Proof discrete aiming methods can't work

I have yet to see any indication pj did

dr_dave said:
Are you implying that PJ and I haven't taken into account the roundness of the balls? You apparently have very little faith in us.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...


Dave,

I have little faith in simple equations to solve complex problems no matter who presents them. Regardless of what you choose to believe, trying to determine by formula if a ball will or will not be pocketed using fifteen aim points on the visible surface of an object ball for all typical shots requires a very complex formula or continual new inputs into a fairly simple formula. The curvature of the object ball and the fact that cushions and faces are flexible adds immensely to the issues solving the problem. One of the first things needed to start to solve this question by formula is to determine exactly the outside limits of where the ball can hit and still be pocketed. This has to be determined empirically on a table for enough angles that a formula or constant can be built.

According to pj all that is needed is pi to come to his conclusions. Once again, if you can explain how this can work to me, how that accounts for the fact that there can be overlap between pocket width and ball diameter I am ready to learn.

If his calculations don't account for that, then he indeed used a flat circle as part of his calculations, it doesn't matter if he realizes that or not. He has also yet to claim that he recalculated the fifteen points on the visible face of the object ball for each angle. While you are busily defending pj he has once again decided that he doesn't want to explain his own calculations adequately so that others can evaluate the accuracy of his findings. Isn't that exactly what you and pj find objectionable about the people with "magic" aiming systems?

Hu
 
The effective "size" of a pocket does vary in a complicated way as angle to the pocket and ball speed and spin change, but I don't think this diminishes the insight provided by PJ's simplified analysis (which was applied to a range of "effective pocket sizes"). If you are interested, I have studied the "pocket size" effect fairly thoroughly. For more info, see:


Regards,
Dave

ShootingArts said:
Dave,

I have little faith in simple equations to solve complex problems no matter who presents them. Regardless of what you choose to believe, trying to determine by formula if a ball will or will not be pocketed using fifteen aim points on the visible surface of an object ball for all typical shots requires a very complex formula or continual new inputs into a fairly simple formula. The curvature of the object ball and the fact that cushions and faces are flexible adds immensely to the issues solving the problem. One of the first things needed to start to solve this question by formula is to determine exactly the outside limits of where the ball can hit and still be pocketed. This has to be determined empirically on a table for enough angles that a formula or constant can be built.

According to pj all that is needed is pi to come to his conclusions. Once again, if you can explain how this can work to me, how that accounts for the fact that there can be overlap between pocket width and ball diameter I am ready to learn.

If his calculations don't account for that, then he indeed used a flat circle as part of his calculations, it doesn't matter if he realizes that or not. He has also yet to claim that he recalculated the fifteen points on the visible face of the object ball for each angle. While you are busily defending pj he has once again decided that he doesn't want to explain his own calculations adequately so that others can evaluate the accuracy of his findings. Isn't that exactly what you and pj find objectionable about the people with "magic" aiming systems?

Hu
Click to expand...
 
I'd bet anything no one would ever post any videos because it'd likely blow their perceived "expert" identity.
Click to expand...

Again with the videos...

The videos you posted didn't establish your "expertise"; what makes you think more videos would "blow" anybody else's expertise? Your videos show you shoot well, but your fixation on them as the only reliable indicator that somebody might understand your system shows an extreme lack of understanding on your part (as has been pointed out to you several times before).

pj
chgo
 
I have already ran this rabbit

dr_dave said:
The effective "size" of a pocket does vary in a complicated way as angle to the pocket and ball speed and spin change, but I don't think this diminishes the insight provided by PJ's simplified analysis (which was applied to a range of "effective pocket sizes"). If you are interested, I have studied the "pocket size" effect fairly thoroughly. For more info, see:


Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Dave,

You might recall that I did some testing on this several years ago using computer modeling and reported the results. That is where the fifteen points comes from. Until someone produces some documentation that fairly closely matches actual test results I'll stand by the test results. I have pointed out the flaws in trying to calculate these things and you and pj both have steadfastly refused to address these real issues.

Get out your paper and pencil and watch two prerecorded matches. One eight ball, one nine ball or ten ball. Record every shot where the player also shot the previous shot and didn't hook themselves. My criteria for a typical shot. Now test or cypher how many of these shots would have been made with fifteen points evenly distributed across the face of the ball from just inside either edge. When you do that you have some basis to dispute my statements. Until then, you haven't addressed my statements.

Hu
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Again with the videos...

The videos you posted didn't establish your "expertise"; what makes you think more videos would "blow" anybody else's expertise? Your videos show you shoot well, but your fixation on them as the only reliable indicator that somebody might understand your system shows an extreme lack of understanding on your part (as has been pointed out to you several times before).

pj
chgo
Click to expand...



It's not my only reliable indicator...it's "a" reliable indicator--- one more than what you have. It's not my system, or the world would be educated. Actually, my request has nothing to do with aiming at all... I just wanna see if anyone CAN pocket a ball in addition to knowing everything in the world about HOW to on the web. That's all.

Again, you don't have to. I knew you'd never post a video of yourself - it'd ruin the....
disguise.jpg
 
ShootingArts said:
According to pj all that is needed is pi to come to his conclusions. Once again, if you can explain how this can work to me, how that accounts for the fact that there can be overlap between pocket width and ball diameter I am ready to learn.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simple to reduce the question to a manageable but effective approximation. Stop insisting this is impossible before you even know what it is and I'll believe you're ready to learn.

... he indeed used a flat circle as part of his calculations
Click to expand...

The CB and OB can only contact one another on a "flat circle" - we call it the "equator". You're overcomplicating things.

... He has also yet to claim that he recalculated the fifteen points on the visible face of the object ball for each angle.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show why this would be necessary.

How to simplify the approach:

1. It's only necessary to determine if your fifteen aim points will send the OB to enough locations that a pocket cannot fit between any two of them at a given distance. This is a simple calculation for given variables.

2. You don't need to be more precise with your variables than is necessary for the precision you want in your results (we're not arguing about a 1% or 10% difference in the number of required aim points; we're arguing about a 50% or 100% difference). This means that, for instance, you can use an "average effective pocket size" rather than calculating separately for all possible variations.

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
2_Fast_4_Fleas said:
i would like to see someone in a tournament match pull out a measuring tape and a calculator between shots and figuring out things, then see how long before his oponnents head explodes from anger or laughter! :grin-square:
Click to expand...

Another way of saying "I don't understand a word of this." Obviously you don't need to in order to play well.

pj
chgo
 
i agree with the people saying that others are over-complicating this. it is really very simple. you can cut a ball at an infinite number of degrees, in fact, if you went far enough out on your measurements (granted you can't do this), there is no doubt that no two balls have ever been cut at the exact same angle in the history of pool.

knowing that a ball can be struck to an infinite number of angles, there is no way to discretely aim and hit the center of the pocket every time, to hit the center every time, youd have to have some sort of infinitely variable system (ie feel, ahh, the real answer). if you think 16 or 15 or 4 or 80 aiming points on the two balls is enough to pocket every shot possible on a pool table, you're wrong. if you did happen to have enough aiming points, i think you could get away with making many, many shots, and some you may slop in because of the size of the pockets. but it would never be fullproof.

i think to simply things people should consider these arguments as though there were no allowable error, that is, if the pockets were just as big as the balls. to make shots on this table the aiming would be infinitely variable. if you argue that there is error because of pocket size, thus permitting the use of a system, well were is the system aiming you to?? one side or the other of the pocket. why wont it take you to the middle? answer is it can't, at least not every time.
 
post number six

After all of the smoke and mirrors we haven't progressed a fraction of an inch past what I said in post number six. It is still true now as it was then. All of the things that create tolerance allowing the balls to fall when they don't center the pocket are exactly why the fractional aiming systems do work to one degree or another.

When we start with fifteen aim points that are are dependent on the position of the cue ball and object ball we now have fifteen divisions that are found based on the exact angle of the cue ball and object ball. We also now have thirty areas of "slop" that a ball can fall into and still be pocketed. These thirty areas of tolerance that are so casually ignored by some vastly reduce the "dead area" between the exact aim points.


(Post #6 for those that can no longer recall my position on this subject)
ShootingArts said:
First, we are very limited in the range of degrees that we can hit a ball. It doesn't matter if the angle can be split into degrees, minutes and seconds and endless fractions of a second because the width of the pocket and the shape of the balls both create slop. A fairly small number of angles will pocket almost all straight in shots if we can actually hit these angles. Sailor Barge was reputed to break the cue ball down into sixteen target spots. Those sixteen spots will make over 90% of shots if not all shots, or will at least provide a shot that can be made if you choose to shoot it.

The real catch is that no aiming system takes into account the variables in cushion, cloth, and balls, even lighting, so there never has been and never will be a perfect aiming system for human beings to use. We have to add judgment and touch to any starting point an aiming system gives.

One thing about the finite systems, you can grow them over time. Once you get rock solid at dividing a ball into say seven parts, then it is very easy to use those seven parts as new references to divide the ball again. Start with center ball, half ball, quarter ball, and very thin hits, slightly more than edge to edge. Once you can see these shots reliably you can split them in half. Once you can hit all of the points found splitting them in half any further refinements are tiny adjustments.

Without allowing for blocking balls I used software to test and found that 13 to 15 aim points would pocket any typical shot on the table assuming we had made some effort to play shape. If these aim points wouldn't pocket a particular shot a better shot was offered by using another pocket.

Ultimately all aiming systems give way to the ultimate computer, our minds. "Feel" is the ultimate aiming system for humans. Free out minds and bodies to work together without interference from thought in words and we are playing at maximum potential. The conscious mind presents the problem, a much lower level can solve it without effort once we have given it enough background data.(experience)

Hu
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
After all of the smoke and mirrors we haven't progressed a fraction of an inch past what I said in post number six. It is still true now as it was then. All of the things that create tolerance allowing the balls to fall when they don't center the pocket are exactly why the fractional aiming systems do work to one degree or another.

When we start with fifteen aim points that are are dependent on the position of the cue ball and object ball we now have fifteen divisions that are found based on the exact angle of the cue ball and object ball. We also now have thirty areas of "slop" that a ball can fall into and still be pocketed. These thirty areas of tolerance that are so casually ignored by some vastly reduce the "dead area" between the exact aim points. (Post #6 for those that can no longer recall my position on this subject)
Click to expand...

And here's how simple it actually is:

The minimum number of aim points = the number of "pocket slops" that fit in the relevant fraction of the "shot distance circle"'s circumference (the relevant fraction = the fraction of the CB you're working with).

or:

pi x double the OB-to-pocket distance x max cut angle / 180 / (pocket width - ball diameter)

Example for a 24" shot into a 5" pocket with cut angle limited to 45 degrees or less:

3.1416 x 48 x 45 / 180 / (5 - 2.25) = ~14 aim points needed per 1/4 ball.

Example for a 48" shot into a 5" pocket with cut angle limited to 45 degrees or less:

3.1416 x 96 x 45 / 180 / (5 - 2.25) = ~27 aim points needed per 1/4 ball.

[NOTE: "per 1/4 ball" is dictated by the maximum cut angle: 45 degrees left cut + 45 degrees right cut = 90 degrees (1/4 ball).]


I don't expect anybody to see the logic in this right away (the word-version at the top is best for this, but probably still difficult). However, it's useful to show how much more simply I believe this can be done than you suggest (and it shows my math as you requested - have fun with it).

pj
chgo
 
Last edited:
I see it like this...

if you ingrain fractional aiming ... if you can hit 1/4 ball and sink in and drill it time after time


if you repeat half ball over and over till you can't miss

if you own 3/4 ball sink it with your eyes closed...

and you can own the ever present stop shot...

if you own those backwards forwards and sideways..

you eliminate the need to aim the shots that fall into that range... you just shoot it... because you recognize the angle... and you have drilled it to death...

now 80% give or take of your shots can be made using those shots... you can eliminate the need to aim them .... straight up you can own them ....

I still aim the same way I always have.... I just don't need to do it as often as I used to...

Imagine eliminating the need to aim a majority of your shots... then tell me that's not a useful system.


just saying....:grin-square:
 
enzo said:
you can cut a ball at an infinite number of degrees
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I'm pretty sure quantum mechanics says you can't. Also, the ball can't take on an infinite number of rates of spin either.

Obviously, any decent aiming system has to base its number of discrete aiming lines on the Planck constant :grin:

Robert
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Not even half that many.

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

You can make nearly any shot on the table with 3 aim points (not contact points) as long as you incorporate a pivot along the shot arc. But, you're gonna dispute that because you don't know.

People refer to this method as shishkebob and it makes everything. I personally don't use it but it's levels above true fractional, ghost ball or anything else without a pivot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top