See how u get ignored. Stay in your place
Frost vs Alex - 1 Pocket Match on Monday for $40,000
- Thread starter Fast Lenny
- Start date
See how u get ignored. Stay in your place
I agree with him. It's annoying and makes reading the board annoying. There should be at least some kind of size limits to stupid sig pictures.
Yea.........no.
Pretty much no way to compare poker mathematics to pool. In poker after you call a bet, you still have decisions to make and you make those based on the total amount of money in the pot after what was your money was put in the pot. In pool you don't make any decisions after you put your money up that require you to consider the total amount of money in the "pot." You can learn a lot about gambling in general from poker which will make you a better gambler at pool, but there are no real comparisons such as the one posted above.
Shooting a risky shot is nothing like moving all in....at least not if you're doing it properly. Even if you're bluffing, you should have enough fold equity that its really not that big of a risk in the long run.
Yes but you can take the odds on a risky shot. If you make the shot one out of four times you can make a decision to shoot it if you are on the hill and need one ball to win the whole pot. If you miss the shot and lose the whole set then the odds are higher. This thinking can help you make better decisions when gambling. Billy Cardone does this all the time.
Go over some of his Accustats comments. He will say often "that shot he makes 1 out 3 times he shouldnt take it at this point".
This is what seperates the professional gambler from the amateur.
When to bet it all or when to be conservative and play it safe.
This is why one pocket makes the ultimate gambling game.
Its because its not only shot making ability but decision making and strategy.
As far as it was a 40K game or a 20K game there are many ways to look at it. A professional should look at in in the long term Combined income for the whole year. When a pro starts the match he starts 20K in the hole. There is a 40K win to the victor and a 40K expectation that was missed for the loser.
A 40K swing so to speak. No pro I know expects to lose. No he doesnt win 40K but the effect of a 40K swing is there. It gives you a perspective of your total career.
Talk about artificial inflation
Can you imagine playing for 100 a game and the "sweaters" say you're playing for $200 because there's a "two game swing" every game. Talk about artificial inflation. :groucho:
Thread title
Yes I totally understand. It's not about THIS match. It's just a conversation on the general terms. No biggie either way really.
Many years ago Grady Matthews complained about people on forums discussing dollar amounts and after some discussion we had back then on that forum agreed to use the word jellybeans. So if we all agree to use "in the middle" and it's understood that whenever "in the middle" is not expressly used then it means "in the middle" then no has to ever ask if the amount means in the middle or per side.
I vote for just totally dispensing with "in the middle" and going back to the old way of calling out the actual bet per side. 8 ahead for $20,000 is the way I vote for such matches to be described.
Can you imagine playing for 100 a game and the "sweaters" say you're playing for $200 because there's a "two game swing" every game. Talk about artificial inflation. :groucho:
Count me in as one of the dumb ones. I grew up talking about gambling on pool one way and now at least on AZB it's changing/changed to another way. NO biggie I am fine with it. Makes my piddly exploits sound twice as big which means they are still piddly. However I like the sound of $1200 per game action rather than $600. Always a touch more respect if you can add digits to the amount.
For Sydbarret, the ahead set is for $20,000, not for $40,000. If anyone barks in a pool room they don't bark about the "middle" and say I will play you for $40,000. They say flip it and let's play for $20,000.
Players are playing for whatever amount that they can WIN above what they put in. The only time we disregard the stake is when it's a tournament entry fee as in $100 entry and first place is $3000.
And as far as THAT goes even commentators on streams make a POINT of saying that players are playing for the DIFFERENCE in place money rather than playing for ALL of the higher place money.
Jay Helfert pointed out several times that the match between Orcullo and Shaw was worth $500 because that was the difference in places. He doesn't say well they are playing for $1500 because that's not actually what they are playing for.
Any pool room I have ever been in if you see two guys playing and you ask what they are playing for you will hear answers like race to 8 for $1000 or 8 ahead for $1000 and that $1000 ALWAYS refers to the amount of money bet by ONE SIDE.
You never hear anyone say that they are playing a race to 8 for $2000 or an ahead set for $2000. I don't care where you go on the planet no one refers to action on pool tables this way. And I have gambled in Turkey, Germany, China, The Netherlands, Mexico, and California
John, I agree with you and Syd and the others who are not familiar with this new jargon in the pool world as it pertains to labeling money matches.
If you have a $25,000-added Joss tournament at Turning Stone, you don't say you're playing for $25,000.
I understand the "in the middle," as Fred explained, and, yes, it makes sense to me now, but I prefer the old way of describing the money amounts in pool.
Damn I hate to disagree with you Freddie. I think it DID start with the TAR matchups to say that the players were playing for the in-the-middle amount.
I guess we could go back to pre-TAR days on AZ and look at threads about big action and see how it was described but I am fairly sure that no one said so-and-so matched up for xxx$ and was talking about the pot size.
I think that all this started with calling these matches two-man tournaments with x-entry fee and a winner-take-all prize fund. I mean I started gambling on pool when I was 12 and up until a few years ago on this forum I have never heard anyone in the pool room talk about a pool bet in terms of anything other than what the bet is per side. As in Bobby is playing Billy for 20 dimes 8 ahead. I have NEVER heard it in person that Bobby is playing Billy for 40 in the middle.
But, I am open to change. So my last big win was 3600. (do I have to mention it was RMB?)
Again, I agree with you, John. If the trend is to continue this "in-the-middle" amount, then I think one needs to include the words "in the middle" when describing the money amounts in pool.
Jay was definitely not the only one calling this a 100k match.They show ONE old timer talking about a match. I promise you Freddie that the term "in the middle" as refers to pool match ups is a recent development. I do understand pool room exaggeration but most of the time when talking about the bet it's one side.
By the way, I have seen that Cooney match talked about a lot and Jay is the only one who referred to it as a $100,000 match. Even in Vegas at the room they say it was a $50,000 match.
John <------ has been in the action
Fade to black...
and roll the credits.. thread is over.. music please
http://www.myspace.com/video/louise/stuck-in-the-middle-with-you/866567
and roll the credits.. thread is over.. music please
http://www.myspace.com/video/louise/stuck-in-the-middle-with-you/866567
That really is the only thing that is right Jennie. I'm not sure why there's such a fuss. The confusion and so-called exaggeration of the amounts was already happening years before the term was used. The term came after to clarify the amount, not to add it up or embellish it.
The argument in the thread isn't about the term "in the middle." It's about whether the match should be described as 40k or 20k. Some people say 40k is an embellishment. I say it's not an embellishment as long as there is a clarifier (just like you said, which is what I've been saying).
Freddie <~~~ can't believe this
Whaddiya mean it's over?
If somebody asks me to play for $100....and then puts $50 on the lightshade
...the argument is just starting...
Whaddiya mean it's over?
If somebody asks me to play for $100....and then puts $50 on the lightshade
...the argument is just starting...
HAHAHAHAHA! That tickled my funny bone. :killingme::rotflmao1::killingme::rotflmao1:
If there aren't clarifiers there will be confusion just like this particular match and just like the Cooney/Walden match. Just like any match at the DCC in the early years. A number would be spread and nobody knew if it was per man or total. And at the Exec, you know what kind of buzz that was like.Thread title
Many years ago Grady Matthews complained about people on forums discussing dollar amounts and after some discussion we had back then on that forum agreed to use the word jellybeans. So if we all agree to use "in the middle" and it's understood that whenever "in the middle" is not expressly used then it means "in the middle" then no has to ever ask if the amount means in the middle or per side.
You know what I do at the DCC for Greg for the Action Award. Maybe regionally people add up the total while others regions don't. Reporting the total happened so much that now I always have to ask if the number was per man or the total. I can't say what the percentage is but what I can say is that both were and are being done. I have no preference; I just want a clarifier. 20 bags per man is fine by me. 40 in the center is fine by me.
Freddie <~~~ in favor of a clarifier or for people to stop saying its marketing
That makes perfect sense to me. Thanks, Fred!
What does Keith say? How does he describe it? At his first or second DCC, he was playing Jimmy Fusco for a reported 5 jelly beans according to the rail. That was the report. But nobody knew if it was 5 beans a man, or 5 was the whole shebang.
Has he seen it reported both ways (total vs per man)
{edit: Keith didn't play Fusco. Frost did. Keith took the cueball from them cuz he was using it earlier. See story below or click the arrow in the following quote field}
Freddie <~~~ would really like to know
Last edited:
John and I can simply talk about this on Skype. That would be great.
I hate many topics. I don't hate this one.
Freddie
There's no more cage matches where guys will get on the stuff and play for 47 hours straight or until one guy is broke or dead. There's always a prorate agreement.
According to the Brunswick corporate website, President Eisenhower had Camp David "furnished with not one but four Brunswick tables. Every President since Eisenhower—Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Clinton—has used those tables."
During the 1978 Camp David Summit, President Carter had a pool table set up in Holly Cabin to provide some recreation for the participants over the 13 stressful days there.
President Obama played pool in the Holly Cabin during his birthday party in 2009 and after the G8 Summit in May 2012. The stained glass light fixture above the pool table is decorated with a navy anchor, flags, and "Camp David" in decorative lettering.
I wonder what kind of table this is, and the real question, to keep it on topic of the thread, can President Obama play one-hole? :grin-square:
During the 1978 Camp David Summit, President Carter had a pool table set up in Holly Cabin to provide some recreation for the participants over the 13 stressful days there.
President Obama played pool in the Holly Cabin during his birthday party in 2009 and after the G8 Summit in May 2012. The stained glass light fixture above the pool table is decorated with a navy anchor, flags, and "Camp David" in decorative lettering.
I wonder what kind of table this is, and the real question, to keep it on topic of the thread, can President Obama play one-hole? :grin-square:
Attachments
