Jeanette and Vivian ?

While I usually ignore uninformed gossip; the posters above who are alleging that the outcome was pre-arranged; or that players were "dumping" are either terribly uninformed or just wanting to cause trouble.

Neither player walked away with any money; both had an opportunity to make $49K. What on earth are you guys thinking? They were both utterly devastated by the results of the match (I am sure you will suggest that they are both tremendous actresses....I'm sure you know best). Any dumping would have resulted in a clear victory. Are you suggesting they gave away a chance at $49K to get a piece of Roy Steffensen's $500 side bet (I knew Roy was crafty, so I didn't bet with him....I'm certain he rigged the whole thing)????

One of the players basically staked herself; are you thinking she dumped herself? I'm really trying to be polite; but "clueless" is the only adjective I can think of to describe such conjecture; "ill intended" also comes to mind. Isn't there some other venue for your malice???

Dumping is something for the men's game. These 2 players are NOT interested in such chicanery, and will probably play again within a month or two. I hope you will keep your snide comments to yourself; we all know you guys are cynical and worldly, we are all very impressed, you can stop anytime. If you see "dumping" and scamming in every match (if she wins she's cutting up her backer, if she loses she's dumping, if they tie they're scamming the side bettors in the extra sessions and at the end of the match) you have a problem.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Williebetmore. I was surprised they played on but that was something worked out between George and some guy with Viv (Strong Arm???). Jeanette was practicing and Viv was listening in on the negotiations. Both women were about wiped out by this time, especially Jeanette who was hurting before they even started the session. Probably wasn't one of Georges smarter agreements. :shrug:
 
$TAKE HOR$E said:
As for the limiting the number of hours they play, it looks like none of it was thought out at all. Why take a chance on just being able to break even in the first place. The real winner was the pool room for getting " big action " like this in there and drawing a big crowd.
Click to expand...

The bold sentence makes no sense. If you are implying that they should not have limited the number of hours played, than you are dead wrong. There is nothing wrong with setting and 8 hr time limit. They were not betting on who had stamina, and Jeanette plays in pain the entire time she plays, all the while never making an excuse. But, perhaps this is just my inference of the bold sentence.

Second, what is wrong with breaking even? I mean sure, we all want to win, but there is no law that says you aren't allowed to break even. Why are people shaming this fact? They have known one another for years and will continue to see each other numerous times through out the year. I'm sure they will play again.

Third, why in the hell do a lot of people keep referring to the pool room as being "the big winner". Isn't that what we want to happen in pool? Do we have something against pool rooms flourishing and drawing a crowd? I do not get it.

Lastly, and this is directed at a lot of people that made comments in the chat in regard to their side bets on this set. What in their right mind makes them think these two competitors gives a rat's a$$ about all of the side bets made on this game? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time. I bet on this match on the side and in the middle and am happy with the outcome. Sure, I'd of liked to have won some money, but I have to go with what the player I bet on felt like was right at the time. No big deal. I'll bet again, and win, lose, or break even I will not flame every decision the players made.

Interestingly enough, their are constantly threads about "why don't champions match up more"... hmm... I wonder why??:confused::confused:
 
1on1pooltournys said:
The bold sentence makes no sense. If you are implying that they should not have limited the number of hours played, than you are dead wrong. There is nothing wrong with setting and 8 hr time limit.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just seems funny when you hear about people playing an ahead set then having a time limt because it happens less often. Nothing wrong with it I guess.

1on1pooltournys said:
Second, what is wrong with breaking even? I mean sure, we all want to win, but there is no law that says you aren't allowed to break even.
Click to expand...

Most are just used to seeing a winner because a lot of people have only seen matches like this online or elsewhere.

1on1pooltournys said:
Third, why in the hell do a lot of people keep referring to the pool room as being "the big winner". Isn't that what we want to happen in pool? Do we have something against pool rooms flourishing and drawing a crowd? I do not get it.
Click to expand...

You are taking this the wrong way obviously. How many times have you heard that statement and heard someone bltch about it. Think about it, if there were not places like this then where would they play. It doesnt mean anything. Most if not all of the time people say it as a good thing.

1on1pooltournys said:
Lastly, and this is directed at a lot of people that made comments in the chat in regard to their side bets on this set. What in their right mind makes them think these two competitors gives a rat's a$$ about all of the side bets made on this game? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time. :
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I could care less if they quit at 4 hours or played 40 hours straight because I didnt have a quarter bet on it. There is nothing wrong with them both agreeing to keep playing but if you made a bet on Vivian before they played under the stipulation that is was 10 ahead or prorate after 8 hours would you pay off if the person you bet with said that was the agreement from the begining.
 
1on1pooltournys said:
The bold sentence makes no sense. If you are implying that they should not have limited the number of hours played, than you are dead wrong. There is nothing wrong with setting and 8 hr time limit. They were not betting on who had stamina, and Jeanette plays in pain the entire time she plays, all the while never making an excuse. But, perhaps this is just my inference of the bold sentence.

Second, what is wrong with breaking even? I mean sure, we all want to win, but there is no law that says you aren't allowed to break even. Why are people shaming this fact? They have known one another for years and will continue to see each other numerous times through out the year. I'm sure they will play again.

Third, why in the hell do a lot of people keep referring to the pool room as being "the big winner". Isn't that what we want to happen in pool? Do we have something against pool rooms flourishing and drawing a crowd? I do not get it.

Lastly, and this is directed at a lot of people that made comments in the chat in regard to their side bets on this set. What in their right mind makes them think these two competitors gives a rat's a$$ about all of the side bets made on this game? They did what they thought was in their best interest at the time. I bet on this match on the side and in the middle and am happy with the outcome. Sure, I'd of liked to have won some money, but I have to go with what the player I bet on felt like was right at the time. No big deal. I'll bet again, and win, lose, or break even I will not flame every decision the players made.

Interestingly enough, their are constantly threads about "why don't champions match up more"... hmm... I wonder why??:confused::confused:
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a time limit per day---but the match should go on for as many days as it takes until someone wins the money. Plain and simple, it was a bad move for VV to make the choice to lose all of her backers money or simply have the chance to break even, when playing an ahead set. If you think otherwise, then we can expand our friendship into gambling with each other beyond for dinner the next time you come to St Louis.

I agree with everything else you say except I would suggest, and I have never worn them myself so I might be wrong, but if Jeanette is in pain she might want to consider not playing pool in high heels.
 
Tbeaux said:
I agree with Williebetmore. I was surprised they played on but that was something worked out between George and some guy with Viv (Strong Arm???). Jeanette was practicing and Viv was listening in on the negotiations. Both women were about wiped out by this time, especially Jeanette who was hurting before they even started the session. Probably wasn't one of Georges smarter agreements. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Strong Arm is Jeanette's gambling mentor.....not on the side of VV.
 
watchez said:
Nothing wrong with a time limit per day---but the match should go on for as many days as it takes until someone wins the money. Plain and simple, it was a bad move for VV to make the choice to lose all of her backers money or simply have the chance to break even, when playing an ahead set. If you think otherwise, then we can expand our friendship into gambling with each other beyond for dinner the next time you come to St Louis.

I agree with everything else you say except I would suggest, and I have never worn them myself so I might be wrong, but if Jeanette is in pain she might want to consider not playing pool in high heels.
Click to expand...

W-man,
JL has expressed on many occasions that high heels actually feel a bit more natural when playing; and that the size of the heels does not affect the constant pain in her back one way or the other. When her foot injuries are acting up; even barefoot hurts.

P.S. - I believe that neither competitor had any interest in anyone's side bets - there was plenty at stake for them in the match itself. Side bettors must be aware that this is the case when they decide to engage in that activity. Hasn't anyone here ever bet on football???? Most teams are not that interested in the point spread, and do not plan their strategies with that in mind
 
Last edited:
watchez said:
Nothing wrong with a time limit per day---but the match should go on for as many days as it takes until someone wins the money. Plain and simple, it was a bad move for VV to make the choice to lose all of her backers money or simply have the chance to break even, when playing an ahead set. If you think otherwise, then we can expand our friendship into gambling with each other beyond for dinner the next time you come to St Louis.

I agree with everything else you say except I would suggest, and I have never worn them myself so I might be wrong, but if Jeanette is in pain she might want to consider not playing pool in high heels.
Click to expand...


First and foremost, these two have exhibitions, families, and other things in life to contend to than play one another for 20 days. This is the exact reason they decided to play 16 hrs worth of pool, in the form of 2 ahead sets. Secondly, where did I ever state that it was a good decision on VV stakers to go for those stipulations at the end? It was a terrible decision, and I'd like to gamble with them everyday... and you too for that matter.:rolleyes:

One word was mentioned to me today that kind of opened my eyes and made me say..."that's it!"...today, and that was the word....

PRIDE

It really makes sense. If they would have been betting 100 dollars it would have been the same outcome.
 
Williebetmore said:
W-man,
JL has expressed on many occasions that high heels actually feel a bit more natural when playing; and that the size of the heels does not affect the constant pain in her back one way or the other. When her foot injuries are acting up; even barefoot hurts.
Click to expand...

Thanks Doc. Good to see you posting - hope to see you around STL this winter. Things should start warming up soon.

I have a bad back once in awhile, no surgeries though. I'lll have to go to the Kiss Rock band website and get me a pair of those heels. :grin:
 
1on1pooltournys said:
First and foremost, these two have exhibitions, families, and other things in life to contend to than play one another for 20 days. This is the exact reason they decided to play 16 hrs worth of pool, in the form of 2 ahead sets. Secondly, where did I ever state that it was a good decision on VV stakers to go for those stipulations at the end? It was a terrible decision, and I'd like to gamble with them everyday... and you too for that matter.:rolleyes:

One word was mentioned to me today that kind of opened my eyes and made me say..."that's it!"...today, and that was the word....

PRIDE

It really makes sense. If they would have been betting 100 dollars it would have been the same outcome.
Click to expand...

I am just glad that when Jeanette played Justin here last winter an ahead set on the big table she didn't put a time limit on the match beyond hours per day.

I guess that is a new rule in pool- if both players have exhibitions and families to go home to then you put an hour and day time limit on the match. If one person wants to have the chance to win all the money or break even after the time has expired, that is ok. However, if one player has exhibitions and a family to go home to while the other player does not, then put it on the light and it doesn't come down until someone wins the money.
 
watchez said:
I have a bad back once in awhile, no surgeries though. I'lll have to go to the Kiss Rock band website and get me a pair of those heels. :grin:
Click to expand...

W-man,
That constitutes a promise (I'm certain it is a binding legal contract in Missouri), and we will hold you to it (I must remember to bring a camera the next time there is action in St. Louis).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top