PDA

View Full Version : resolve this gambling scenario


Tin Man
03-16-2008, 09:55 AM
Player A is at a nine ball tournament and gets eliminated. As usual, he goes looking for action.

Player B agrees to play a race to 7 for $200. He doesn't mention anything about time constraints.

Player B gets ahead 6-1, but then player A starts getting in stroke and finds a sweet break spot and puts a few racks together. Next thing you know he is only down 6-5 and breaking. The way he is playing and breaking he almost feels like the favorite at the moment.

Suddenly player B is called for a match and says, "sorry, I have to play this match, we'll just have to pause the set and finish it later". NOTE: everyone knew that this wasn't an intentional move. It just happened. Even still, player A felt it was unfair for him to have to start cold hours later when he was in stroke.

What happens here? Is A obligated to finish the set? Does B lose by forfeit? Should they just call it off? What if it was for more money, or less?

!Smorgass Bored
03-16-2008, 10:00 AM
Player A is at a nine ball tournament and gets eliminated. As usual, he goes looking for action.

Player B agrees to play a race to 7 for $200. He doesn't mention anything about time constraints.

Player B gets ahead 6-1, but then player A starts getting in stroke and finds a sweet break spot and puts a few racks together. Next thing you know he is only down 6-5 and breaking. The way he is playing and breaking he almost feels like the favorite at the moment.

Suddenly player B is called for a match and says, "sorry, I have to play this match, we'll just have to pause the set and finish it later". NOTE: everyone knew that this wasn't an intentional move. It just happened. Even still, player A felt it was unfair for him to have to start cold hours later when he was in stroke.

What happens here? Is A obligated to finish the set? Does B lose by forfeit? Should they just call it off? What if it was for more money, or less?


Imo, the amount of money doesn't matter. Any upcoming possibilities, questions or doubts should be discussed before beginning the match.
Once underway, player A is obligated to wait for player B's return to finish the match. No starting over or forfeiting. Player A should find a table to shoot balls on and hope to stay in stroke. He might even find someone that wants to play cheap and by the game, while awaiting player B's return.
Doug

Edited to add: If player A becomes VERY upset at having to wait, he should bang his repeatedly on the table.....very hard.


.

RRfireblade
03-16-2008, 10:06 AM
Sounds like they both knew one was going to get called away at some point basically accepting the fact that they may have to return to the set later.

Otherwise they should have just played ahead till one had to leave and not a 'set'.

tpdtom
03-16-2008, 10:18 AM
Imo, the amount of money doesn't matter. Any upcoming possibilities, questions or doubts should be discussed before beginning the match.
Once underway, player A is obligated to wait for player B's return to finish the match. No starting over or forfeiting. pPayer A should find a table to shoot balls on and hope to stay in stroke. He might even find someone that wants to play cheap and by the game, while awaiting player B's return.
Doug


I disagree somewhat. The money doesn't matter yes, any possible delays should be discussed prior to beginning, yes also. BUT, if player B is called away player A can quit, leave, whatever he chooses. If he accepts the circumstances he can wait, but it's optional. He can quit and only agree to restart if he likes, too bad if player B doesn't like it.

Frankly, I think player B forfeited, but these things are unenforceable. He's not going to pay anyway. The general scenario brings up the gambler's code regarding quitting a winner. Who says that you have to play a loser until he's had enough and give him a chance to win his money back ? If I get tired or have other obligations I quit. I might play another day, I might not. Life is tough.

The TAR website sells a t-shirt with the logo, "I make my Mother post". Good idea. All this said and still, a gentleman would be understanding about player B and the match, but gamblers often are not gentlemen..Tom

alstl
03-16-2008, 10:21 AM
Player A is at a nine ball tournament and gets eliminated. As usual, he goes looking for action.

Player B agrees to play a race to 7 for $200. He doesn't mention anything about time constraints.

Player B gets ahead 6-1, but then player A starts getting in stroke and finds a sweet break spot and puts a few racks together. Next thing you know he is only down 6-5 and breaking. The way he is playing and breaking he almost feels like the favorite at the moment.

Suddenly player B is called for a match and says, "sorry, I have to play this match, we'll just have to pause the set and finish it later". NOTE: everyone knew that this wasn't an intentional move. It just happened. Even still, player A felt it was unfair for him to have to start cold hours later when he was in stroke.

What happens here? Is A obligated to finish the set? Does B lose by forfeit? Should they just call it off? What if it was for more money, or less?


You can't hold up a tournament so people can gamble on the side. How did it turn out?

Tin Man
03-16-2008, 10:32 AM
They never finished the set.

After the match, Player B asked player A "do you want to finish the set now?" (In other words, I think we should play it but I'll leave it up to you what we do from here.) Player A basically said "what set", and it was over.

I wonder how this might have been different if the money had been posted. Even though they have played before several times (and always paid) it just changes the nature of the situation. What player A did was hardly a resolution, it was just kind of a situation where neither player felt it was worth the fight. Since the money wasn't posted it was easier for this to happen. If the money had been locked up then both players would have to resolve the situation before the set could be finished. As it turned out, it kind of just fizzled.

I'm starting to see the value of posting the cash. I used to thing posting was about not trusting the guy to pay. Now I see it's almost like money has inertia, and it is hard to get people to take it out of their pocket sometimes. Once it is posted it kind of takes away borderline stuff like this.

I like the shirt.

!Smorgass Bored
03-16-2008, 10:35 AM
I disagree somewhat. The money doesn't matter yes, any possible delays should be discussed prior to beginning, yes also. BUT, if player B is called away player A can quit, leave, whatever he chooses. If he accepts the circumstances he can wait, but it's optional. He can quit and only agree to restart if he likes, too bad if player B doesn't like it.




Ha,ha,ha,ha, well, that solution depends on the size and temperment of the opponents (particularly player A )
Doug.

JoeyA
03-16-2008, 10:53 AM
They never finished the set.

After the match, Player B asked player A "do you want to finish the set now?" (In other words, I think we should play it but I'll leave it up to you what we do from here.) Player A basically said "what set", and it was over.

I wonder how this might have been different if the money had been posted. Even though they have played before several times (and always paid) it just changes the nature of the situation. What player A did was hardly a resolution, it was just kind of a situation where neither player felt it was worth the fight. Since the money wasn't posted it was easier for this to happen. If the money had been locked up then both players would have to resolve the situation before the set could be finished. As it turned out, it kind of just fizzled.

I'm starting to see the value of posting the cash. I used to thing posting was about not trusting the guy to pay. Now I see it's almost like money has inertia, and it is hard to get people to take it out of their pocket sometimes. Once it is posted it kind of takes away borderline stuff like this.

I like the shirt.

When the money isn't posted, you are asking for problems.
JoeyA

Deadon
03-16-2008, 10:55 AM
Most tournaments, at least the ones I have played in, will give you a few minutes to finish a set (2 games at most here) if you are playing for money. If not, you just finish the set later. Anything else is just being a nit, trying to get out of the bet. Forfeiting aint gonna happen anywhere I know of.

Jude Rosenstock
03-16-2008, 10:57 AM
Well, I'd like to say it's nice to hear about potentially volatile situations getting resolved amiably. It's really THEIR call and nobody else's and if they both agree to nix the set, great! Had Player A protested, he would have had a legitimate claim. Player B should avoid getting involved in action knowing he may not be able to finish. It's situations like these why people post the bet before the set begins. Had he posted and not returned to play, Player B would have lost his $200.

On the otherhand, part of gambling is maintaining a positive relationship with your opponents. "Keep the customer" is an old saying. You don't want to mess-up any future games. Sometimes, you let things slide so that you can guarantee another (possibly more favorable) game down the road.

av84fun
03-16-2008, 11:01 AM
When the money isn't posted, you are asking for problems.
JoeyA

I agree. If the money is not posted, then both players deserve whatever they get. Given that the gambling match took place during a continuing tournament, I also have no sympathy for either side because they didn't agree in advance what would happen if one or the other got called for a match.

Regards,
Jim

ShootingArts
03-16-2008, 01:33 PM
Both players knew one was still in the tournament and could be called away. They could have discussed this beforehand but didn't so there was no agreement.

Posting would not have made a bit of difference in this case. Player B would have been a total moron to leave the table with his $200 on the light. Player A walks away while B is playing his tournament match, scoring a beer, whiz break, smoke, whatever. Who is responsible for the money on the light? No shortage of folks willing to score $200-$400 cash off of a light if it is left unattended.

If I know the other player and am only gone a minute I'll ask him to watch it. If I'm going to be gone awhile my money goes with me. I might get the room owner to hold both stakes but no way in hell am I leaving mine laying around with everybody in the room knowing I am committed to a match somewhere else.

How the unavoidable interruption was to be handled should have been discussed before the gambling match started. Since it wasn't, either player could choose to finish the gambling match or quit. I see that player B said he would play later when he left, player A didn't want to later play a race to two giving player B a one game spot.

Although the score wasn't hill-hill this looks like a good time to back up and double up or start a new set.

Hu

Jude Rosenstock
03-16-2008, 01:40 PM
Posting would not have made a bit of difference in this case. Player B would have been a total moron to leave the table with his $200 on the light. Player A walks away while B is playing his tournament match, scoring a beer, whiz break, smoke, whatever. Who is responsible for the money on the light? No shortage of folks willing to score $200-$400 cash off of a light if it is left unattended.


I think it goes without saying that you don't leave $400 unattended. The posting issue is simply a reference to leaving the money with a third party. The light will usually do fine but obviously, giving it to someone they're both acquainted with would be the appropriate measure in this case.

ShootingArts
03-16-2008, 03:50 PM
I think it goes without saying that you don't leave $400 unattended. The posting issue is simply a reference to leaving the money with a third party. The light will usually do fine but obviously, giving it to someone they're both acquainted with would be the appropriate measure in this case.


Jude,

Yes, leaving the money with a third party would be fine, assuming one both trusted was handy at the time. Of course two people with the foresight to find a third party to leave the money with would have had the foresight to settle how an interruption was to be dealt with before play began knowing it was almost certain to happen, if not in this set another.

Hu

Johnnyt
03-16-2008, 03:54 PM
Imo, the amount of money doesn't matter. Any upcoming possibilities, questions or doubts should be discussed before beginning the match.
Once underway, player A is obligated to wait for player B's return to finish the match. No starting over or forfeiting. Player A should find a table to shoot balls on and hope to stay in stroke. He might even find someone that wants to play cheap and by the game, while awaiting player B's return.
Doug

Edited to add: If player A becomes VERY upset at having to wait, he should bang his repeatedly on the table.....very hard.


.
I have to agree here. Johnnyt

deadwhak
03-16-2008, 04:43 PM
ive done it plenty of times..im gamblin then get called to play a match, and come back after my match to finish the set...figured that was common sense to do that...oh ok, forgot, common sense dont make sense to some ppl..

pletho
03-16-2008, 05:18 PM
They both KNEW that there were possiblilities of time constraints, player A thought he would beat player B before His next match and is upset because he didnt and may not because player B is playing a match and going to come straight out of that match to play player A, and most likely will be in stroke. These guys should finish the match when the time allows becasue nothing has changed. Or if player B is stupid agree to restart the match. But it no matter what whithout prior agreement is still a match to be finished from my perspective. I would consider either party wrong if they backed out and didnt want to play. If it happened to me for a small amount I would probably just not play the other guy again but for a large amount we would go in circles for a while. It is obvious what has happened to me, and that is just what i stated above, player A didnt succeed in robbing player B and is upset and looking for any way to change the game again in his favor.

easy-e
03-16-2008, 06:16 PM
I think that since they agreed to a reace to 7, they need to finish the race to 7. If it is interupted by his match starting, then they finish afterwards. Why would anyone ever get butt-hurt about something like this? If you can't put up with this kind of crap, don't gamble with idiots. Seems easy to me.

longhair
03-16-2008, 06:26 PM
I completely disagree.

If player A didn't know up front about the set possibly being interrupted than he is NOT at fault and either wins by default or player B has to finish the set immediately.

Player B is responsible for telling player A about him being in the tournament up front.
I agree. If Player B didn't say that he might have to leave this set unfinished he forfeits when he decided not to play on. Note that he doesn't have to stop this action to play a tournament match, he could forfeit his tournament match instead. He has put himself in a position where he has to forfeit one or the other. Too bad for you, fool.

Further, not posting the money (yes, of course they should have) does not relieve him of his obligation to pay when he forfeits the set.

That said, the reality of the situation makes a big difference. Do they know each other well, did player A know that B was still in the tournament and just didn't say anything about it, is this a small or large bet to each of them (yes, it makes a difference; imagine arguing over a $2 set and you'll see what I mean), etc. As someone else said, it sounds like they came to a satisfactory agreement, which is the best solution.

As to a tournament waiting for you to finish your set: not when I'm the director! If we wait 10 minutes for each match to start we won't finish. Every player should get the same grace period (5 min, 10 min, whatever it is) to get to the table before forfeiting. It isn't the other tournament entrants, the director, or the house that got in action they couldn't finish.

Am I impatient and hard-nosed? maybe, but when I run a tournament it gets done on time. I find that the more BS you allow the more BS you will get.

longhair
03-16-2008, 06:30 PM
I think that since they agreed to a reace to 7, they need to finish the race to 7. If it is interupted by his match starting, then they finish afterwards. Why would anyone ever get butt-hurt about something like this? If you can't put up with this kind of crap, don't gamble with idiots. Seems easy to me.
Not if you didn't announce it. Would you wait to finish a set if I wanted to take a nap? Or drive across town for dinner?

Nine Ball
03-16-2008, 06:45 PM
I disagree somewhat. The money doesn't matter yes, any possible delays should be discussed prior to beginning, yes also. BUT, if player B is called away player A can quit, leave, whatever he chooses. If he accepts the circumstances he can wait, but it's optional. He can quit and only agree to restart if he likes, too bad if player B doesn't like it.

Frankly, I think player B forfeited, but these things are unenforceable. He's not going to pay anyway. The general scenario brings up the gambler's code regarding quitting a winner. Who says that you have to play a loser until he's had enough and give him a chance to win his money back ? If I get tired or have other obligations I quit. I might play another day, I might not. Life is tough.

The TAR website sells a t-shirt with the logo, "I make my Mother post". Good idea. All this said and still, a gentleman would be understanding about player B and the match, but gamblers often are not gentlemen..Tom


Your so far off here it's not even funny. Once your in a set you can't just quit if the guy has to play a match.. They started the set knowing the one guy was still in the tournament. When the guy gets called the match is on hold until he finishes his tournament match then it is continued. There's no, Well you forfeit because you have to go play a match. There's no, Well I can quit since you have to go play a match. and there's no, Well I'm tired from my tournament match let's continue it later. The real deal is the gambling match is on hold until the one tournament match is completed then it's back on.

avmaster
03-16-2008, 06:53 PM
Your so far off here it's not even funny. Once your in a set you can't just quit if the guy has to play a match.. They started the set knowing the one guy was still in the tournament. When the guy gets called the match is on hold until he finishes his tournament match then it is continued. There's no, Well you forfeit because you have to go play a match. There's no, Well I can quit since you have to go play a match. and there's no, Well I'm tired from my tournament match let's continue it later. The real deal is the gambling match is on hold until the one tournament match is completed then it's back on.

I would probably have to agree with this assessment. But, since I have never played in tournements, I'm probably not qualified to comment. All my gambling was done on the road, so to speak, and only after I'd sized up the competition to be sure I wasn't going to lose, since my only goal was to take the money and run...........:D

Nine Ball
03-16-2008, 07:01 PM
Player A is at a nine ball tournament and gets eliminated. As usual, he goes looking for action.

Player B agrees to play a race to 7 for $200. He doesn't mention anything about time constraints.

Player B gets ahead 6-1, but then player A starts getting in stroke and finds a sweet break spot and puts a few racks together. Next thing you know he is only down 6-5 and breaking. The way he is playing and breaking he almost feels like the favorite at the moment.

Suddenly player B is called for a match and says, "sorry, I have to play this match, we'll just have to pause the set and finish it later". NOTE: everyone knew that this wasn't an intentional move. It just happened. Even still, player A felt it was unfair for him to have to start cold hours later when he was in stroke.

What happens here? Is A obligated to finish the set? Does B lose by forfeit? Should they just call it off? What if it was for more money, or less?

How does one match take hours?? Player A knew player B was still in the tournament correct? He had to of known the guy would eventually get called for his match.

There is a weekly 9 ball tourn here and it's when the most people are at the room. At times people match up during the tourn once they lost out or lose a match. The set is always put on hold until the tourn match is over if one gets called.

From the start Player B should have said I will have to go play a match in the tourn if I get called, but even if he didn't that doesn't mean player A can just quit the set or player B automatically loses.

If they are both respectable gamblers they should both know how it works and not have an argument. If player B was in the losers side and the gambling match paid more than the tourn maybe he should consider quitting the tourn. But he doesn't have to.

I completely understand player A not wanting to wait as he's on a roll but player B didn't pull a move. In my opinion if player A can't come to an agreement to wait for the one match or player B to consider a forfeit in the tourn match they are both just nits..

Was this a weekly tournament or a weekend event?

Nine Ball
03-16-2008, 07:13 PM
They never finished the set.

After the match, Player B asked player A "do you want to finish the set now?" (In other words, I think we should play it but I'll leave it up to you what we do from here.) Player A basically said "what set", and it was over.

I wonder how this might have been different if the money had been posted. Even though they have played before several times (and always paid) it just changes the nature of the situation. What player A did was hardly a resolution, it was just kind of a situation where neither player felt it was worth the fight. Since the money wasn't posted it was easier for this to happen. If the money had been locked up then both players would have to resolve the situation before the set could be finished. As it turned out, it kind of just fizzled.

I'm starting to see the value of posting the cash. I used to thing posting was about not trusting the guy to pay. Now I see it's almost like money has inertia, and it is hard to get people to take it out of their pocket sometimes. Once it is posted it kind of takes away borderline stuff like this.

I like the shirt.


Always post...... It sounds to me like player A is just a nit, and was possibly just lookin for a way out of the set when he started the crap about the other guy playing his tourn match....