Taiwan TOI

[peteypooldude]

Troll on troll .............. Super troll or trollbowl and on the same day as the superbowl :grin-square:. Plenty of entertainment today. Beware though...... One has a habit of calling in for reinforcements when outwitted

 

[BeiberLvr]

Would you say that 'most' mis because they don't have a 'feel' for that 'clean' 'pure' stroke through the ball?

Or was it because their elbow didn't stay still?

Nice little jab at the pendulum stroke there, Rick.

But the elbow staying still or dropping has nothing to do with a "clean" hit, as long as it stays on line with the shot.

 

[CJ Wiley]

watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt or cling

And meanwhile the big dogs were winning 10s of thousands at the big boy tables at the DCC without TOI



1

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct?

When 90% of the players lose money it doesn't create an "ideal" atmosphere?

Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling......does that mean these phenomenons don't exist? Are these things just made up by certain people to confuse, or are they real?

The Game is the Teacher

 

[ENGLISH!]

Nice little jab at the pendulum stroke there, Rick.

But the elbow staying still or dropping has nothing to do with a "clean" hit, as long as it stays on line with the shot.

That was not my specific intent.

I guess I could have stated myself more clearly if I had considered some would be proof reading my thoughts.

However, you're wrong. Depending on one's setup, stroke, etc. the movement or non movement can quite easily affect the 'cleanliness' & 'purity' of a hit.

You seem to be thinking in one plane only. I don't think you play only in one plane. Do you?

 

[BeiberLvr]

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct?

When 90% of the players lose money it doesn't create an "ideal" atmosphere?

Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling......does that mean these phenomenons don't exist? Are these things just made up by certain people to confuse, or are they real?

The Game is the Teacher

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around...

 

[ENGLISH!]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around...

It fell because the forest ranger that was watching over the forest in a tower miles away saw it fall.

 

[CJ Wiley]

TOV - 'The Vibrations are the Teacher'

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around...

.....does it really make a sound?

No, the vibrations are what makes a sound in the ear of a living being, so no being, no sound. 'The Vibrations are the Teacher'

 

[SJDinPHX]

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct? ....When 90% of the players lose money it doesn't create an "ideal" atmosphere?

Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling......does that mean these phenomenons don't exist? <--Of course they exist, but they are NOT 'phenomenons'..They are simply an intrical part of the game, and they can NEVER be completely eliminated ! Are these things just made up by certain people to confuse, or are they real?

The Game is the Teacher

CJ...I have often called you 'illiterate' or worse ! (jokingly of course)..You are NOT illiterate, you can make some profound observations, as in the first paragraph in of your post... Then it seems you quite often follow it up, with statements that seem designed only to add to the reader's confusion ??? :embarrassed2:

One must wonder, if that isn't often intentional on your part, just to further your own agenda ? (ie; TOI etc.) IMHO...NO ONE does more than you, to muddy the water, with your seemingly endless barrage, of confusing
and often contradictory statements !......It don't make you a bad guy, but it sure does keep you defending
yourself, Full Time! :sorry:

SJD

PS..You rarely, (unless they agree with you) give credit to the fact, that there are other 'very intelligent' opinions on this site, besides yours ! :sorry: ..."Humility is often the best teacher" !

 

[lfigueroa]

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct?

When 90% of the players lose money it doesn't create an "ideal" atmosphere?

Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling......does that mean these phenomenons don't exist? Are these things just made up by certain people to confuse, or are they real?

The Game is the Teacher

Reference please, because I must have missed it. Where was it said here that "Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling..."

Lou Figueroa
could't have just
made that up... naw

 

[CJ Wiley]

I should have said "ALL people saw no squirts, swerves, or clings" LMAO!!!

Reference please, because I must have missed it. Where was it said here that "Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling..."

Lou Figueroa
could't have just
made that up... naw

Has anyone ever seen a professional player's shot squirt, swerve, or cling?

If there's any exceptions to this please describe the shot and how you could tell it squirted, swerved or cling ed. (who on earth made up these words?)

Maybe I should have said "ALL people saw no squirts, swerves, or clings" LMAO!!!

Squirt
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up squirt in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Squirt or squirting can refer to the following:

Squirt, a small, quick stream; a jet
Squirt, slang for a small person or thing


Examples of SWERVE

He lost control of the car and swerved toward a tree.
<the car swerved sharply to avoid the squirrel in the road>
Origin of SWERVE

Middle English, from Old English sweorfan to wipe, file away; akin to Old High German swerban to wipe off, Welsh chwerfu to whirl
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to SWERVE

Synonyms
break, cut, sheer, veer, yaw, zag, zig

cling (klɪŋ)

v. clung, cling•ing,
n. v.i.
1. to adhere closely; stick to: Wet paper clings to glass.
2. to hold tight, as by grasping or embracing; cleave: The child clung to her mother.
3. to remain attached, as to an idea, hope, memory, etc.
4. to cohere.
n.
5. the act of clinging; adherence.
[before 900; Middle English; Old English clingan to stick together, shrink, wither; akin to clench]

--------------------------------------------

 

[CJ Wiley]

it makes everyone smile when you send compliments with style

CJ....You are NOT illiterate, you can make some profound observations, as in the first paragraph in of your post...

Thank You, Kind Sir.

You know it makes everyone smile when you send compliments with style.

Freddy would have been very proud of your new found eloquence and professionalism.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around...

If a man speaks and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?

pj
chgo

 

[CJ Wiley]

Ronnie passed it on to players that "have eyes that can see".

Nice little jab at the pendulum stroke there, Rick.

But the elbow staying still or dropping has nothing to do with a "clean" hit, as long as it stays on line with the shot.

Ronnie O'Sullivan recommends the sensation of "hitting the white with your elbow".

This is profound and I'm glad Ronnie passed it on to players that "have eyes that can see".

 

[BeiberLvr]

Ronnie O'Sullivan recommends the sensation of "hitting the white with your elbow".

This is profound and I'm glad Ronnie passed it on to players that "have eyes that can see".

I know what he's talking and try to get that sensation while playing.

 

[AtLarge]

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct? ...

It's only partially correct, and it's a bit misleading.

It is almost certainly true that the total amount of money spent by players to attend DCC (travel, lodging, excess food costs over what they would have spent otherwise, entry fees, buy-ins, and miscellaneous expenses) greatly exceeded the total prize money. But not all of the hundreds of players going to the DCC are there as professionals "on business" trying to make money. The majority of the players are not professionals and are there for other reasons -- entertainment/vacation, personal challenge, personal development, etc. If you singled out just the "pros at work," you'd get a different picture, but I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like.

But you seem to be implying, again, that the buy-in money that "is taken out" just goes into the promoter's pocket. I tried to disabuse you of that notion just about a month ago:

... It was disclosed last year by AtLarge that $45,000 is taken out of the tournament (DCC) in "buy back" fees......how much of this go to the "professional player"? 0.000%...

You are misrepresenting what I said. Perhaps you are remembering this post: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=4500032&postcount=25

So, yes, it shows that the buy-ins at the 2013 DCC amounted to about $46,000. But that doesn't mean it was all "taken out of the tournament" and put in the promoter's pocket. My post shows that the total of the prize money (including $25,000 for the All-Around prizes) significantly exceeded the sum of entry fees and buy-ins. And as I also pointed out in that post, the expenses incurred to host the events can also be viewed as a form of "money added."

 

[BeiberLvr]

It's only partially correct, and it's a bit misleading.

It is almost certainly true that the total amount of money spent by players to attend DCC (travel, lodging, excess food costs over what they would have spent otherwise, entry fees, buy-ins, and miscellaneous expenses) greatly exceeded the total prize money. But not all of the hundreds of players going to the DCC are there as professionals "on business" trying to make money. The majority of the players are not professionals and are there for other reasons -- entertainment/vacation, personal challenge, personal development, etc. If you singled out just the "pros at work," you'd get a different picture, but I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like.

But you seem to be implying, again, that the buy-in money that "is taken out" just goes into the promoter's pocket. I tried to disabuse you of that notion just about a month ago:

He's just trying to justify not being there instead of just admitting he's scared and out of his league when not playing against a bunch of locals.

 

[lfigueroa]

Has anyone ever seen a professional player's shot squirt, swerve, or cling?

If there's any exceptions to this please describe the shot and how you could tell it squirted, swerved or cling ed. (who on earth made up these words?)

Maybe I should have said "ALL people saw no squirts, swerves, or clings" LMAO!!!

Nobody would be interested in observing the first two of those phenomena, though we all know they're there and occasionally used to purpose. The third is easily observable by one and all and has been a subject of discussion here. And if someone were interested enough they would be able to tell those things were happening by how the balls behaved.

Somewhat obviously, you just made up your original statement out of thin air. It's a reoccurring problem when trying to decipher what you're trying to say.

I believe, but cannot say with 100% certainty, that two of the people that made up those words were Robert Byrne and Bob Jewett. They were interested in having a vocabulary we could all use to identify and discuss specific effects. So instead of quoting Wiki you might have tried one of Byrne's books or at least Mike Shamos' "Encyclopedia of Billiards."

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

It's only partially correct, and it's a bit misleading.

It is almost certainly true that the total amount of money spent by players to attend DCC (travel, lodging, excess food costs over what they would have spent otherwise, entry fees, buy-ins, and miscellaneous expenses) greatly exceeded the total prize money. But not all of the hundreds of players going to the DCC are there as professionals "on business" trying to make money. The majority of the players are not professionals and are there for other reasons -- entertainment/vacation, personal challenge, personal development, etc. If you singled out just the "pros at work," you'd get a different picture, but I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like.

But you seem to be implying, again, that the buy-in money that "is taken out" just goes into the promoter's pocket. I tried to disabuse you of that notion just about a month ago:

Please do not confuse CJ with facts. Apparently he prefers to make up his own.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Bambu]

If Woody Had Gone Right to the Police...



...this would never have happened.

 

[CJ Wiley]

DDC has not been represented as a Pro Event, and still isn't

It's only partially correct, and it's a bit misleading.

It is almost certainly true that the total amount of money spent by players to attend DCC (travel, lodging, excess food costs over what they would have spent otherwise, entry fees, buy-ins, and miscellaneous expenses) greatly exceeded the total prize money. But not all of the hundreds of players going to the DCC are there as professionals "on business" trying to make money. The majority of the players are not professionals and are there for other reasons -- entertainment/vacation, personal challenge, personal development, etc. If you singled out just the "pros at work," you'd get a different picture, but I cannot tell you exactly what it would look like.

But you seem to be implying, again, that the buy-in money that "is taken out" just goes into the promoter's pocket. I tried to disabuse you of that notion just about a month ago:

So when money is taken out it means it's going in the promoter's pocket? I wasn't implying that, however, it sounds like you are.

I seriously doubt if many of the players are only there for "the money," even Shane, Alex and Efren. They also enjoy the personal challenge, and certainly the casinos.

Jumping to all these conclusions, then saying "I seem to implying" them is not accurate and a bit misleading. I was pointing out statistical averages and an amount (that by your indication was even low) that was taken out in buy backs. It's easy to see where it "goes back in," and a CPA could put it "back in" a number of categories.

The funny thing about it is the DDC has not been represented as a Pro Event, and still isn't, so differentiation between "pros" and "non pros" shouldn't be factored in.

By the way, what did 5th place pay in each division, that was my original question that you failed to answer. Is it "secret". LoL :groucho:

Actually only 10% of those "big boys" will make a profit after expenses. What's 5th place pay in each division? When $45,000 is taken out in "buy backs" it leaves very little for the players to profit from, is this not correct?

When 90% of the players lose money it doesn't create an "ideal" atmosphere?

Many people went to the DCC and watched each of the top players intently, and never saw their shots squirt, swerve, or cling......does that mean these phenomenons don't exist? Are these things just made up by certain people to confuse, or are they real?

The Game is the Teacher