CTE/ProOne Robotics

AtLarge said:
Therefore, for two similar shots with just a slightly different cut angle, the player is likely to choose the same one of the 8 alignments. And if the CB/OB separation is the same for both shots, he will also use the same bridge distance for both shots. The OB will then travel on the same cut angles for the two shots, whereas slightly different cut angles are needed. For the two shots, your robot knows about the changed angles of the alignment lines to the OB/pocket line; the human does not.
Click to expand...

jwpretd said:
To have a different cut angle, either the OB or CB or both must have moved from the original position(s). If the player doesn't move (realign) then the original visualized CTEL and A or B or whatever lines are no longer visually in the right place. He is forced to move to restore the correct visual alignment, which causes him to find new CTE, etc, lines. Below is a picture; it's not in perspective, but the principle holds. I haven't figured out how to type below an attachment, so I'll have to do it here.

In both cases, we have an outside CTE line (the red line) and a left-CB-edge to OB B line (the green line). The ball with the roughly dashed outline is the ghost ball. Clearly the shots go at different angles. I probably should draw this out in 3D where the orientation of the table top on the screen would indicate the player's alignment.
Click to expand...

John, I don't see how your comments address my point. I'm postulating that all of the following are the same between two shot set-ups: distance between CB and OB, choice of alignments from among the menu provided by Stan's CTE (including the side from which the pivot is made), and bridge distance. The only thing different is the cut angle needed to the pocket. How does Stan's CTE achieve the different angle?

In your two-shot diagram, the angles to the corner of the diagram (the pocket) are very different -- approximately 32 degrees (not sure why this isn't 30) versus approximately 18 degrees. I imagine that such a large difference in cut angle would require either a different secondary alignment point or a different side for the pivot. But let's assume for now that "B" is correct for both shots and that the pivot is made from the same side for the two shots. Then why would the two shot lines converge to the same point at the pocket?

Suppose there is no pocket on your diagram, and no left rail (from the shooter's vantage point). You go through the same body-alignment steps for both shots (CB center to right OB edge and left CB edge to OB "B." You pivot from the same side for both shots and use the same bridge length for both shots. Now shoot the two shots. Do you not think the OB would strike the end cushion in two different places? If you agree that they would, then what changes when the pocket is put back in the picture? And remember, I am postulating two shots that are the same in all regards except for a slight difference in the cut angle needed to pocket them.
 
...Exactly how does a player use this window dressing? I'll give you some more guidance: where in relation to the aimpoint line does the player place his stick before pivoting?

I'm sure these are trivial questions for somebody who understands CTE as thoroughly as you do.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
champ2107:
I have been brilliant so far in these threads
Click to expand...
LOL. Hang onto that thought.

blah blah blah...
no answer.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The system gives no clear instruction for how to use the aim point. "Visualize it" is meaningless.

Here's your chance to be brilliant, champ. Exactly how does a player use this window dressing? I'll give you some more guidance: where in relation to the aimpoint line does the player place his stick before pivoting?

I'm sure these are trivial questions for somebody who understands CTE as thoroughly as you do.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
once you've aligned your vision to the reference point the cte line is viewed from a different perspective.
you place your bridge hand slightly offset to the cte line so it doesnt matter where the cue is pointing as you'll be pivoting back to the centre of the cb.
obviously you'll be wanting to strike the cue ball square so its easier if you dont angle the cue too much or you'll have to shuffle around to get comfortable/square.
the cue angle has no relation to the outcome of the shot.
you'd realise this if you tried pro one as the eyes lead the cue into the correct position.
i don't particularly care whether its a perfect science.i just know the ball goes.
i cant see the ghost ball in ghost ball aiming but i have an idea where it is so i align my stance to where i think i should be.this gives me the required offset to see the visuals correctly
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Uh, OK... what does that mean? Start with "your eyes offset the CTE line".

pj <- have a feeling this could go on for awhile
chgo
Click to expand...

did you watch the dvd or where you too busy imagining ghost balls?
watch stans demo of pro one pivots compared to basic cte pivots.
you seem like an intelligent guy so i'm sure even you could understand it
 
Patrick Johnson said:
The usual CTE answer when there's no answer.

Humor me and tell me what Stan says. That should be easy, right?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
how is there no answer? its on there clear as day.pro one starts about 32mins in i think.
whats the point in me typing a description as you can see it on the dvd you purchased.
maybe you should contact stan to see if he can make a subtitled version of the dvd if you want to read everything.
 
This looked interesting at first. Then people started *****ing at each other. Can we create a separate thread for insults only?

disclaimer: I have no view on aiming systems whatsoever. A robot would definitely need one, though, and I am interested in how to define that.
 
timseal said:
I have no view on aiming systems whatsoever. A robot would definitely need one, though, and I am interested in how to define that.
Click to expand...
Aiming is the easy part; the most parsimonious way is to use a ghost ball (in effect).

The robot knows exactly where the cue ball, object ball, and pocket are. It finds the line from the object ball's center to the center of the pocket, then finds a point one ball diameter behind the object ball and sends the cue ball over the calculated spot.

There are a bunch of pool playing robots around, but the most interesting one I've seen is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMx1xW2E4Gg

The source code is all on-line. I didn't dig through it much, but it appears that the robot has a central engine coded in C++ that provides the utility functionality and then uses activity-specific modules for behavior (the pool one is written in Python but I don't know if all of them are).
 
rhyno:
whats the point in me typing a description
Click to expand...
I know what the point is in you not typing a description. The obvious point is that you can't type a description. Neither can champ2107 or JB or JoeyA or cookie man or eezbank or any other CTE cheerleader.

Interpreting the CTE/aimpoint line "visual" and placing the bridge on the precise shot line isn't a trivial part of the "system"; it's the heart of it - everything depends on it. Yet nobody can say clearly how it's done. Obviously that's because it's done by feel.

If it's so clear it must be simple to prove me wrong. But you can't do it.

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
I know what the point is in you not typing a description. The obvious point is that you can't type a description. Neither can champ2107 or JB or JoeyA or cookie man or eezbank or any other CTE cheerleader.

Interpreting the CTE/aimpoint line "visual" and placing the bridge on the precise shot line isn't a trivial part of the "system"; it's the heart of it - everything depends on it. Yet nobody can say clearly how it's done. Obviously that's because it's done by feel.

If it's so clear it must be simple to prove me wrong. But you can't do it.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...
see the cte line from aim point visual.move body which includes head/eyes to offset of cte line while picking up centre of cb.the cue is being rotated from left to right while all this happening.
obviously body movement is feel orientated as were not robots, placing your bridge hand is a simple repetition which is accurate as its so close to the cte line.
as ive said your to obssessed with exactness.ive never said its exact.i said it works for me.
pool is results orientated.you can talk about it till your blue in the face but the only thing that matters is if you can get out or not
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Interpreting the CTE/aimpoint line "visual" and placing the bridge on the precise shot line isn't a trivial part of the "system"; it's the heart of it - everything depends on it. Yet nobody can say clearly how it's done. Obviously that's because it's done by feel.
Click to expand...

The first sentence is absolutely true. It would be nice if everyone realized that this methodology is based strictly on what the individual player sees at the table.

The third sentence is (or could be interpreted as) a little too strong. If "done" was replaced by "learned", then the only possible response is "Of course it is." So's contact-point-to-contact-point (you have to learn how to project the OB contact point back to the cue ball), ghost ball (you have to learn how to "see" it in the right place at the right size), etc.

For the most part, they're learned exactly as you proposed people learn "Pat's CTE": discovery of a sufficiently precise result through successive approximation. People learn a whole lot of things that way, not just pool aiming systems or the square root of 2 or the fastest line through the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca on an Aprilia RSA 250.

The question is, once a person has become accomplished at something learned this way, do they continue to do it by "feel" or has their performance become "exact"? Does the answer depend on the activity, or the procedures involved in the activity, or both, or something else?

I'm pretty sure that expert users of CTE/ProOne get results that are as "exact" as those achieved by people who aim any other way (given equal skill at the other facets of pocketing pool balls, of course).

If we're going to talk about "exact" then it needs a clear definition, and one that is careful not to exclude things that should be kept in. I'm not too interested in that. As far as I'm concerned, "exact" is what you worry about with, say, stepper motors and the wire spacing on proportional chambers used for xray crystallography, not pool.

A clear definition of "feel" would be good, too. Personally, I'd call "Pat's CTE" (which I think would be a good thing for people to try, by the way) "exact". It has a clearly defined procedure that obviously converges to a stopping point that is sufficiently precise for its purpose. The stopping point may be a touch fuzzy ("looks right" I think it was), but the learning process takes care of clearing it up as much as each individual desires. Sort of like calculating the square root of 2, actually.
 
Sorry - forgot the second sentence:

Patrick Johnson said:
Yet nobody can say clearly how it's done.
Click to expand...

What form would an acceptable answer take? Would it suffice to provide an example series of steps that you could go through that should lead you to "visualize" the sight lines in the correct places? Perhaps with a couple of images of hypothetical shots that illustrate approximately what most people seem to "visualize"?

One difficulty with telling somebody how to do this is that it's so highly visual (as you noted) that exactly what is "visualized" differs from individual to individual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top