It is a forum, a place for discussion, and if it is a logical response for the Mully then who are we to say otherwise?
Last edited:
When is it ok to "quit winner"?
- Thread starter fast&loose designs
- Start date
It is a forum, a place for discussion, and if it is a logical response for the Mully then who are we to say otherwise?
The late Tom Ferry, seasoned road player, listed his rules once. I don't remember them all but among them were anybody can quit whenever they want and pay after each set.
In his case he was trying to hustle unsuspecting bangers out of their money most of the time but those are good rules in just about any scenario.
Buddy Hall said "if you can't quit winner then when can you quit?"
I am in the camp that believes it's an unspoken rules that the person who is ahead plays until the loser quits or they break even. This is why so many people prefer to make a game that is three sets or an ahead race or a time limit, etc.....
I do hate it when people quit me winner and I give them shit about it but at the end of the day if you didn't make some sort of agreement then it's their right to quit when they want to.
Thinking back on it now you have to think that they have the best of it. If they are losing then they know you will play until they decide to quit which means they have all the chance in the world to get even and get in your pocket. But YOU don't have the same chance because you are playing someone who knows that they are going to quit you winner and not give you any chance to get even much less get in their pocket.
These are people who come to the table thinking that they will fire one barrel hoping to get out of the gate ahead of you and stay there.
I call them nits. They call themselves smart gamblers. We are both right.
I am in the camp that believes it's an unspoken rules that the person who is ahead plays until the loser quits or they break even. This is why so many people prefer to make a game that is three sets or an ahead race or a time limit, etc.....
I do hate it when people quit me winner and I give them shit about it but at the end of the day if you didn't make some sort of agreement then it's their right to quit when they want to.
Thinking back on it now you have to think that they have the best of it. If they are losing then they know you will play until they decide to quit which means they have all the chance in the world to get even and get in your pocket. But YOU don't have the same chance because you are playing someone who knows that they are going to quit you winner and not give you any chance to get even much less get in their pocket.
These are people who come to the table thinking that they will fire one barrel hoping to get out of the gate ahead of you and stay there.
I call them nits. They call themselves smart gamblers. We are both right.
Thank you for the correction. English is my third language, and I am constantly trying very hard to improve it, rather than "inconviencing law abiding folks" here with my grammatical errors, like that sheriff... :grin-square:
I'm glad we've gotten arguments from both sides. Makes this thread all the more useful. This is what I have gathered, for the most part, from what everyone is saying.
1. In general, if you "quit winner", you're a nit.
2. In some cases, it is acceptable to "quit winner", and one should feel neither guilty nor obligated to keep playing until the opponent quits.
3. If your opponent sharks you, is an asshole, or if you are seeking revenge of some sort from a previous encounter/set with that person in which he/she was a nit/asshole in some way, then "quitting winner" is acceptable.
4. If you stipulate before the set begins how many sets you will play for, then "quitting winner" is acceptable.
5. If you agree to continue the set at a later time, then "quitting winner" is acceptable (you should still be paid; however, if opponent is a friend, I will sometimes wait until the whole set is COMPLETELY finished before asking for payment).
6. There are over generalizations about pool players by some posters here. It seems to be a consensus among those people that pool players are inherently "dishonest" in some form, or are generally bad people with no heart and full of greed. I know plenty of those types, but I know just as many if not more who aren't those types. It is also assumed by a few posters here that we are all "hustlers". The idea that a pool player who is good at playing is automatically a hustler is ridiculous. I have met, in my 8 years of playing competitively, about 5 who I can easily say without a doubt that they hustled me or someone else, and do it frequently.
7. There are 2 types of players/gamblers out there:
- The "I only play for money to win; therefore, if I am winning, I should cash out and leave the game whenever I want" type.
- The "If my opponent quits me winner no matter WHAT, he is a nit" type.
- And the "I play honest pool to improve my game, but not for the money, so quitting winner sucks but won't kill me" type.
I know there is gray area here, but it seems most, at least in this thread, fit into one of the categories, no matter how awful they sound. I find myself somewhere between the last 2, as I don't see myself as the greedy guy who "thinks" that every game in pool played ought to be played for as much money as possible, and that the only reason for gambling is to win win win. I do gamble, but I have learned FAR more from my losses than I have from my winnings, as most of us do. Having said that, why would you quit simply because you're winning? It shows heart, dedication, and in some cases, stamina, if you can hang and play 12 hours or more. And for those of you who claim to be big winners all the time, why not let your opponent try and get his money back? If you're such a hot shot, you won't lose, and you will drain his pockets. The sport has lost a lot of its honest side, and today it has a stigma for being a chump's sport, a drunk man's game, and is only played by degenerates and low-lifes.
1. In general, if you "quit winner", you're a nit.
2. In some cases, it is acceptable to "quit winner", and one should feel neither guilty nor obligated to keep playing until the opponent quits.
3. If your opponent sharks you, is an asshole, or if you are seeking revenge of some sort from a previous encounter/set with that person in which he/she was a nit/asshole in some way, then "quitting winner" is acceptable.
4. If you stipulate before the set begins how many sets you will play for, then "quitting winner" is acceptable.
5. If you agree to continue the set at a later time, then "quitting winner" is acceptable (you should still be paid; however, if opponent is a friend, I will sometimes wait until the whole set is COMPLETELY finished before asking for payment).
6. There are over generalizations about pool players by some posters here. It seems to be a consensus among those people that pool players are inherently "dishonest" in some form, or are generally bad people with no heart and full of greed. I know plenty of those types, but I know just as many if not more who aren't those types. It is also assumed by a few posters here that we are all "hustlers". The idea that a pool player who is good at playing is automatically a hustler is ridiculous. I have met, in my 8 years of playing competitively, about 5 who I can easily say without a doubt that they hustled me or someone else, and do it frequently.
7. There are 2 types of players/gamblers out there:
- The "I only play for money to win; therefore, if I am winning, I should cash out and leave the game whenever I want" type.
- The "If my opponent quits me winner no matter WHAT, he is a nit" type.
- And the "I play honest pool to improve my game, but not for the money, so quitting winner sucks but won't kill me" type.
I know there is gray area here, but it seems most, at least in this thread, fit into one of the categories, no matter how awful they sound. I find myself somewhere between the last 2, as I don't see myself as the greedy guy who "thinks" that every game in pool played ought to be played for as much money as possible, and that the only reason for gambling is to win win win. I do gamble, but I have learned FAR more from my losses than I have from my winnings, as most of us do. Having said that, why would you quit simply because you're winning? It shows heart, dedication, and in some cases, stamina, if you can hang and play 12 hours or more. And for those of you who claim to be big winners all the time, why not let your opponent try and get his money back? If you're such a hot shot, you won't lose, and you will drain his pockets. The sport has lost a lot of its honest side, and today it has a stigma for being a chump's sport, a drunk man's game, and is only played by degenerates and low-lifes.
It is a forum, a place for discussion, and if it is a logical response for the Mully then who are we to say otherwise?
What's wrong with a friendly reminder that it isn't logical?
I think someone who wins two sets off the bat that could've lasted no more than twenty minutes total and then runs with the money would fit quite comfortably in that category but would deny it stoutly until the end of time.
They will go to great lengths to devise some reasoning as to why their behavior is justified by the other guy's "stupidity" or "naivete".
It's an unspoken assumption that when a friend or even fairly well known acquaintance offers to play for money that you will be given at least a halfway decent run for your money. It isn't stupidity to assume that someone who professes to be a friend is really nothing more than a red-assed ape. The situation described auto-classifies him as a dipshit.
If someone here has legends to tell about their former many-storied life as action players and they are claiming that they behaved like this then I call BS. They couldn't have gotten a game to save their life from anyone who knows them. If they were somewhere that they weren't known the opponent would almost invariably insist on some rules to insure that they do get a half way decent run for their money so, again, no action for dipshit behavior.
One thing I learned a long time ago... if the guy wants to quit you after he is up 2-3 sets after just 2-3 sets, thank him. If you haven't figured out yet that you are losing, you are a prime candidate to go off to him. I don't care if he is just getting unbelievable rolls, you just can't get it together and think you will if you keep playing,ect, you are primed to go off if you are upset. As I said earlier in another post, you gotta know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
If the other guy quitting winners bother you so much, why are you letting him be the winner???
You are assuming that losing 2-3 sets cannot be turned around. I have turned around sets in which I was down way more, as I'm sure many others have. If he can put 2 or 3 sets together, so can I, especially if we play even (and we were).
It's got everything to do with someone's post to me where he between the lines called me a nit, insinuating that I would just up and quit on someone. I was just showing one example where quitting winner was a way to keep the other guy from losing his shirt.
MULLY
Last edited:
Some are saying that quitting winner is a nit move. So, let's say you're down 4 or 5 sets against Mr. Honorable, who won't quit while you're down, the guy that will give you another shot to get back in the game. Then you DO start to come back and end up being 4 or 5 sets ahead of him. Are you allowed to quit winner or does the game just continue until it all evens out to nothing? It seems to me that no one is allowed to walk away a winner. If the person has to constantly give you a chance to get your money back then why gamble in the first place? Again, it's gambling. The danger is already in the name. You're putting your money out there with the chance to lose it. If you don't want to lose it then don't put it out there. All this "I deserve another chance" stuff is just a load of crap. If you want to set a specific time limit then step right up and tell that person before you play. If he agrees to your time limit, or money limit for that matter, and then reneges and quits you before any of the aforementioned times or dollars were reached, then you have every right to complain about it. But if you just get into a game without setting some parameters beforehand then you gotta take whatever comes to you. I'm sorry, I just can't agree that one has to keep playing until the losing player breaks even. What's the point?!?
MULLY
MULLY
You're saying that you go off if you lose the first couple sets?One thing I learned a long time ago... if the guy wants to quit you after he is up 2-3 sets after just 2-3 sets, thank him. If you haven't figured out yet that you are losing, you are a prime candidate to go off to him. I don't care if he is just getting unbelievable rolls, you just can't get it together and think you will if you keep playing,ect, you are primed to go off if you are upset. As I said earlier in another post, you gotta know when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em.
If the other guy quitting winners bother you so much, why are you letting him be the winner???
When we play, I'll be sure to win the first 2 sets since you can't come back from that.:thumbup:
If you win the first 5 then I win the next 10, why on earth would I want to quit?. In fact, you should probably be kicking yourself for not quitting at even. You should also contemplate quitting before you lose more.
In other words, it didn't have anything to do with the OP. Sorry- I wasn't following the sub-threads.
: ) So, Neil says no one can turn it around when they lose the first two sets. Just face it, SkyscraperChris, you're a loser who deserved what he got. Your "friend" was doing you a favor. LOL.
That could make some sense if someone has been playing with a friend for 3 or 4 hours minimum. It doesn't make any sense at all if someone has been playing their "friend" for only 20 minutes. That isn't even enough time to get warmed up.
The ones here who keep pushing forward the "play forever" and "no one can win" scenarios are employing ridiculous extremes to back up a position that's fundamentally unsound.
The guy was just a dipshit.
There's a big difference between playing for money and just being a gambler that has to gamble to get his fix and adrenalin rush.
Portraying the OP and others as degenerate gamblers couldn't be more ridiculous. The one who got his fix was the dipshit who ran when he won the first two sets. The dipshit is probably still bragging about winning at pool while conveniently leaving out the part where he conned someone into thinking he was a friend and not a red-assed ape.