We always hear about huge 9-ball and one pocket spots, but what's the biggest spot you've ever seen in straight pool? I've seen a semi-pro give a C- player 150-35 and he won 150-26. He took a lot of intentional fouls and played a tight game, which caused the C- to make a lot of mistakes. I often wonder what a Thorsten Hohmann or John Schmidt could spot a weak player...maybe 400-50?
Biggest 14.1 spot you've seen?
- Thread starter Mr441
- Start date
That's impressive! But what was his opponent going to?
Much to my dismay, there isn't a lot of 14.1 played around Houston.
I don't even know of one single league around the Houston area that plays 14.1.
That being said, Charlie Bryant and I would sometimes play 14.1 and he would regurlarly give me very large spots that I'm embarrassed to say.
He always won too.
I don't even know of one single league around the Houston area that plays 14.1.
That being said, Charlie Bryant and I would sometimes play 14.1 and he would regurlarly give me very large spots that I'm embarrassed to say.
He always won too.
When I first started playng regularly back in 1986 I used to get 100-35 from the houseman, and lost each time.
I also played two goofy games with Danny Green back in the 90s. We would go to 100, but his first 50 was no-count, while I could shoot regularly. We just played for $20 and it was more for a bunch of laughs than anything else, and we ended up even. During the game we were both laughing a lot, and sometimes other players would comment on how brain-dead I was to not be able to win this easily...which was even funnier.
Those are my "crazy spot" stories.
I used to give a guy 100 to 1 and we played 75 point games even. Every week he would put up his $10.00 against my $1000. and play three or four games. I have to point out that this was a time when a working man could support a family on $200 a week so an easy $40.00 win was actually pretty good. The worst part was I would stall a bit. I never put more then a 50 on him or anything. We played that game for over a year and strangely enough, he never seemed to get any better.
Poncho, some on here knew him, would play pretty good players 100 to 10 in the side pocket. Sometimes a few as 5. I saw him beat some really good players at that game.
Poncho also played a version of that game in one pocket. He played the guys 15 to 1 in the side. Here is part of the gaff. Scratches count. Most of the time they would scratch at least once or twice so it was really 15 to 2 or 3 in the side.
Last edited:
A few weeks back I heard Siegel talking about action back in the day, and said he routinely spotted somebody "100 or no count".
That's pretty strong.
That's pretty strong.
It takes a player like Siegel to do that but if the other player is weak. They will require maybe 20 or 30 innings to get to 100 themselves. In those days Siegel was a lock to run a 100 with that many tries. I would also bet he selected a nice sloppy table in the room to play the game on.
not exactly the same thing, but in our league the highest rated player goes to 160 while the lowest goes to 50, so I guess a 110 spot to 160.
It used to be worse. We would let guys go as low as 30 and there were some guys that got up to 180. Makes for a tense game.
The 30 ball guy once answered my opening break with a 14.:frown:
It used to be worse. We would let guys go as low as 30 and there were some guys that got up to 180. Makes for a tense game.
The 30 ball guy once answered my opening break with a 14.:frown:
In league match ups I've seen players like Danny Barouty and Ginky have to give up spots like 180-40 or more and the weaker players can run a rack so it's not always a lock.
I used to play a match with this D+ player (I was about a B at the time) where we'd play a 50 point match but I had to stop at 3 meaning I couldn't run more than 3 balls. He would just smash them wide open but I'd make sure I left the cueball in a fairly safe spot after making the 3rd ball. I won every time, even after he improved his game to the point where he should have won with that spot, it became a mental thing with him and he couldn't win.
When I was about a C player Ginky gave me a match where he played 65 or no count and I had to make 30 balls BUT after the 30 I had to make 3 bank shots. He won and I realized later that it was a sucker bet.
I used to play a match with this D+ player (I was about a B at the time) where we'd play a 50 point match but I had to stop at 3 meaning I couldn't run more than 3 balls. He would just smash them wide open but I'd make sure I left the cueball in a fairly safe spot after making the 3rd ball. I won every time, even after he improved his game to the point where he should have won with that spot, it became a mental thing with him and he couldn't win.
When I was about a C player Ginky gave me a match where he played 65 or no count and I had to make 30 balls BUT after the 30 I had to make 3 bank shots. He won and I realized later that it was a sucker bet.
Speaking of giving out big spots, there seem to be to schools of thought that the better players have about this. I remember years ago playing in a straight pool league and there were two players in the league who were clearly way above every one else and they had to give up big spots like 150-40 often against decent players. These two players were very good, roughly shortstop speed or a maybe a shade under that. Well, one of them had the plan to just go for big runs all the time. The other had a completely different idea, he never went for a hard shot ever! He'd run a rack at a time, maybe two racks, he'd only go for a break shot if it was very easy. He said there's no point taking any kind of risk when i know I can out safe them all day long.
Guess who did better that season? The conservative player went 11-1, the other guy went 6-6. The conservative player, who wasn't conservative against other good players mind you, won some matches with scores of 150-9, 150-14. And these were against decent players. I always found the way that season played out very interesting.
Guess who did better that season? The conservative player went 11-1, the other guy went 6-6. The conservative player, who wasn't conservative against other good players mind you, won some matches with scores of 150-9, 150-14. And these were against decent players. I always found the way that season played out very interesting.
Yeah I've noticed though that in those matches where the pro gives a player that huge spot the pro usually wins even when they're a little off that night. It seems the weaker player plays really scared and they've lost even before the match begins.
weaker player getting for example 82 to hundred (just over 1 rack) often gets very nervous.
i played 100-no count but found that when not hitting my target in the first hour...i would lose three hrs later having run couple of 60-80's but fatigue or frustration will make me miss/misread many breakshots
or even, but i can only use the 1,2 or 3-ball as a breakshot and breakball can not be pocketed in lower (1-pocket) pockets
i played 100-no count but found that when not hitting my target in the first hour...i would lose three hrs later having run couple of 60-80's but fatigue or frustration will make me miss/misread many breakshots
or even, but i can only use the 1,2 or 3-ball as a breakshot and breakball can not be pocketed in lower (1-pocket) pockets
Biggest 14.1 spot you've seen
Back in the late 70's and early 80's I would give a guy 88 to 100 and win 9 out of ten games. This player could run out a game of 8-BALL. I would regularly spot different players 98 to 100 . As long as they made their 2 balls in either side pocket.We usually bet 20 or 30 a game!!!
Back in the late 70's and early 80's I would give a guy 88 to 100 and win 9 out of ten games. This player could run out a game of 8-BALL. I would regularly spot different players 98 to 100 . As long as they made their 2 balls in either side pocket.We usually bet 20 or 30 a game!!!
150....SPF=randyg