The coolest shot was the first break. Looked like CGI.

garczar said:

maybe but that's rarely the hold-up. its almost always the 1p and the buyback system itself. in the 1p it could be both players going to even: if player A owes one and player B fouls they're even. i think this rule is fine, doesn't change the outcome much if any. The minus-5 rule is ok too, if you owe five you ain't winnin unless you're name is Efren.

Click to expand...

John Smchidt was something like -8 and beat one of the Philippine players maybe six years ago. It was something to watch.

I can't stand Brandon deWilde in anything, especially "Shane", although he actually acted fairly well in "In Harm's Way", for him. First time I saw "Hud" he just got in the way for me, lol. It's a tough, dreary, depressing, bleak and well made film. "The Hustler" is dark and noir-ish but at least some sort of redemption for Newman's character, or at least acknowledgment of his failings and Gleason is a blast. George C. Scott was great and pure evil and in a different way a terrific foil for James Stewart in "Anatomy Of A Murder" - he killed that role as the prosecutor.

garczar said:

Dude just subscribe for a month then turn it off. Will take you all of a minute to sign up. https://www.wnttv.com/subscribe Starts at 1:30Eastern starting tomorrow thru Sat.

Click to expand...

I just paid using Visa then I got a confirmation email from WNT which is good thing because its the same website, also they already cut money from my visa all good...

however then I received an email from some company called link, here's what I got inside. I am usually scared of scams, what is this link thing? do I click it to confirm? I always am cautious when its online things and payment stuff thats why I am asking...I wouldn't dare to click this before I hear from other ppl who paid.

So, if you trailing 2 to 1 on games and ahead 7 to -4 on ball count, you lose if the clock runs out. It doesn't exactly say that, but that's how I read it.

It will be interesting to see how many matches run into the time limit.

garczar said:

Dude just subscribe for a month then turn it off. Will take you all of a minute to sign up. https://www.wnttv.com/subscribe Starts at 1:30Eastern starting tomorrow thru Sat.

Click to expand...

Guess I have no other choice, ok ill subscribe for 5 days only, I am on it!

No one on the planet is going to make an opening bid of 44k for that table. I don't care if the table retails new for 69k, or if the bidder is a billionaire. It will just sit, unsold.

You're missing a trick. On the first TAR match between Alex and Shane (race to 100, they might have had a couple shorter ones before then), Shane was KILLING Alex. Alex kept getting kisses or weird shit on the break, not leaving him a shot. While Shane was breaking, he'd stand behind him without him knowing, and watch what he was doing. Shane was jumping the CB so when the 2 corner balls went 4 rails around they would pass under the airborne CB, and not kiss.

Well, Alex learned that, and went on to have an Efren vs Earl COM comeback.

I dusted off my cues after months and played a small tourney on GCs with 4" pockets.
My break is not all that great and I'm rusty as hell.
I'd guess I broke 15 times and ran 2 of them.
It's you.

GideonF said:

Do you have stats on how “reliable” early results tend to be compared to established ratings? Like how 100 robustness for John Doe compares to 500 or 1000?

I’ve seen some examples of local people who were off by 50 or more points based on early results (and settle up or down to the correct level with more games), although by and large most seem to be about right (like maybe within 10 or 20 points of where they end up).

I also wonder whether the reliability of the low robustness results also can be influenced by low robustness of opponents.

Click to expand...

Here is mine, just a sample size of 1. I kept track myself and made the graph. First picture is from 0 to 203 robustness. Second picture is from 0 to 1800 robustness (today).

garczar said:

You guys think this shit's bad now just wait til he gets his new table. He still won't make a ball on that D'mond.

Click to expand...

Making a ball has never really been the problem.

It's getting a good look at the lowest numbered ball and having a runnable spread. I just never seem to get a good look and have a decent spread that I can run. Maybe Efren in his prime might be able to get out once in a great while with my spreads.

The table is jinxed. The pool spirits must be against me.

Very cool. Nice to see a family owned American company still making a quality product.

mikepage said:

To the extent they have about 100 games, the preliminary ratings with starter-rating influence would be about halfway between the black and blue lines.

Click to expand...

Do you have stats on how “reliable” early results tend to be compared to established ratings? Like how 100 robustness for John Doe compares to 500 or 1000?

I’ve seen some examples of local people who were off by 50 or more points based on early results (and settle up or down to the correct level with more games), although by and large most seem to be about right (like maybe within 10 or 20 points of where they end up).

I also wonder whether the reliability of the low robustness results also can be influenced by low robustness of opponents.