OK Colin, let's talk aiming.
- Thread starter CaptainJR
- Start date
CaptainJR said:
I would have used the same aiming spot for any of those shots. Why? Because 99% of the time those small changes in angles don't matter. They really don't. So, instead of using detailed systems to get the exact contact point, I use my simple system which works almost all the time.
I agree with you, CaptainJR, about the fact that minor changes in angles create some differences in the shots. But then I came to the conclusion a while back of "So what?" Ask yourself, a league banger like me, how often and how important---really--- are these little, teeny-tiny changes in YOUR game? I discovered that, not only were they rarely important, messing with them could actually screw up my shot, more times than would happen if I just used my simple aiming system.
Another thought on this is, because few here on AZ (filled with experts)could tell the differences in your wonderful images, is there a real (ie, experienced-based) reason to even note the tiny differences on most shots? My answer is a resounding "NO!"
I think you and Colin are BOTH correct. But I also think one's reason for playing and where a player is in his lifetime of pool mandates that the choice of the absolutely best aiming style is a personal one. Yours is obviously not mine nor Colin's. Again, I say, "So what?"
Jeff Livingston
I just had another thought, too. Only 7 out of 45 players had the "correct" answer. How could this be? How could 38 dedicated pool players be so wrong???? I don't think this percent of error is true, or else these 38 wouldn't be pool players, but instead be bowlers or curlers or something else where they could actually make a shot without a protractor.
What I think your experiment shows is that exactness isn't always necessary to play competitive pool. Sometimes, sure, but not usually.
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it....don't confuse me with the facts.
Jeff Livingston
What I think your experiment shows is that exactness isn't always necessary to play competitive pool. Sometimes, sure, but not usually.
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it....don't confuse me with the facts.
Jeff Livingston
CaptainJR said:
You forgot the "sh"
Your 4 or five pictures that were attached are all aligned within pixles of each other.....It just does not happen that way in real life....
They may be off by a pixle or two, but in the video game world, that has to be the way adjustements are made..other wise the game would be no fun...
If as you say the game is "spot on" ...and obviously you are a master at the game..then why don't I see you winning everything in site???? It's not reality....(its only a simulation....as in "SIMULAR")
I can shoot 57 at Tiger Woods golf and it has "realistic" features to the game....is it reality.....Not even close.
A+ for effort...but I am sorry...its just not reality..
BRKNRUN said:
I completely agree (well except for the Tiger woods bit, but I will explain that in a minute). The perspective video games provide is not the same as what you would have if you were playing for real. That is very important.
I aim standing up at least three or four feet behind the cue ball. This way I can see the relation of the CB to the OB. The angle provided recreates what you would see if you are in your stance. This view is completely foriegn to me and I have a difficult time aiming in this way. I think this is probably why alot of people had a difficult time.
I disagree with the Tiger Woods analogy because of there is more leeway in a golf video game than a pool game. Alot of pool games don't give you any help. They just let you break hard and stroke straight.
ridingthenine21
Registered
If Virtual Pool proves that shot...
I used to play microsoft flight simulator. Does that prove I can fly a 747?
I used to play microsoft flight simulator. Does that prove I can fly a 747?
chefjeff said:I just had another thought, too. Only 7 out of 45 players had the "correct" answer. How could this be? How could 38 dedicated pool players be so wrong???? I don't think this percent of error is true, or else these 38 wouldn't be pool players, but instead be bowlers or curlers or something else where they could actually make a shot without a protractor.
What I think your experiment shows is that exactness isn't always necessary to play competitive pool. Sometimes, sure, but not usually.
That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it....don't confuse me with the facts.
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
7 out of 45 is a little out of line. But 20 out of 45 on this shot is not out of line. As I said I picked out this shot very carefully. No room for error. What happed is a limit to file size. In the game I use 1280x960. If I could have uploaded that picture size I think more people would have got it right.
But it certainly made the point. This is a computer simulation, a very good one. Your saying that all of the 4 closest ones would all have went in the hole in real life pool. Just not true. That is why I used the computer game. To prove it. Your saying the computer is wrong (pretty bold by the way), but for arguments sake lets say it is off by another 10 pixels. According to your systems you are still using the same alignment. At that point your systems are missing for sure. There are some good players using these systems though. Well what is happening there is they are underestimating their natural pocketing ability. In other words they are playing by feel and don't know it. These systems just don't always work and I've shown that here.
It has been said that these systems make 95% percent of shots. I think this is a little exaggerated. No much though. I'd say 90% on a bar box and maybe 80% on a good 9' table. On longer, less margin for error shots, the percentage goes down very quickly. That could be avoided if you played real good position all the time though.
90% of your shots? I guarantee if you only make 90% of your shots, I'm going to beat you every time. That brings up another subject that was very politely mentioned. The question of who am I to say all this, was insinuated. By the way, it was very cool of you not to be blunt about it. I'll be blunt about it and say I'm nobody. Very honestly, I'm a B+ player according to what I've read on here about what that means. There are a few types of B players though. B's that are on there way to becoming As, Bs that don't have the ability to be an A, Bs that have acquired a lot of knowledge about the game but simply don't have the time to spend to be able to demonstrate all they know on a consistent basis. This last one would be me. However that doesn't matter here. Again this is another reason I used this proof. To show that it doesn't take a champion to see this. I've made it plain enough that anyone that reads the entire thing can see and understand it.
Chefjeff, you are calling yourself a "league banger" and say that this other 10% of the shots or so doesn't matter. That is not the impression I'm getting from you. I think you aspire to be better than that or you wouldn't spend as much time on this forum as you do. Are these systems good enough for someone that just wants to enjoy themselves on league night? Sure they are.
you haven't shown jack. The thing that everyone keeps bringing up and you keep ignoring is that those systems require TRUE three dimensional space to determine. I can absolutely prove that some of those systems work WITHOUT subconscious intervention..... I can even show you how to prove it to yourself if you can understand a truly convoluted system.....
Using virtual pool which has truly limited physics when compared to the real world is kind of a joke. If you want to make a robotic arm that strokes perfectly straight and give someone with a system a chance in real world 3D to set it up how it should go in based on their system and they can't, then you might be on to something. The answer though is that they would likely be able to because as long as that arm strokes straight most of those systems would work...I can guarantee that parallel lines works and can demonstrate it quite easily.
In fact I probably will, except it may take me some time, because I just moved and am still setting up my shop and pool table. But I plan on installing video cameras over and around my table so when I do, I'll video tape a quite readily identifiable definitive answer to the systems question..
Using virtual pool which has truly limited physics when compared to the real world is kind of a joke. If you want to make a robotic arm that strokes perfectly straight and give someone with a system a chance in real world 3D to set it up how it should go in based on their system and they can't, then you might be on to something. The answer though is that they would likely be able to because as long as that arm strokes straight most of those systems would work...I can guarantee that parallel lines works and can demonstrate it quite easily.
In fact I probably will, except it may take me some time, because I just moved and am still setting up my shop and pool table. But I plan on installing video cameras over and around my table so when I do, I'll video tape a quite readily identifiable definitive answer to the systems question..
Jaden said:
Jaden, read the entire thing or don't bother to respond. The systems that I have been talking about don't use the contact point like parallel lines does.
As far as the game goes. Regardless of what you say, the game easily works well enough to show and prove what I've done here.