sounds good to me, would be prudent to look at the table afterwards as well, only takes a few minutes and a recover of the bed. I will roll with it how ever you want.
Congrats to Danny Harriman 379 Ball Run Highest Ever on Video
- Thread starter maxeberle
- Start date
- Status
sounds good to me, would be prudent to look at the table afterwards as well, only takes a few minutes and a recover of the bed. I will roll with it how ever you want.
Here is all the information you need:
http://www.scapromotions.com
and talk to:
Darren Stemmerman
LEt me know before you contact them, the site explains their biz, they dont write open ended $1,000,000 for 10 cents on the dollar. the shorter the time period the lower the premium.
hope this clears things up a bit,
best Eric
if you need my help let me know, glad to help
They is a great app for android called Fortune 14.1 simple to use
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
The infamous "28 Ball added honest mistake"
He never should have "screwed up" or had to "fess up" by increasing his number by 28 balls..he certainly didnt make the mistake of decreasing by 28 did he..Posting an inflated run and then asking for the thread to be taken down DAYS later is not an honest mistake...its pathetic and makes him look like a complete liar. His previous highest run in his LIFE was 280..he knew EXACTLY how many balls he ran and his "honest mistake" - it just so happens - would have made him hold the highest run caught on tape instead of Schmidt who he HATES. Its no coincidence that the 2 racks he added made him surpass John's highest on video run and without those racks its still John's record. Again ask any straight pool player if they ever miscounted a practice run with NO FOULS by more then 1 or 2 balls if AT ALL..let alone 28 balls. off by 2 racks is UNHEARD OF!
And not sore in the least..just the PERFECT opportunity to show what a hypocrite you are..and throw in the perfect line where its deserved..I don't defend CW anytime and certainly wouldn't if he lied about a high run #..yet Harriman lies about a run then figures he's gonna get caught so asks the thread to be removed, and you defend him, without knowing ANY facts...you just say "honest mistake in my book", what is your evidence of that hones mistake claim? Did you get details? Speak to Harriman? Or its simply "all good" with you as you like Harriman. I would never believe any run Harriman claims now cause he cant seem to keep track even on tape on the best run of his life, way too shady for anyone to believe 28 ball "mistake"..I call bullshit on any practice run claim of Harriman..he just wants to out-do Schmidt any way he can and will lie to do so..IMHO he just proved it.
He never should have "screwed up" or had to "fess up" by increasing his number by 28 balls..he certainly didnt make the mistake of decreasing by 28 did he..Posting an inflated run and then asking for the thread to be taken down DAYS later is not an honest mistake...its pathetic and makes him look like a complete liar. His previous highest run in his LIFE was 280..he knew EXACTLY how many balls he ran and his "honest mistake" - it just so happens - would have made him hold the highest run caught on tape instead of Schmidt who he HATES. Its no coincidence that the 2 racks he added made him surpass John's highest on video run and without those racks its still John's record. Again ask any straight pool player if they ever miscounted a practice run with NO FOULS by more then 1 or 2 balls if AT ALL..let alone 28 balls. off by 2 racks is UNHEARD OF!
And not sore in the least..just the PERFECT opportunity to show what a hypocrite you are..and throw in the perfect line where its deserved..I don't defend CW anytime and certainly wouldn't if he lied about a high run #..yet Harriman lies about a run then figures he's gonna get caught so asks the thread to be removed, and you defend him, without knowing ANY facts...you just say "honest mistake in my book", what is your evidence of that hones mistake claim? Did you get details? Speak to Harriman? Or its simply "all good" with you as you like Harriman. I would never believe any run Harriman claims now cause he cant seem to keep track even on tape on the best run of his life, way too shady for anyone to believe 28 ball "mistake"..I call bullshit on any practice run claim of Harriman..he just wants to out-do Schmidt any way he can and will lie to do so..IMHO he just proved it.
If a player wants to clean the CB all he has to do is leave it in the rack on the last ball. He/she can then wipe it down in their pocket (as many pros freq do before the break in rotation games) or on their pants/shirt.
Comet tables
Wow Lou if you thought those tables were tough then well I will save my thoughts. They had dead facings - this makes the pockets play really soft. The only table I thought ever played as soft was the brunswick metro (when they first came out) and the Comet tables. They were indeed outerspace easy, which is why they had all those invites poilitical piggie tournaments. If I had a room I would want the tables to play soft also.
Wow Lou if you thought those tables were tough then well I will save my thoughts. They had dead facings - this makes the pockets play really soft. The only table I thought ever played as soft was the brunswick metro (when they first came out) and the Comet tables. They were indeed outerspace easy, which is why they had all those invites poilitical piggie tournaments. If I had a room I would want the tables to play soft also.
But oneballeddie is right, you can't get to 526 without running 523 first, and 523 is a prime number, so no "official" higher prime number than 523 has been run.
351 is not a prime number, by the way, but 349 is.
Well since you are a 14.1 student I will give you a quick well know fact John and Danny don't swap spit together
1
Last edited:
???
ok..everyone knows they hate each other if that is the point you are making..now what?
ok..everyone knows they hate each other if that is the point you are making..now what?
prize indemnification
The answer to your rhetorical question is "no".
I did learn a great deal about prize indemnification after being involved in the 300k of legal work on the Earl Strickland "Million Dollar Challenge" case.
The answer to your rhetorical question is "no".
I did learn a great deal about prize indemnification after being involved in the 300k of legal work on the Earl Strickland "Million Dollar Challenge" case.
no swap required
Does that mean that Harriman should lie about a run and have nobody believe him again because he wants to beat John's record? Actually saying he did beat the record only to realize that if people see the DVD and know how to count that they will figure out that he is 28 balls short of his claim? They don't need to swap spit..not liking a guy is fine..lying about your highest run ever is a major problem credibility wise.
Does that mean that Harriman should lie about a run and have nobody believe him again because he wants to beat John's record? Actually saying he did beat the record only to realize that if people see the DVD and know how to count that they will figure out that he is 28 balls short of his claim? They don't need to swap spit..not liking a guy is fine..lying about your highest run ever is a major problem credibility wise.
i dont believe Danny intentionally lied, shit happens, thats what video is for, to make sure no mistakes. we all make mistakes, sleeping balls in $1000/rack one hole, people make mistakes. That's the purpose of video, if Mosconi didnt run his claimed record it could because someone miscounted. Danny was stand up about it.
of course i post a link to a site that explains hole-in-one insurance with a contact there where I have juice with and it gets ignored, shows how interested the posters here are, dont tell me, show me, i did and it fell on deaf ears. yup thats pool!
of course i post a link to a site that explains hole-in-one insurance with a contact there where I have juice with and it gets ignored, shows how interested the posters here are, dont tell me, show me, i did and it fell on deaf ears. yup thats pool!
Unlike John Danny's credibility has never been question he came with the truth on his own free will not after someone saw the video and called him out
1
Still one hell of a run.
I think Danny has acted honorably by correcting his slight computation error on his own.
Schmitty will just have to keep that feather in his hat, at least for now.
I think Danny has acted honorably by correcting his slight computation error on his own.
Schmitty will just have to keep that feather in his hat, at least for now.
I agree. The same thing (on a smaller scale) happened to CJ on his one pocket ghost run. An honest mistake. How about he rest of the run? Just awesome and I'm sure Danny wouldn't cheat. I think he is a honest guy.
--Jeff
Lets be honest
1. To start off by saying "Unlike John" you show your bias and I've never seen anyone call Schmidt out on any of his runs including Harriman who hates him..Harriman just says John's runs were on easy tables, he doesn't dispute the runs as the 366 is on tape and the 400 and 403 had witnesses.
2. It wasn't "free will" that forced the truth out of Harriman, it was the fact that he wanted to sell the DVD and people would see/count 351 balls made not 379. Who would ever release a video claiming one number when everyone who bought the DVD sees another one. The fact that it was taped and he wanted to profit from it MADE him come clean, otherwise who's to say he would have?
3. Ask any of these players if there run could possibly be inflated by just 1 ball and they would be infuriated and feel disrespected, then ask them if they could have made a mistake and added 28..they would laugh their asses off:
400 Plus
Thomas Engert 492
Gene Nagy 430
Dallas West 429
Ray Martin 426
Allen Hopkins 421
Thorsten Hohmann 408
Earl Strickland 408
Alain Martel 408
John Schmidt 400
300 Plus
Jose Garcia 396
Jack Colavita 385
Johnny Ervolino 361
Dennis Hatch 360
Klaus Zobreskis 356
Sailor Barge 356
George Mecula 336
Grady Mathews 327
Dick Leonard 326
Werner Duregger 326
Oliver Ortmann 326
Steve Mizerak 321
Pete Fusco 321
Mike Sigel 319
Irving Crane 309
Danny Di Liberto 308
Pan Ande 306
*200 Plus
Joe Canton 287
Ralph Greenleaf 287
Dan Barouty 287
Alex Lely 272
Daryl Peach 273
Mika Immonen 267
Vegar Kristansen 267
Tony Robles 267
Cisero Murphy 262
Vilmos Foldes 259
Neils Feijen 259
Nick Van Den Berg 258
Andy Toth 256
Bobby Hunter 225
Mike Massey 224
Don Willis 216
Kevin Becker 216
David Sapolis 212
Cetin Aslin 207
Johnny Archer 200
In Straight Pool the first question a player asks/is asked is "what is your high run?" It is that number in 14.1 (rightly or wrongly) that DEFINES you as a player and it is always exact. Every player who plays the game seriously or more importantly a Professional knows his high run exactly and there are no mistakes from them. To be off by 28 balls is laughable and would never happen to a beginner let alone a pro. Counting a practice run is simple..especially at home with no fouls to deduct a ball and possibly be wrong by one. To be off by 28 is simply absurd and absolutely a credibility liability in ALL future claims of runs by Harriman. And it would be the same for any player that claimed one number and 4 days later said "there was a major mistake I shot 28 less and jumped the gun." WTF!! Never heard it before and won't ever hear it again..its simply too ridiculous.
1. To start off by saying "Unlike John" you show your bias and I've never seen anyone call Schmidt out on any of his runs including Harriman who hates him..Harriman just says John's runs were on easy tables, he doesn't dispute the runs as the 366 is on tape and the 400 and 403 had witnesses.
2. It wasn't "free will" that forced the truth out of Harriman, it was the fact that he wanted to sell the DVD and people would see/count 351 balls made not 379. Who would ever release a video claiming one number when everyone who bought the DVD sees another one. The fact that it was taped and he wanted to profit from it MADE him come clean, otherwise who's to say he would have?
3. Ask any of these players if there run could possibly be inflated by just 1 ball and they would be infuriated and feel disrespected, then ask them if they could have made a mistake and added 28..they would laugh their asses off:
400 Plus
Thomas Engert 492
Gene Nagy 430
Dallas West 429
Ray Martin 426
Allen Hopkins 421
Thorsten Hohmann 408
Earl Strickland 408
Alain Martel 408
John Schmidt 400
300 Plus
Jose Garcia 396
Jack Colavita 385
Johnny Ervolino 361
Dennis Hatch 360
Klaus Zobreskis 356
Sailor Barge 356
George Mecula 336
Grady Mathews 327
Dick Leonard 326
Werner Duregger 326
Oliver Ortmann 326
Steve Mizerak 321
Pete Fusco 321
Mike Sigel 319
Irving Crane 309
Danny Di Liberto 308
Pan Ande 306
*200 Plus
Joe Canton 287
Ralph Greenleaf 287
Dan Barouty 287
Alex Lely 272
Daryl Peach 273
Mika Immonen 267
Vegar Kristansen 267
Tony Robles 267
Cisero Murphy 262
Vilmos Foldes 259
Neils Feijen 259
Nick Van Den Berg 258
Andy Toth 256
Bobby Hunter 225
Mike Massey 224
Don Willis 216
Kevin Becker 216
David Sapolis 212
Cetin Aslin 207
Johnny Archer 200
In Straight Pool the first question a player asks/is asked is "what is your high run?" It is that number in 14.1 (rightly or wrongly) that DEFINES you as a player and it is always exact. Every player who plays the game seriously or more importantly a Professional knows his high run exactly and there are no mistakes from them. To be off by 28 balls is laughable and would never happen to a beginner let alone a pro. Counting a practice run is simple..especially at home with no fouls to deduct a ball and possibly be wrong by one. To be off by 28 is simply absurd and absolutely a credibility liability in ALL future claims of runs by Harriman. And it would be the same for any player that claimed one number and 4 days later said "there was a major mistake I shot 28 less and jumped the gun." WTF!! Never heard it before and won't ever hear it again..its simply too ridiculous.
Well I'm sure Danny won't be able to sleep to nite knowing how much this bothers you. For the rest of us who don't care we'll sleep just fine
1
- Status