The robot would be confused with the "visual sweep " , "manual pivot " , " half tip pivot ", " disguised pivot " and "this trumps CIT " .
Never mind the dozens of acronyms. Haha!
Never mind the dozens of acronyms. Haha!
You could have a robot do the math for poolology
Then shoot the calculated aim
I understand what you're saying but it got me daydreaming a bit.I think another way to say that is: An aiming system is objective if it could be used directly to program a robot to play pool.
One example is the ghost ball system, which would be easy to program. One problem is that it would be inaccurate due to throw. The next step up would be the throw-corrected ghost ball system. That would depend on the condition of the equipment and, of course spin on the cue ball, but it could theoretically be programmed to be scary accurate.
Then no.What is that supposed to mean? Is that some kind of a dig at me?
I have never played APA.
CTE didn't work for me when I followed the instructions exactly. It's not a lie.And immediately you begin with the same false statement, (it doesn't work). That is just a plain lie. If it didn't work you didn't do it right.
I think we're having two different conversations. I'm trying to understand why people are able to pocket balls using CTE (is it really objective or are they simply making it work) while you are saying it is objective (puts you on the shot line) simply because you are pocketing balls. That is circular logic.I don't have a clue what a 3/4 ball reference point is and doubt seriously I referred to that, so I'm afraid you are misunderstanding something I said. I'm not looking for it cause I don't really care.
Oh so that's why it's not objective? But then you admit that it really is objective because it uses a few of the same references as other systems, ie, the 4 quarters of the balls? I believe his steps put the shooter on the shot line when done correctly because I've done it for years so yeah it does.
This proves you are not using CTE. You are using your experience. I know this because JB made a video awhile back in which he tried to do the exact same thing -- imagine a spot on the rail and use CTE to get there. I think it was Stan who pointed out that you cannot do that with CTE. It only works because the pockets are at the corners of the table. If you are doing that and getting success then you're not using CTE. You are doing it from experience and giving credit to CTE. I know you don't want to hear that.Whether or not a shooter takes a second glance to see if it looks doable is up to them. I will say there are times when a shot looks like it could be 1 of 2 perceptions so the logical thing for a shooter to do is line of the shot with one, then take that glance, if it looks good fire, if not then do the same process with the other and see if it looks better. No adjustments for "feel" or whatnot need to be made for either. To a knowledgeable player one will look right and the other simply will not.
It may be if you divide the balls down to small enough fractions. The simple 1/4 ball divisions utilized by CTE will not be accurate enough for poolology. That is why the math is so important to it. When I play pool I don't want to do math, which is why I gave up on poolology years ago.
The angles on the table do not differ from one system to another. When I tried poolology I got headaches frankly trying to aim at 3/8 or 5/8 or whatever portions of the balls after working out a mathematical pop quiz on every shot. I don't know how an inscribed angle theorem plays into all that. And truthfully, since you mentioned the geometry of the pool table and the diamonds there is a statement Stan says all the time about CTE locking the shot in to the geometry of a pool table and the perfect 2:1 ratio of it. I don't understand how or why that is and maybe it has something to do with this inscribed angle theorem. Brian is the mathematician around here so maybe he could speak to that. I do know this, I play one pocket, almost exclusively, other games with the exception of straight pool bore me to tears. There have been many many times when my best shot was a 2 or 3 rail bank to my pocket but I don't use any particular banking system to cipher the amount of cut into the first rail, but I can generally guess fairly close oftentimes, and so after determining about where that 1st rail contact would be if I imagine a pocket there and then use the perception that would cut the object ball there the ball seems to lock in to that table geometry and make or come very close to making the 2 or 3 rail bank shot. I don't understand why that is and don't need to. I had success with it so many times I just trust the system to work if I do my part correctly.
It works because you make it work. That has been proven above.It's a multi-step process that does exactly that. I would venture to say the biggest reason one does not fall on the shot line is because they do not truly know or correctly execute the process. There is no other reason for it not working. Each step done in the correct order, correctly, is what puts you on the shot line. That is the "how".
The round barn concept is merely one of several explanations Stan, and Hal Houle actually, used to explain the effect of looking through the center of a round ball from a different angle. The result of doing so is what Stan calls "stepping" the cue ball, and is mandatory for success with CTE. Stan, being a career Teacher is well, passionate at least about finding ways of describing points, especially ones that important.
I do not, very few shots I even look at the pocket after I address the cue ball. I do miss sometimes of course, so maybe if I did the glance I mentioned earlier a bit more often I'd do better?
Sure, I can agree with that, but bear in mind when I discuss my success or lack of it with CTE I am doing that, just that. There are variable ways of doing it and what I discuss is only based on how I do it. I don't care if you or anyone else never uses it, but I take exception when you or anyone else comes on here and states that it just does not work. That sir, is a falsehood.
Plus, it could use the actual arcs instead of the straight line approximations.Yes, I'd say that'd be true for most shots, but the robot would have to tweak a shot on occassion, particularly whenever the shot falls outside the system parameters, like when the cb is too close to the ob, or when the position value of the ob is equal to or close to being equal to the alignment value (the value indicated on the rail via the cb-ob centerline).
Other than those exceptions, a robot could easily use the system to pocket balls very well.
I think that would make it ghost ball (or corrected ghost ball) and not Poolology.Plus, it could use the actual arcs instead of the straight line approximations.
Plus, it could use the actual arcs instead of the straight line approximations.
The thing that makes Poolology work is a set of circular arcs on the playing surface. Brian straightened those arcs out so that they are straight lines, like two legs of a box rather than an arc. That made the math simple and user friendly. It's still Poolology but if the robot can just use ghost ball that would be simpler, of course.I think that would make it ghost ball (or corrected ghost ball) and not Poolology.
I think that would make it ghost ball (or corrected ghost ball) and not Poolology.
You really wondered whether APA allows you to have a pause in your backstroke?Then no.
It was a pretty simple question.
I believe it didn't work for you. I don't believe you followed the process correctly. Sorry, just can't imagine you even know the correct process.CTE didn't work for me when I followed the instructions exactly. It's not a lie.
Successfully pocketing is the ultimate pocketing. Would you believe it worked if I was missing all those shots?I think we're having two different conversations. I'm trying to understand why people are able to pocket balls using CTE (is it really objective or are they simply making it work) while you are saying it is objective (puts you on the shot line) simply because you are pocketing balls. That is circular logic.
That's just not true at all. Stan has illustrated both on video as well as in his book hundreds of shots where he is doing exactly that.This proves you are not using CTE. You are using your experience. I know this because JB made a video awhile back in which he tried to do the exact same thing -- imagine a spot on the rail and use CTE to get there. I think it was Stan who pointed out that you cannot do that with CTE. It only works because the pockets are at the corners of the table. If you are doing that and getting success then you're not using CTE. You are doing it from experience and giving credit to CTE. I know you don't want to hear that.
And it does so because I use the illustrated process to make it work. If I don't I very likely miss the shot.It works because you make it work. That has been proven above.
Stan has never illustrated that you can imagine a pocket along a rail and use CTE to get there. If he actually has then he has completely changed his teaching of CTE. Ask JB. This is different from supposedly making 2 and 3 rail shots using CTE.I believe it didn't work for you. I don't believe you followed the process correctly. Sorry, just can't imagine you even know the correct process.
Successfully pocketing is the ultimate pocketing. Would you believe it worked if I was missing all those shots?
That's just not true at all. Stan has illustrated both on video as well as in his book hundreds of shots where he is doing exactly that.
And it does so because I use the illustrated process to make it work. If I don't I very likely miss the shot.
You have a very strong negative opinion of CTE, I get it, but you have no proof that any of your points are factual.
Stan has never illustrated that you can imagine a pocket along a rail and use CTE to get there. If he actually has then he has completely changed his teaching of CTE. Ask JB. This is different from supposedly making 2 and 3 rail shots using CTE.
I'm going to leave well enough alone. I don't believe you have considered or possibly even understood a single thing I've said so why bang my head against a wall? I tried.
I hope you hit 'em all dead center. It doesn't really matter how you do it.
How would one know edge to B would be too fat and edge to C would be too thin?I believe it didn't work for you. I don't believe you followed the process correctly. Sorry, just can't imagine you even know the correct process.
Successfully pocketing is the ultimate pocketing. Would you believe it worked if I was missing all those shots?
That's just not true at all. Stan has illustrated both on video as well as in his book hundreds of shots where he is doing exactly that.
And it does so because I use the illustrated process to make it work. If I don't I very likely miss the shot.
You have a very strong negative opinion of CTE, I get it, but you have no proof that any of your points are factual.
He said in his first or second post that the book has you set up certain shots that you hit over and over again until they look right. In other words HAMB.How would one know edge to B would be too fat and edge to C would be too thin?
Cutting to the left.
Not exactly, the point is to recognize the perception based on the object ball/cue ball relation to the pocket. It's not about hitting a million balls, although I'm probably pretty close to that over the last 50 or so years playing pool. The point is to learn to select the correct perception and then use the CTE process to execute the shot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, every perception has a different visual yet they all use the same process.He said in his first or second post that the book has you set up certain shots that you hit over and over again until they look right. In other words HAMB.
...and by how much?How would one know edge to B would be too fat and edge to C would be too thin?
Cutting to the left.
Dirty balls and I need a high inside?...and by how much?
pj
chgo
Perception being angles to the pocket?Not exactly, the point is to recognize the perception based on the object ball/cue ball relation to the pocket. It's not about hitting a million balls, although I'm probably pretty close to that over the last 50 or so years playing pool. The point is to learn to select the correct perception and then use the CTE process to execute the shot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, every perception has a different visual yet they all use the same process.
I don't know what your response was about since I blocked that guy ages ago, but your point was incorrect regardless.
Well like I said I don't think you are doing what Stan teaches but I'm not going to belabor the point.Not exactly, the point is to recognize the perception based on the object ball/cue ball relation to the pocket. It's not about hitting a million balls, although I'm probably pretty close to that over the last 50 or so years playing pool. The point is to learn to select the correct perception and then use the CTE process to execute the shot,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, every perception has a different visual yet they all use the same process.
I don't know what your response was about since I blocked that guy ages ago, but your point was incorrect regardless.