Stevie Moore's Rules argument with Justin

RobertR

RobertR

WWSLD
Silver Member
Stevie, your argument is tired. Earl has been making the same argument for years and where has it gotten the players? Nowhere. Still playing for scraps compared to the other sports.

I quote you: "people who can't play"... bzzzzt.

It's a widely held opinion that Chris Moneymaker couldn't play at all when he won 5 million. Look what he did for poker just by winning.

Time to stop acting like the professional pool players are curing cancer and are better than anyone else and realize that you are part of the problem with this statement.

Also, time to standardize the rules and get on with the business of being an ambassador for the game rather than your elitist attitude which only pushes pool farther from the mainstream.

Also, since you stated you had found your calling in pool commentating, here's a tip for you, change:

"people can't appreciate the hardness of the game"

to

"people can't appreciate the difficulty of the game"

It might make you sound less country.

:-)
 
ummmm, what exactly happened? Did I miss something? And which Justin are you referring to?
 
Last edited:
J Soto said:
ummmm, what exactly happened? Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Well, they had a 'lively' discussion over the rules in play at HardTimes this weekend. It revolved around luck, and not being able to slop balls in. Stevie's argument basically boiled down to he liked the rules, since it penalized the people who 'can't play'. Justin's argument was much less emotional, and based on rationale. I won't speak for Justin though. I just take exception when pros come off like babies in public, crying about luck and players that can't play. It's just dumb, and not good for the game in my opinion.
 
The argument i heard was that Stevie was arguing for the call shot rules, and that Justin was arguing that the crowd would not like the call shot no luck rules, Where Stevie didn't care what the crowd wanted, he wanted what was best for the players playing the game. i.e., NO LUCK!

No luck is the way to go.
I highly doubt that a serious player would want it any other way.
 
I am with the OP on this one, Stevie wasn't even making sense he was basing his argument solely off of emotion. If there was no luck involved in pool we wouldn't make nearly as much money off of it. It let's bangers think they have a chance against average players and average players against really good players and really good players against Pro's. Of course getting weight as well but I mean getting a roll every now and then isn't the end of the world and it makes the game a little more balanced. Not bashing on Stevie or anything but he really wasn't making much sense. Justin handled it in a great manner btw, thumbs up on that.
 
Ok, lets get one thing straight.
Pool today = NO MONEY

So unless someone is gonna come along and dump a billion dollars into the game and say "I WANT LUCKY RULES for all my EveryoneMakesABoatloadOfMoney tournaments, considering that there is no money in pool, no luck is the way to go.
Sorry, but if the difference between you cashing, and going home bust is a lucky roll someone got on you, there is something wrong with the rules.

When there is money in pool, then you can bittch about having lucky rules as much as you want.
And make no doubt about it.
Lucky rules aren't the be all to end all of revolutionizing pool.
BEFORE Texas Express was introduced. Back when they played with the old rules which were less lucky.
Pool was in a better state, and there was more money in pool then ever.

So you might want to think twice before you go off thinking that more players are gonna think they have a chance if pool is lucky, cause in the past 20 years since the rules have changed, pool has gone into the toilet.

Just saying.
 
I think the lack of money and whether the rules involve more or less luck... aren't really related. Money comes from people paying directly (or indirectly) to watch pool. That's it. They aren't going to turn off the TV over call-shot vs. slop on a kicked ball.

If there's going to be luck in a game, it's better when there's less money involved (i.e. right now) than later on, if there's huge sums involved.
 
I was actually talking about anytime I made money gambling with some nit who thought he could beat me because he bangs balls hard and lucks a few.
Wasn't trying to say it is a HUGE factor in pool and organized tournaments. Just a little thought no need to state clear and known facts. Example:

EVERYONE on planet earth knows there is no money in pool, so relax it will be alright.

If you heard the argument, Stevie was going to far as to say if you called a ball in a pocket and missed it but somehow got safe, your opponent should get to chose if he wants to shoot. A little bit extreme?
 
RobDeBank said:
I

If you heard the argument, Stevie was going to far as to say if you called a ball in a pocket and missed it but somehow got safe, your opponent should get to chose if he wants to shoot. A little bit extreme?
Click to expand...

So someone should be rewarded for missing?
That is what you are saying if you agree with someone getting lucky after they miss.
So someone can miss all day long and leave you frozen to a ball each and every time where you don't have a shot, or a choice in the matter, and you'd be ok with that?

By the incoming player choosing, he can choose to pass on an unfavorable position that happened because of luck.

No luck, means you can't crap a ball in, and you cannot get a lucky safe if you did not intend for it.

Take those out of the picture and it's a better game.
 
I think that making the rules have a lot less luck would make for less entertaining pool and therefor even less money in pool.
 
10-ball rules - call shot

I did not hear the discussion with Stevie and Justin, but we have discussed this beofre.

There is a major problem with 'call shot' - often players will play safe instead of attempting a difficult shot. WHY? Because if I call a shot and 'miss' - the incoming player can make me shoot again!

The problem with that is that I am better off playing a safe to start with. This new thought toward 'call shot' will make the game even more difficutl to watch. Safes will become much more common and fewer run-outs will be attempted. Fewer spectators means less interest.

All games have some luck - but usually a pool player MAKES their own luck by controlling what he can ie speed of shot so a miss goes safe etc. Those are skills - not luck.

Look at golf - there is LOT of luck there - but also a LOT of skill. Same guys come out on top! Seems I agree with Justin - lol.

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI-BCAPL
 
Last edited:
Just go back to 2 foul ball in hand and add call shot and the problem is solved.
People can play to their strengths and no one can get a lucky safe

If you get hooked, you can push out and then the strategy begins.
If they like it they take it, if not, they give it back.

END OF PROBLEM.
 
SUPERSTAR said:
Just go back to 2 foul ball in hand and add call shot and the problem is solved.
People can play to their strengths and no one can get a lucky safe

If you get hooked, you can push out and then the strategy begins.
If they like it they take it, if not, they give it back.

END OF PROBLEM.
Click to expand...

I like it but it will never happen. Some people just can't stand it if the opponent can get out of a safe, called or not, and come out the better for it. Not understanding how to play the game of push out right has a whole lot to do with it. They can only see that the other guy can push out and not the whole picture.
 
Learn to roll with the punches it makes the game much more entertaining, I love seeing Efren kick safe 3 rails because someone accidentally hooked him. It forces you to have to play better getting out of the accidental safe. Of course you could make the argument that it forces you to play better if you had to do your exact called shot and I would agree to that also but it would probably make the game slower. Last but not least, it's prob best to not screw with the rules of the game people are so used to playing. If they changed it, So many pro's would be furious. The game has worked beautifully like this for so many years and Stevie was just talking nonsense.
 
Obviously, you don't know the difference between surviving and being broke, all hinging on a roll.

Typical.
 
The ten ball rules which go like this are the best in the world IMO:

1. the player at the table must designate either a pocket or a safety. If a safety is called then the player cannot pocket the lowest numbered object ball to make the safety.

2. If the shooter misses the called ball then the incoming player may take the shot as it lies or request that the outgoing player shoot again.

Those two rules make all the difference in the world as to whether you get beat by luck or get beat by skill.

I will not gamble any more playing nine ball with slop rules. I get beat too often by people who miss balls and get safe or who slop balls in other pockets. And I also win some that way to and I am always turning to my opponent and apologizing for my lucky rolls.

Ten Ball with call shot rules the way I laid it out above should be the gold standard for pool.

All of you who want to talk about how pool "would be", "might be" more boring for specatators - how about Snooker which is much slower than pool and still even at it's low point draws more people to watch it live than any pool tournament and still draws millions of viewers to watch it's LIVE broadcasts. Also I'd like to add that Snooker players make a hell of a lot more money than pool players do.

We don't need to DUMB DOWN pool for the masses. Hasn't enough of that been tried already? Anyone remember 7-ball????

I am on Stevie Moore's side on this one as far as wanting rules that don't reward sloppy play. As for how he handled himself in a public space? No clue - wasn't there - didn't see - first I have heard of it.
 
Last edited:
They were just going back and forth. It wasn't a legit argument, just differing opinions.
It wasn't like either one was out of line.
It was all friendly banter with a little heat.
 
The other day on a par 5 I fired my 3rd shot over the green and chipped in from 20 yards, my partner went nuts, my opponent cheered. When I got into the club house I collected $40 for a skin.

The very next day, I called a ball in the side pocket that I was going to use 2 rails to a very tight position on my second to last ball, from there the out was simple. I came off the first rail and bumped one of my opponents balls and knocked what I had planned to be my last ball under one of my opponents balls and left an easier out than I would have had even if I had pulled off my tough position shot. Luck definitely factored into the game. I got my break and run, my opponent was pissed, I admitted that it was a major roll, and my partner said "nice roll" when I came back to the table.

My question is, why the difference? I wasn't seriously trying to make the chip on the par 5, I just trying to get it close, but in one case luck is cheered and in the other it's heavily frowned upon. At the same time though, I can't imagine pool changing enough where I wouldn't feel guilty about getting out on that table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top