Payoff every game or every two games. Me too, I would say quit when you want. If you played five ahead you were committed to that though.
Bergman vs DeChaine
- Thread starter krelldog
- Start date
Payoff every game or every two games. Me too, I would say quit when you want. If you played five ahead you were committed to that though.
I agree with ahead sets, it's definitive in its result, no losing a hill hill set by a game. In ahead sets you've got to beat the man or get beaten.
Exactly!!!!
Race to 100? Nah!
I myself, would prefer to play 50 sets of "race to 2".
...aaaand we'd have to lag for the break after every set.
I myself, would prefer to play 50 sets of "race to 2".
...aaaand we'd have to lag for the break after every set.
Well obviously the only solution then is to play races to 100, but you have to win by 50.
:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square:
So wait... Alex and Shane have beaten each other at races to 100... so who's the better player? 
I think they should just do 100 ahead sets. They're only here for our entertainment, after all.
I think they should just do 100 ahead sets. They're only here for our entertainment, after all.
Out of curiosity how many pro matches like this have ended up 100-99 or 100-98? Every one that I can remember seeing/hearing about had a wider gap.
So wait... Alex and Shane have beaten each other at races to 100... so who's the better player?
Good point. There's an obsession in pool - or at least on these forums - to get the perfect test of skill. Who cares? It's a game. Part of the fun of it is that sometimes the underdog wins.
You judge someone's skill by looking back at their entire career. And even then there are people that should have won a few majors but didn't, and probably some that shouldn't have but did. It's impossible to subtract out the luck and judge pure ability with perfect accuracy.
We should pick match formats that are entertaining to watch. Fück whether it's the best test of skill. :thumbup:
I would pay to see it.
Shane and Shaw was maybe 100-95?
I think at one point Shaw came as close as 1 game down. This was when the score was in the 90's. Shaw was down 15ish early on.
Dominguez vs Woodward was 100-94
Do you remember the biggest point difference?
The largest difference in score was 23
The problem is people don't argue that are the same speed cause then they might actually have to back up some of that shit talking on the table.
Nice post. The Superbowl is a game that is the same length as any other game in spite of it's importance and the underdog can most certainly win. And guess who gets the glory at the end... The champions! The loser can claim they were the better team all they want but that does nothing for them in the record books. You either win the big one or you go home upset. A good season dont mean jack... you still lost the one that counts. You can have all kinds of records but without that title its not the same.
Winning the big one. That is what counts.
Your last line
What player or backer would bet money off that?
If there wasn't a player or backer to bet we wouldn't have any matches .