BRKNRUN said:

So if a 590 never really plays in events that are rated for over 600 players....they can essentially stay a 590 forever....(or at least quite a long time)
Is my thought process wrong????

Click to expand...

Bob Jewett said:

Yes, that's not how FargoRate works. You could play against no one over 500 and get a 700 rating. You would just have to beat them badly nearly all the time.

Click to expand...

Right - in case it's not clear, Fargo rate is not related to match wins, it cares about games won/lost. E.g., if a 590 pays 10 races to 9 vs other 590s, the expected outcome in games is something like 90-89. If they go 90-11, their fargo is going to go up.

So if your Fargo is 595 but you actually play way better and want to keep it <600 (but still win the tournament), as maha says, beat the other 590s by scores of 9-7 or 9-8 instead of the 9-3 you're capable of, and your number won't go up much.

Mensabum said:

A very good up and coming young player at one of the halls I frequent was told by his coach and mentor to gamble as often as he can. He was told it's the only way to develop a certain mindset.
Very famous instructor.
Agree or disagree, the mentor has the kids ear. Which way do you think he's going to go??
Is the coach correct in that playing for money builds a certain mindset you can't get any other way??
I wonder...

Click to expand...

I hope the instructor also gave him advice on how to gamble responsibly. Should he be playing sets for all of the money he has to his name? Playing for $5 or $10 or whatever ok. The issue is when they start playing for more and more money as they dont get the same rush or focus as they did playing for small amounts. If a junior plays for 10k, is he putting up the money himself or is it a parent/backer? What happens if he loses? Does he have to pay it back at some point?

There are different levels of gambling. I feel like everyone just lumps them all together.

Sunday funday playing with self. 3 ball break and kick 'em in, race to 10. Left vs Right
Ready set go.

Mensabum said:

Somehow I missed this entire thread!! Coming late to my own party!! 3 days late.
Shame on me.

Click to expand...

Must have been a good party….

Survival was my reason for attending USAFA. Religion was my reason for exit.
Without college scholarship er uh attendance. Which for me required scholarship. Which is what I earned through balance physical and mental accomplishments.
Realistically, I was not "The Military Type" whew wipes brow. Thank Gawd.
Back to my Sunday Funday to the Woodstock reflection of Joan Bayaz
The Nam was going on.

Mensabum said:

Somehow I missed this entire thread!! Coming late to my own party!! 3 days late.
Shame on me.

Click to expand...

I did seem odd that you were absent.
I personally called the hospitals and the State Patrol, they knew nothing.

The scaffolding resembles my work in Canada.
Been there Built That.
I was always lead on that build. My first hand man was better knowledge and skills. At introduction he said, "You are in charge......Until I say you're Not." I said, "Cool." We worked well together. SAFELY and well uh Good as it gets.

Mensabum said:

A very good up and coming young player at one of the halls I frequent was told by his coach and mentor to gamble as often as he can. He was told it's the only way to develop a certain mindset.
Very famous instructor.
Agree or disagree, the mentor has the kids ear. Which way do you think he's going to go??
Is the coach correct in that playing for money builds a certain mindset you can't get any other way??
I wonder...

Click to expand...

This is a common debate. The truth, however, is that many got to world class level without gambling more than occasionally. The three German BCA Hall of Famers Ortmann, Hohmann and Souquet are good examples. Jean Balukas was not a gambler, but was naturally motivated and fully engaged in the outcome of any tussle. I've never met a more competitive person in my life than Jean. She'd go for the throat even if you were playing her for a cup of coffee.

In contrast, future German BCA Hall of Famer Josh Filler frequently used gambling to strengthen his competitive pedigree, and it worked. At Derby City alone, Josh has played action matches in 9ball, 10ball, bank pool, one pocket, and even bar table 8ball, and against very elite opponents. Over the years, he has done it less and less, but all those action matches figured prominently in his ascension as a legendary player.

Jonny Ervolino, pool legend of the 1960s and 1970s, used to say that a player needed a lot of "time in the frying pan" to fully develop, meaning experience in high pressure situations. For some players, this always meant experience in action matches, but others could feel the heat and learn to deal with the pressure through practice matches and competition alone. It varies from player to player.

I have run into both types. I rarely gambled in my pool playing prime, but I recall a guy I used to play from time to time. He never seemed to play his best unless he was gambling. For that reason, even though I was a very slight underdog, I never played him without making at least a small bet on the outcome. On the other hand, some have fire in their eyes whether there is money riding on the outcome or not.

I've never bought into the proposition that one MUST gamble to fully develop their competitive pedigree, but quickly concede that it is true for many and not for others.

I don't like the fact that an instructor is selling, to a youngster, that gambling is a must, but if that instructor had taken the trouble to determine whether his student could build a competitive pedigree without it and decided no, I think I'm OK with it.