PDA

View Full Version : Orcollo vs Frost - This is War - VOD Download Available Online Now!


Fast Lenny
08-04-2017, 07:18 PM
The biggest one pocket money match between two pro players to ever take place. Scott Frost and Dennis Orcollo battle it out with $200,000 in the middle on the line. You can now watch this on Vimeo On Demand at your leisure. Price is $24.95 for the whole match which is 69 games and over 30 hours of some great one pocket filled with amazing shots. Click the link below to purchase on Vimeo or through PayPal by sending payment to lennymarshall@live.com or www.paypal.me/ontherail .

Vimeo
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/onepocket

Fast Lenny
08-14-2017, 01:00 PM
Low price at around 75 cents per hour of one pocket! :eek:

Cameron Smith
08-14-2017, 01:13 PM
Low price at around 75 cents per hour of one pocket! :eek:

The VOD page has the video at $133, is that correct? Just curious because of the price difference between the DVD and VOD.

8ballr
08-14-2017, 02:26 PM
The biggest one pocket money match between two pro players to ever take place. Scott Frost and Dennis Orcollo battle it out with $200,000 in the middle on the line. You can now watch this on Vimeo On Demand at your leisure. Price is $24.95 for the whole match which is 69 games and over 30 hours of some great one pocket filled with amazing shots. Click the link below to purchase on Vimeo or through PayPal by sending payment to lennymarshall@live.com or www.paypal.me/ontherail .

Vimeo
https://vimeo.com/ondemand/onepocket

First of all YAWN. Second of all...they were playing for $100,000...not $200,000. If I play you for $20...you wouldn't say we are playing for $40.

FuManchu
08-14-2017, 02:42 PM
First of all YAWN. Second of all...they were playing for $100,000...not $200,000. If I play you for $20...you wouldn't say we are playing for $40.

You are a virus. You must be a disgustingly lonely and sad person to just want to sit behind that keyboard and talk crap on this forum all day. They were playing for $200,000. That's how its supposed to be said. You're playing for all the money in the middle, not just theirs. Once you bet that money its no longer yours.

8ballr
08-14-2017, 02:46 PM
You are a virus. You must be a disgustingly lonely and sad person to just want to sit behind that keyboard and talk crap on this forum all day. They were playing for $200,000. That's how its supposed to be said. You're playing for all the money in the middle, not just theirs. Once you bet that money its no longer yours.

lol no you're not...if a sponsor puts up $200,000 then it could have been promoted as playing for $200,000...they were playing for $100,000 and it should have been promoted as such...they must have thought people were stupid...they were right.

Fast Lenny
08-14-2017, 02:55 PM
The VOD page has the video at $133, is that correct? Just curious because of the price difference between the DVD and VOD.

Post a screenshot of what you are seeing. It is listed at $24.95 on mine.

Fast Lenny
08-14-2017, 02:57 PM
First of all YAWN. Second of all...they were playing for $100,000...not $200,000. If I play you for $20...you wouldn't say we are playing for $40.

$200,000 in the middle just like a $20 player like you could call it $40 in the middle when you are playing someone. ;)

8ballr
08-14-2017, 03:06 PM
$200,000 in the middle just like a $20 player like you could call it $40 in the middle when you are playing someone. ;)

Ya but it was being promoted as the $200,000 challenge or something like that...it wasn't.

Fast Lenny
08-14-2017, 03:18 PM
Ya but it was being promoted as the $200,000 challenge or something like that...it wasn't.

It was promoted as $200,000 because that was the purse. Big deal. Yawn, you are boring.

jasonlaus
08-14-2017, 06:00 PM
$200,000 in the middle just like a $20 player like you could call it $40 in the middle when you are playing someone. ;)

If I'm playing somebody for $20, its $20, not $40. Where did all this "in the middle" crap come from???
Jason

BassMasterK
08-14-2017, 07:00 PM
If I'm playing somebody for $20, its $20, not $40. Where did all this "in the middle" crap come from???
Jason

I originally had the same reaction with the recent Tony/Dennis match for $100k. I thought each had put up $100k but it turned out to be $50k. However, after thinking about it, I get why they promote it the way they do.

If I'm playing a guy for $20 a rack, we are each putting up $20. However, that game is a fluid game that can change along the way. Spots can change, amount can change, game we are playing can change, game can continue on as long as we want to keep posting money.

In these cases, these guys and their backers are putting up one large sum "in the middle". That is what is being played for. Once it is posted in the middle, it isn't theirs anymore. The game won't change. There will be no spots changing. The type of game won't change. The game doesn't continue after the winning score is reached. There is no attempt to immediately "get even" like so often happens in fluid money games. They are in one long battle for whatever is in the middle.

In this context I get it. They are playing for the money in the middle and that is it. If they each post up $100k, they are playing for $200k total prize money. Besides, it makes it more exciting to say they are playing for $200k.

jasonlaus
08-14-2017, 08:00 PM
I originally had the same reaction with the recent Tony/Dennis match for $100k. I thought each had put up $100k but it turned out to be $50k. However, after thinking about it, I get why they promote it the way they do.

If I'm playing a guy for $20 a rack, we are each putting up $20. However, that game is a fluid game that can change along the way. Spots can change, amount can change, game we are playing can change, game can continue on as long as we want to keep posting money.

In these cases, these guys and their backers are putting up one large sum "in the middle". That is what is being played for. Once it is posted in the middle, it isn't theirs anymore. The game won't change. There will be no spots changing. The type of game won't change. The game doesn't continue after the winning score is reached. There is no attempt to immediately "get even" like so often happens in fluid money games. They are in one long battle for whatever is in the middle.

In this context I get it. They are playing for the money in the middle and that is it. If they each post up $100k, they are playing for $200k total prize money. Besides, it makes it more exciting to say they are playing for $200k.

They played for $100,000 period, just like $20 a game is $20 a game, doesnt matter if its a set or game. They will either lose or win $100,000.

$100 a hand blackjack is $100 a hand, it isn't $200. And yes the $100 is in the middle but you NEVER hear anybody say they are playing $200 a hand if they bet $100.

This isn't rocket science, it's people trying to make it sound better than it is. I guess $100,000 isn't enough, they gotta get creative.
Jason

8ballr
08-14-2017, 08:14 PM
It was promoted as $200,000 because that was the purse. Big deal. Yawn, you are boring.

lol no its not...a purse of $200,000 means that you win $200,000 not $100,000.

gregcantrall
08-14-2017, 08:45 PM
It is a single elimination pool tournament with two entrants that pays only one place. The entry is 100,000. First place pays 200,000.:p

8ballr
08-15-2017, 12:51 AM
It is a single elimination pool tournament with two entrants that pays only one place. The entry is 100,000. First place pays 200,000.:p

Yes...so you win $100,000 whereas if you play a tournament with no entrance fee, and a sponsor puts up $200,000 THEN you win $200,000. If Orcollo and Frost met in the pool hall and had a rematch for $100...if you ran outside to tell people about it...you wouldn't say they are playing for $200...that's what the promotion for their match did.


In this context I get it. They are playing for the money in the middle and that is it. If they each post up $100k, they are playing for $200k total prize money. Besides, it makes it more exciting to say they are playing for $200k.

This "money in the middle" is ridiculous...where the money physically is does not change the bet. You play someone for $100 that's the bet plain and simple...you win $100 or lose $100...so you are playing for $100.

Poolplaya9
08-15-2017, 03:48 AM
They were playing for $200,000. That's how its supposed to be said.

While it has become common to say it that way, that is not how it is "supposed" to be said. If you win this match, then you only have $100,000 more money than you would have if you didn't play the match at all. If you lose the match, then you only have $100,000 less money than if you had not played the match. Your bank account cannot be affected by more than $100,000 since that is all you were playing for.

Somebody else on here has given a great example before. You are in a bar, and your opponent asks you to play for a beer and you agree and start playing for a beer. Do you think and feel like you are playing for one beer, or two beers? And if another one of your friends were to come up to you and ask you what you were playing for, would you tell them that you were "playing for a beer", or would you tell them you were "playing for two beers"?

Nobody on earth would say or feel like they were playing for two beers. It is no different when it is dollars instead of beers. You wouldn't even feel like you are "playing for two beers in the middle." In these two examples you were playing for one beer, or $100,000 respectively.

Fast Lenny
08-17-2017, 11:14 AM
While it has become common to say it that way, that is not how it is "supposed" to be said. If you win this match, then you only have $100,000 more money than you would have if you didn't play the match at all. If you lose the match, then you only have $100,000 less money than if you had not played the match. Your bank account cannot be affected by more than $100,000 since that is all you were playing for.

Somebody else on here has given a great example before. You are in a bar, and your opponent asks you to play for a beer and you agree and start playing for a beer. Do you think and feel like you are playing for one beer, or two beers? And if another one of your friends were to come up to you and ask you what you were playing for, would you tell them that you were "playing for a beer", or would you tell them you were "playing for two beers"?

Nobody on earth would say or feel like they were playing for two beers. It is no different when it is dollars instead of beers. You wouldn't even feel like you are "playing for two beers in the middle." In these two examples you were playing for one beer, or $100,000 respectively.

Well when you play for a beer and lose you will be paying for two beers as opposed to paying for none. You have to drink one with your opponent regardless if you win or lose. :grin:

Black-Balled
08-17-2017, 11:25 AM
So...if I play a tournament that costs 100 to get in and first place is advertised as $1000, then first place is not 1000?

A local tour has staggered entry fees. How should it advertise payouts?

jasonlaus
08-17-2017, 01:11 PM
So...if I play a tournament that costs 100 to get in and first place is advertised as $1000, then first place is not 1000?

A local tour has staggered entry fees. How should it advertise payouts?

No such thing as a 2 man tournament

Black-Balled
08-17-2017, 04:14 PM
No such thing as a 2 man tournament

2 is all it takes!

strmanglr scott
08-17-2017, 04:19 PM
Lmao...no disrespect to one pocket...

...one pocket is so slow you can break it down into pennies per hour to stream an event.

Sorry, just saw that thread first time today.:thumbup::D

Fast Lenny
08-30-2017, 04:24 PM
2 is all it takes!

This is true. :thumbup: