shot (since balls larger or smaller than the cue ball won't behave the same as ones that are exactly the cue ball's size). It could also gather information on squirt and swerve at various shot speeds, and test the results of masse and jump shots. In the shot making process, once the cue was aligned along the bridge to CB center line, the robot would adjust the cue's alignment as needed for throw, squirt, etc. It could do all of that very accurately.

For those still worried about getting infinite cut angles from a finite set of alignment points: If the cut angle for the new shot differs any at all from that for the previous shot, then the angle between the CTE line and the CB-GB line also changes. This is true even if the new shot uses the same secondary alignment points on the cue ball and object ball as did the previous shot. The robot/player has moved during the alignment process and the new CTE and secondary alignment lines are not at the old angle to the OB-Pocket line, even though the alignment lines are pointing at the same points on the OB as seen relative to the cue ball. This is trivial to test.

Back to the intent of this thread:
The CAM robot would be an X/Y gantry driven by a computer with a processor and memory. One would exercise all of the senarios of shots and commit them to memory for looking up later when requested.

With time at the table, the human mind can memorize the data points required to effect any shot like a computer, but not as fast and accurate.

The utility of CTE and it's morphs is that the data/aim points reside on the equator of the object ball (OB) and not at vague points on the felt as in double distance and GB aiming.

Universal to most aiming systems are the straight in shot and the CTE 30 degree shot that are intuitive and mastered quickly - if one has a great stroke.

We now evolve to the fractional points that can be perceived on the equator of the object ball (OB); like the center of the OB and it's edges at 3:00 and 9:00 o'clock. Between the center and the edges of the OB, one can visualize the distance between the two an derive the 1/4 OB; divide the distance from th 1/4 to the edge in half ane you derive the 1/8 OB. This process of divisions can with practice be masterd to very finite points.

The utility of CTE line (CTEL) is that it is half way between the thick cut angles and the thin cut angles and gets the body/stance at a comfortable position behind the CB to effect the other elements of aiming.

With that said, from the CTEL, one can offset the cue parallel to the CTEL by some distance, say 1/2 of the cue tip (~.25") and pivot to center of the CB and shoot. Shift to the outside of the CTEL and you will achive a cut angle that is less than 30 degrees and inside of the CTEL you will achieve a cut angle that is greater than 30 degrees. The same is true for using offsets from the straight in shot (CTC).

The utility of aiming using the edge of the CB to fractional aim points on the OB is that unlike double distance and GB aiming, you are not aiming at something on the the felt/cloth for cut angles greater than CTE 30 degrees.

This is where the secondary aiming is usefull, by aiming the edge of the CB to the fractional points on the OB, one can achieve the thin cuts greater than 30 degrees by aiming at fractional points on the OB and not on vague points on the felt.

One has to find where to place the cue with respect to the eye/s so that accurate and repeatable results for the desired cut angle can be effected.

just saying.:thumbup:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

JB:
A lot of us have put up very good explanations of how and why the system resolves to the shot line

This is false (although you seem to honestly think you have).

...and the naysayers completely ignore those explanations.

This is false too. We don't ignore them (until the 100th repeat or so); we dismiss them with careful analysis of why the "explanations" are incomplete, incorrect or irrelevant. In fact, virtually all of the truly careful explanations on this topic come from the skeptics.

pj
chgo

 

[jwpretd]

Back to the intent of this thread:
The CAM robot would be an X/Y gantry driven by a computer with a processor and memory. One would exercise all of the senarios of shots and commit them to memory for looking up later when requested.

That's the way the Australian one does it, and there others that do it that way. An obvious engineering solution that eliminates a number of problems, but ugly as sin - has all of the appeal of a travel lift. There's a working one that moves around on wheels, uses a real cue and bridges like a person would, so it would have to contend with squirt and swerve issues, etc. More difficult mechanically, but much more appealing (sort of like a big R2D2). I posted a link to it a couple of times in threads here. If you look for "robot pool" on YouTube you will find it and several gantry type. For programmers, the R2D2-like one has the advantage that the source code both for the core robotics (in C++) and the pool playing module (in Python) are freely available on-line.

 

[jwpretd]

Regarding the original point of the thread, I haven't forgotten AtLarge's objection to calculating angles directly and my promise to respond to that. I just haven't gotten to it yet.

I'd anticipated the objection. I originally planned to argue that human beings are capable of processing visual information in a similar fashion, and that, in fact, at least some do. I've decided against that. It wanders too deeply into areas of human processing of visually acquired information - the domain of Cognitive Science and Neuroscience - to be amenable to discussion in this forum.

That means I'll have to use the first method I thought of. I didn't use it originally because (a) objections to it on implementation grounds could be difficult to answer, and (b) under the best of conditions it's likely to be wordy. It occurred to me a couple of days ago that I can answer the first objection trivially. The second can probably be met by being very careful with the writing.

The new method does have the advantage that Patrick will like at lot, since he'll be able to claim that the robot would be playing by feel and I, at least, would be reluctant to argue against that in the absence of a clear and unambiguous definition of "feel", which we don't have. Also, the same method could be applied to "Patrick's CTE System" which we know works by feel (it's designer said so), thus proving that robots can play by feel. Since we know that a system is exact if a robot can be programmed to play by it (Mike Page said so and I've not seen anyone contradict that), then we will have proven that systems that work by feel are exact. Thus, we will have proven that CTE/ProOne is exact whether or not it works by feel. Further, we will have proven that all systems are exact, whether they work by feel or otherwise, provided the balls go where we want them to. (I can't remember if that last requirement has been directly stated before, but I added it because to do so feels right.)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

LAMas:
90/90 works when the bridge placement distance behind the CB, pre-pivot is 1/2 the distance between the Cb and OB.

Pivoting from the 90/90 line, the successful ratio of bridge/CB to CB/OB distances changes with cut angle. For cuts fuller than about half ball the bridge/CB distance actually must be greater than the CB/OB distance - and it rises quickly from there to infinity (for a straight shot).

pj
chgo

 

[pablocruz]

Pivoting from the 90/90 line, the successful ratio of bridge/CB to CB/OB distances changes with cut angle. For cuts fuller than about half ball the bridge/CB distance actually must be greater than the CB/OB distance - and it rises quickly from there to infinity (for a straight shot).

pj
chgo

Exactly how do you determine where to place your bridge before pivoting? Can you describe this in objective detail so that anybody could do it?

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

This is false (although you seem to honestly think you have).


This is false too. We don't ignore them (until the 100th repeat or so); we dismiss them with careful analysis of why the "explanations" are incomplete, incorrect or irrelevant. In fact, virtually all of the truly careful explanations on this topic come from the skeptics.

pj
chgo

No, it's true.

Careful analysis? You have never tried it. You can't analyze the system if you haven't tried it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Exactly how do you determine where to place your bridge before pivoting? Can you describe this in objective detail so that anybody could do it?

I'm talking about theory, not implementation. I don't think there's a good way to place your bridge accurately for this system. I think there are much better ways to learn to aim.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You can't analyze the system if you haven't tried it.

This is patently false. If I told you to aim every shot directly into the rail would you have to try that to know it can't work? It isn't much harder than that to analyze the basic propositions of CTE and know the user must be adding something that the system leaves out.

pj
chgo

 

[pablocruz]

I'm talking about theory, not implementation. I don't think there's a good way to place your bridge accurately for this system. I think there are much better ways to learn to aim.

pj
chgo

So nothing specific, just conjecture again? Who could have predicted?

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

This is patently false. If I told you to aim every shot directly into the rail would you have to try that to know it can't work? It isn't much harder than that to analyze the basic propositions of CTE and know the user must be adding something that the system leaves out.

pj
chgo

No, but that's comparing apples and oranges.

This isn't so obvious. It needs to be done at the table to understand what's going on. Just follow the steps and the ball goes in the hole. Don't you think you can get a better grasp of what your "analyzing" that way?

And yes, the user adds something. A stroke.