Rodney Morris Challenges the Top 25 European Players

[dundeewizard]

Thanks John for asking me an "easy" one like that. I would root for the guy I have money on, okay. If I'm not betting on the match, I don't care who wins, I just want to see a good match. Whether you know it or not John, I've bet on you before, one time I won $500 and another time I lost $300. I've also staked you more than once or did you forget that too?

P.S. You can ask Rodney who loaned him 10K when he was short on cash. Personally I happen to like Rodney a lot. But I don't let friendship cloud my judgment if I'm staking players or betting on them. I have a close friendship with Dennis O. and have made some serious money with him. But more than once I've told him I don't like a game he's in and I'm not putting any money in with him. And guess what, I've been right more than I was wrong. :smile:

damn! I bet John feels like a total twat after reading that

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

Maybe they have a chance in tournaments, but we are talking about gambling and for some reason a lot of those players refuse to gamble. I've always wondered why, maybe it's religious beliefs or something like that. In this day and age I can see not gambling as high as we used to because there's little chance to get it back if you lose (from another game/player).

It would be cool to see some more action these days, I'm just not sure if that's possible or not. I believe bringing 'Two Shot Shoot Out' will create more gambling because it's more of a strategic game......and poker has proven that strategic games are popular.

For some reason? Mmm...
It's like this boys.
If you can afford to lose 20K, then gamble 20K! If you can't afford to lose 20K then stay at home; pay the mortgage; pay the bills; feed your family; go on holiday :thumb up:

A responsible adult takes care of their own first - not gamble with their future.
WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO UNDERSTAND?

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

Maybe they have a chance in tournaments, but we are talking about gambling and for some reason a lot of those players refuse to gamble. I've always wondered why, maybe it's religious beliefs or something like that. In this day and age I can see not gambling as high as we used to because there's little chance to get it back if you lose (from another game/player).

It would be cool to see some more action these days, I'm just not sure if that's possible or not. I believe bringing 'Two Shot Shoot Out' will create more gambling because it's more of a strategic game......and poker has proven that strategic games are popular.

Is it possible that some players with sponsors have it in their contract that they can't gamble?

Perhaps, but I doubt it. More like FUNDING rather than sponsorship.
It may have more to do with the fact that MOST EUROPEAN players receive government funding to play PRO POOL! YES :shocked2: that's right.
This may have a more baring factor as the powers that be may stipulate that he or she can not gamble the states money away!
European billiards has got its $hit together (well better than the USA) so why would they risk ALL OF THAT? :thumbup:
Come on boys be serious...

 

[Bella Don't Cry]

ONE thing I've NEVER understood about American Pool and perhaps an AZforumer can answer my question. Why is there so much relevance placed on Pool money matches and Pool match gambling?

I know it's a part of tradition and history, but why? So many great players are purely judged on their ability to WAX someone else of their money...

If comparing this with other games / sports it's like if Lebron James were to take on Carmelo Anthony at one on one. We all know that Lebron IS the best player. However if Melo was to take him down (even just the once) he would get mad props and kudos worldwide. :thumb up:

Every dog has its day, so...

Why would this feat deemed to be great?
Why would he get mad props?
Why would there be a debate of who's the best?

Or to answer the question. Why some much enthuses on Pool money matches?

WHY?

 

[peteypooldude]

ONE thing I've NEVER understood about American Pool and perhaps an AZforumer can answer my question. Why is there so much relevance placed on Pool money matches and Pool match gambling?

I know it's a part of tradition and history, but why? So many great players are purely judged on their ability to WAX someone else of their money...

If comparing this with other games / sports it's like if Lebron James were to take on Carmelo Anthony at one on one. We all know that Lebron IS the best player. However if Melo was to take him down (even just the once) he would get mad props and kudos worldwide. :thumb up:

Every dog has its day, so...

Why would this feat deemed to be great?
Why would he get mad props?
Why would there be a debate of who's the best?

Or to answer the question. Why some much enthuses on Pool money matches?

WHY?

A gambling match means nothing if it's 1 race to 8 . The longer match shows who the better player is.... Why would one brag about a short race? It means nothing
SVB is the superior player if they play long enough that a few rolls or cold start will not determine who wins. The longer race favors the better player
I have beat several champions in a race to 9 . That does not make me a champion

 

[Ken_4fun]

the americans take pool too lax. if rodney had money posted and practiced everyday for a month and he play any Asian on earth trust me they would have a battle on their hands. they practice and play everyday. rodney has like 6000 girls chasing him and he parties daily so your right as of right now today he might lose but if he practiced for month hard he can hang with anybody . your American jay let me ask u a question if I may. if rodney an American played a pinoy who would u root for. a simple rodney or the pinoy would suffice. again your American so this should b easy one but I thought id ask u. I sense a bias when u mention usa players so I thought it dilutes your opinion on this subject. I think the pinoys r fantastic people and players but if rodney plays them ill pull for rodney because hes American and so am i.

I think John Schmidt truly hates me but IMO, he would beat Rodney all day, and eat a sack lunch.

Secondly, I would rather have Schmidt on the MC than Rodney too.

Im not a fan of JS, but you have to admit his ability. When John won the DCC over Frost, it makes it hard to deny.

Whatever I say pi$$es John off, but I like that John plays high level at all games (like Danny). I have seen Rodney play other games than 9 10 ball and it is really is not top notch.

To me, the best pool players are those who plays many games well.

Ken

 

[CJ Wiley]

I AM speaking of the long, ahead sets, not "races".

ONE thing I've NEVER understood about American Pool and perhaps an AZforumer can answer my question. Why is there so much relevance placed on Pool money matches and Pool match gambling?

I know it's a part of tradition and history, but why? So many great players are purely judged on their ability to WAX someone else of their money...

If comparing this with other games / sports it's like if Lebron James were to take on Carmelo Anthony at one on one. We all know that Lebron IS the best player. However if Melo was to take him down (even just the once) he would get mad props and kudos worldwide. :thumb up:

Every dog has its day, so...

Why would this feat deemed to be great?
Why would he get mad props?
Why would there be a debate of who's the best?

Or to answer the question. Why some much enthuses on Pool money matches?

WHY?

Because they are different......The best analogy would be "streetfighting" to "boxing"....one of them is pretty safe and you can be "saved by the bell," the other one is brutal and there's no "bell" to save the players.....I AM speaking of the long, ahead sets, not "races".......in the gambling days we played "10 ahead," or even "15 ahead".......I appreciate both, but in the 80s the Money Players were respected more than the tournament players in the "inner circles" of high echelon players.....and some, like Earl, Wade, Nick, Buddy, Johnny, Rodney, Dennis H., etc, were both.

 

[The Renfro]

Bah it was Raj vs Oscar.... Carry on.. Nothing to see here LOL

 

[voiceofreason]

Nice announcement.. Got some wind on here... Next week.. Svb vs penguins for fish fingers first to ten.. Winner buys the mayonnaise...

 

[CJ Wiley]

a race to 15 is the LEAST amount of games that assure the best player (that day)wins

A gambling match means nothing if it's 1 race to 8 . The longer match shows who the better player is.... Why would one brag about a short race? It means nothing
SVB is the superior player if they play long enough that a few rolls or cold start will not determine who wins. The longer race favors the better player
I have beat several champions in a race to 9 . That does not make me a champion

Yes, statistically speaking anything that has less than 30 total games has the luck element present.
These factors even out after 30, that's why a race to 15 is the LEAST amount of games that assure
the best player (that day) to win.

 

[punter]

Yes, statistically speaking anything that has less than 30 total games has the luck element present.
These factors even out after 30, that's why a race to 15 is the LEAST amount of games that assure
the best player (that day) to win.

I would like to see your calculations at arriving at 30 as a turning point.:thumbup:

You didn't just pull that number did you?

 

[CJ Wiley]

Surfer Rod - One of the Premiere Road Players

I would like to see your calculations at arriving at 30 as a turning point.:thumbup:

You didn't just pull that number did you?

No, that number actually comes from "Surfer Rod" that was one of the greatest gamblers AND was a professor as well. He told me that when calculating averages they use 30 as the minimum number to produce consistent statistical results. He had researched it and I have not, I can ask him where he got it and let you know asap....we talk on Face Book a few times a month.

When we had our own Professional Tour we used "races to 15" and it was well received by the players. In our TV matches we dropped it down to 11 for time purposes, although when you add REAL ESPN/SPORTS TV it does increase the pressure and makes shorter races more tolerable.

"Surfer Rod"

 

[sjm]

No, that number actually comes from "Surfer Rod" that was one of the greatest gamblers AND was a professor as well. He told me that when calculating averages they use 30 as the minimum number to produce consistent statistical results. He had researched it and I have not, I can ask him where he got it and let you know asap....we talk on Face Book a few times a month.

When we had our own Professional Tour we used "races to 15" and it was well received by the players. In our TV matches we dropped it down to 11 for time purposes, although when you add REAL ESPN/SPORTS TV it does increase the pressure and makes shorter races more tolerable.

"Surfer Rod"

In statistical theory, there is something called the "Central Limit Theorem" which, in loose terms, says that random variables are normally distributed for sample sizes greater than 30. Normally distributed means that observed results will form a bell shape curve.

Hence, there is a theoretical basis for the requirement you suggest.

 

[CJ Wiley]

I WASN'T concerned with someone "lucking out" to win...they certainly had to earn it

In statistical theory, there is something called the "Central Limit Theorem" which, in loose terms, says that random variables are normally distributed for sample sizes greater than 30. Normally distributed means that observed results will form a bell shape curve.

Hence, there is a theoretical basis for the requirement you suggest.

Thanks, it's something that can certainly be argued, however 30 seems reasonable to anyone that's played a lot of tournament matches. I know when we were playing the races to 30, Call Shot, Incoming Player has Option, and ONE "two way shot or safe a game" I WASN'T concerned with someone "lucking out" to win.....they certainly had to earn it.

'The Race to 30 is the Teacher'

 

[punter]

In statistical theory, there is something called the "Central Limit Theorem" which, in loose terms, says that random variables are normally distributed for sample sizes greater than 30. Normally distributed means that observed results will form a bell shape curve.

Hence, there is a theoretical basis for the requirement you suggest.

Yes, pretty much an over simplified explanantion that does not take into account the complexity of the parameter being measured.

It is generally not possible to state conditions under which the approximation given by the central limit theorem works and what sample sizes are needed before the approximation becomes good enough. As a general guideline, statisticians have used the prescription that if the parent distribution is symmetric and relatively short-tailed, then the sample mean reaches approximate normality for smaller samples than if the parent population is skewed or long-tailed.

Very likely though, that is where the number 30 came from. Me, I like the Law of Large Numbers, I kind of like 100 better.

 

[CJ Wiley]

Yes, pretty much an over simplified explanantion that does not take into account the complexity of the parameter being measured.

It is generally not possible to state conditions under which the approximation given by the central limit theorem works and what sample sizes are needed before the approximation becomes good enough. As a general guideline, statisticians have used the prescription that if the parent distribution is symmetric and relatively short-tailed, then the sample mean reaches approximate normality for smaller samples than if the parent population is skewed or long-tailed.

Very likely though, that is where the number 30 came from. Me, I kind of like 100 better.

30 works out very well in tournaments (races to 15)..... much better than what they're doing now, it's just a "crap shoot" these days.....although you still have to play well, not doubt, it's still very lucky.

 

[punter]

30 works out very well in tournaments (races to 15)..... much better than what they're doing now, it's just a "crap shoot" these days.....although you still have to play well, not doubt, it's still very lucky.

I agree, longer races are better, and while you're at it throw in two-foul rollout.

 

[DefiniteHasBeen]

Appleton over Rodney? Didn't Hatch beat Appleton for the cash on TAR?

 

[one stroke]

30 works out very well in tournaments (races to 15)..... much better than what they're doing now, it's just a "crap shoot" these days.....although you still have to play well, not doubt, it's still very lucky.

The shorter races put a premium on being ready to play and magnifies mistakes
I am sure the outcome in many sports would be different if they were played longer


9

 

[jascorpion]

Rodney Morris is one of the best money players on the planet in my opinion. He challenged (on Face Book) the top 25 players to bet 20k and play them all back to back.

Could the European's actually have 25 players that would have a chance to win against Rodney Morris? Maybe in tournaments, but playing for money is a whole other matter.

The Philippines may have a couple of players that could compete with Rodney, but I''m not sure they would actually play for 20k a set.

I don't think there is 10 Europeans that can beat Rodney a race to 100 for 20k must less 25