middleofnowhere said:

Derby might be the one exception as to tournaments worth watching. Having said, that regardless of who wins or what happens you won't see one mention of it in any paper or public media anywhere in the country. It's an invisible sport.

Click to expand...

Tobermory said:

First of all: I think Fedor is terrific. Love the kid.

I am not of the school of thought that thinks a player profits from playing an opponent who is WILDLY superior to him. The profit comes from playing an opponent who is better than you by a moderate degree. I have profited greatly from playing people better than myself even, but players who could, for instance, give me eight to-six in one pocket or the seven in nine ball. In the long run I’m a loser, but if I finish only four or five games down in a three hour session I’ve probably improved my game.

I go out of my way NOT to play people who are obviously worse than I am, and I have made it a personal rule not ever to play anybody worse than myself for money. Too much Catholic guilt. In addition, I don’t play anybody whom I don’t like.

I have, of course, had the experience of playing someone wildly better than me in a tournament. Some years ago I had to play Evgeny Stalev one pocket at the Derby. The match was scheduled to start at something like 2:00. At 1:30 I was fortunate enough to find our assigned table open. I practiced about ten minutes and Stalev popped up. I yielded the table and he took a few warm up strokes. By now it was 1:45. He looked at me and asked, “Is it allowed to start early?” I said I didn’t see why not. We flipped a coin and started. At 2:07 our match was over. I told Stalev I would report his win to the desk. He thanked me and went off. I waited about twenty minutes before I went to the desk because I was embarrassed to report a loss which would appear to have lasted only seven minutes if we had begun at the scheduled time.

What was I supposed to learn from that drubbing?

Click to expand...

Badpenguin said:

Seems reasonable. I paid about the same to play a small set with Efren. What other sport would you get the opportunity to go one-on-one with a world champion for $100?

Click to expand...

middleofnowhere said:

Thomas Wolfe may have said that but that doesn't mean you can't try. It doesn't mean you have to accept change as inevitable and inflexible.

Click to expand...

Taxi said:

This is also what keeps me interested at 81, and with luck for years to come. Just in the last year I've loved watching the emergence of Neuhausen and the rise of Atencio, who's fast becoming my favorite player. That doesn't take away anything from the great players of the past, like Buddy and Sigel and Nick, but what's made it better is the coming of one great international player after another. It's the same reason that baseball is vastly improved over the days when 99% of the players were American born. Bigger talent pools make for better talent.

And let's not forget the women. Other than Balukis, I doubt if any of the women from the 80's on back could compete with any one of dozens of the best women players today from all over the world. Players like Seo and Jasmin and Kristina are every bit as much fun to watch as the top men players, even if their game is at a lower level.

Looking forward to Derby City! Bring it on!

Click to expand...

8intheside said:

To each their own. I personally would for the experience. But for the people who are saying “you’d be a sucker to do so” are the same people who spend a 1,000 on a break cue and 30 on a piece of chalk.

Click to expand...

billiardshot said:

Dean_H you're right... but what year??

Click to expand...

HitMaster said:

I now have 2 Meucci Originals No Dice Gamblers and I need some input on when they were made and where they fit in the Originals line of no-dice gambler history. As you can see from the images mine are the ones made before the Originals with dice above and below the playing cards and at the joint. Mine have the rectangles above and below the cards, and at the joint, as opposed to the other version of the Originals no-dice gambler that has the rectangles forming a chain pattern above and below the cards and at the joint.

My research indicates there were at least 3 gamblers made in the Originals line. My question is what were the production years of each of these Originals gamblers? Which came first? Which is the original, original no-dice gambler? And when did Meucci begin making the Originals gambler with dice?

I know the ones with dice came after the ones without dice but that’s about it. In other words what were the production years for these 3 Meucci Originals gambler’s, and if possible what are the model numbers?

1. Originals no-dice gambler with rectangles pattern above & below the cards
2. Originals no-dice gambler with chain pattern above & below the cards
3. Originals gambler with dice above and below the cards

I can’t find anything on the internet that definitively answers these questions so any information you can provide is much appreciated!

The first 3 images are of one I bought several years ago and my second one is identical to it. Both are in spades. The 4th image is an example of an Originals no-dice gambler with the chain pattern above and below the cards and at the joint, as opposed to the rectangle pattern above and below the cards and at the joint.

View attachment 776437View attachment 776434View attachment 776435View attachment 776438

Click to expand...