you noticed too
Was Einstein Right About 6 Million Shots on a Pool Table?
- Thread starter CJ Wiley
- Start date
you noticed too
Dammit, does anyone know the sq ft of a table? Second how much surface area does a standard ball rest on? Doesn't it stand to reason that every combination of where the object ball and cue ball rest is the answer if we are only including direct shots and ignoring all other variables, ie English, draw, angle, etc. this is about the most asinine debate I have ever heard of. Either I don't get the basis of the question or everyone is making this more complicated than it is. Simple math should be able to explain this.
they say theres a fine line between genius and madness, old Bert never looked the full shilling to me.
No you didn't
I'm embarrassed for you and me if this is a Dixie Chix reference. If it is well played sir, that was a good one. Wait I think that was Earl, whatever.
I'm embarrassed for you and me if this is a Dixie Chix reference. If it is well played sir, that was a good one. Wait I think that was Earl, whatever.
You would only win your bet if the pocket were the exact size of the ball on one side and 1-atom wider on the other end... and that wouldn't include the elasticity of the pocket. If you execute the same way and the ball goes, but in different parts of the pocket, it's the same shot as far as the construct of the question goes.Something is terribly wrong here !...The question was, how many "DIFFERENT" possible shots are there, not how many 'similar' shots there are !...Two guys could play for 6 months straight, and the "EXACT" same shot will never come up twice !..It will ALWAYS be a 'fraction' (or more) different !..Maybe a better question would have been..."How many different 'fraction's' are there" ???..(I feel like I'm talking to 'wool' !)
PS..I'm thinking seriously of taking up drinking again !...I have had more sensible conversations, with the drunk at the bar next to me...We made more sense, when we talked about quantum physic's and the medicinal extrapolation in small rodents, than this cluster ***k debate !
Adios, flyweights !
No, I just think you two are confusing sub-atomic minutia in regards to shot differences with what could be, and should be, considered the same shot, perceptually speaking.1000% correct Bob !...I don't understand why Spidey and CJ did not challenge YOUR perfect logic?
...Suppose maybe they thought the old drunk, ex-pool player, was a 'softer target' ? (but then, they've both made that mistake several times before)...
"Picking fly shit out of pepper" when it's just "pepper."
Spidey, what a tangled web you weave !
It is YOU who keep trying to confuse "shots", with the number of possible DIFFERENT layouts, of object balls on a pool table !..Until you realize, that is NOT the question at hand...we will never end this debate !.."Perceptually speaking" as Bob, Dr. Dave and I have pointed out, it IS minutia based, and the possibilities of how the balls can wind up, are virtually limitless ! :sorry:
You are so fixated on 'different shots', you have even introduced 'pocket size' into the equation ???.. What could pocket sizes, possibly have to do with ANYTHING in this scenario ?..At least as MOST reasonable, clear thinking people, seem to interpret the question ?
Maybe if you just took the cue ball 'OFF the table', you would have a better chance of understanding our point !..Reducing the number of balls to 15, from 16, won't change things much !.. Maybe only about one gazzilionth, of possible different layouts.
SJD---I keep hoping the light bulb will come on for you...It must be getting very dark in there !
^^^^^ CTE user
Its in the eyes. Left eye focuded on center to edge line... right eye edge to A.
Its in the eyes. Left eye focuded on center to edge line... right eye edge to A.
In any one cut direction, I probably see about 5 shots, as far as my execution is concerned. Scientifically speaking, there are an infinite number of shots.Spidey, what a tangled web you weave !
It is YOU who keep trying to confuse "shots", with the number of possible DIFFERENT layouts, of object balls on a pool table !..Until you realize, that is NOT the question at hand...we will never end this debate !.."Perceptually speaking" as Bob, Dr. Dave and I have pointed out, it IS minutia based, and the possibilities of how the balls can wind up, are virtually limitless ! :sorry:
You are so fixated on 'different shots', you have even introduced 'pocket size' into the equation ???.. What could pocket sizes, possibly have to do with ANYTHING in this scenario ?..At least as MOST reasonable, clear thinking people, seem to interpret the question ?
Maybe if you just took the cue ball 'OFF the table', you would have a better chance of understanding our point !..Reducing the number of balls to 15, from 16, won't change things much !.. Maybe only about one gazzilionth, of possible different layouts.
SJD---I keep hoping the light bulb will come on for you...It must be getting very dark in there !
View attachment 373675
Pool decision-making, however, is made at the macro, not the micro or sub-atomic.
I don't know why you're being condescending... just trying to have a friendly discussion. I'm not debating anything.
We all see this game differently and have different philosophies in regards to managing it.
In any one cut direction, I probably see about 5 shots, as far as my execution is concerned. Scientifically speaking, there are an infinite number of shots.<--I'm taking that as a concession..:thumbup:
I don't know why you're being condescending... just trying to have a friendly discussion. I'm not debating anything.<--Boy, sure had us fooled...230 posts, for a 'non-debate' ?
Sorry Spidey, I did'nt mean to hurt your feeler's. :embarrassed2: But, I do tend to get a little impatient, (and "Don Ricklish") when people refuse to see, or choose to ignore, the obvious !
Peace (again)...End of discussion ! :wink:
SJD
Last edited:
I just can't believe anyone gives a shit.
San Jose... page back in the thread. I mentioned way back that the number of shots were infinite, if the answer is to be scientific in nature.
However, the scientific answer is not the same as the practical application answer...or at least, doesn't "have" to be.
You didn't hurt my feelings, I just wasn't arguing. I KNEEEEEW the point you, Bob and Dr. Dave were making when I first posted. That's why I was trying be be controversial by saying a berserkly low number when Einstein allegedly said 6M.
Einstein, if alive, could also get spotted all 11 dimensions when it comes to ball pocketing if he ever ran into me, that's for sure. He seemed to be an expert in relativity and the answer to this question is RELATIVE to one's ability to play.
This example was not to prove the OP's question, but aimed at Don Owen's post where he said one infinity can be larger than another. This example illustrates that fact.
That makes sense. You gave me something to research. Thx.
"it's simple to make pool seem difficult, and difficult to actually make pool simple"
Now you're thinking - sometimes our problems are much easier than they first appear.
A "shot" was defined as the cue ball and {one} object ball creating a specific angle, contacted together with a specific speed, and tip target (accentuating a specific spin/deflection)........many of these same "shots" present themselves over and over. At the highest level of pool our subconscious can create any of these speeds, angles and spin/deflection rates as if they were the same shot.
Now you're thinking - sometimes our problems are much easier than they first appear.
A "shot" was defined as the cue ball and {one} object ball creating a specific angle, contacted together with a specific speed, and tip target (accentuating a specific spin/deflection)........many of these same "shots" present themselves over and over. At the highest level of pool our subconscious can create any of these speeds, angles and spin/deflection rates as if they were the same shot.
There can not be a infinite about of points between two fixed points.
All the points between two fixed points must add up to the distance between two fixed points.
If there were infinite points then the distance between two points would be infinite.
Even using the idea of keeping 1/2 the distance to go, it some point in time you will reach the the next fixed point.
Oh......what's the size of the points?
All the points between two fixed points must add up to the distance between two fixed points.
If there were infinite points then the distance between two points would be infinite.
Even using the idea of keeping 1/2 the distance to go, it some point in time you will reach the the next fixed point.
Oh......what's the size of the points?
Ron Swanson
Banned
Yikes. Common ground at last.
Dead wrong AGAIN !...Not a remotely intelligible answer ! (even for you, and its your OWN question.
) SJD...
PS..Alright folks, lets keep moving right along..Nothing to see here !..Same old stuff. different day !
Last edited: