Oh I see. Well you had to be there. It was really hard to watch. The guy losing was a grown man in his forties..
Imo, that's even more reason not to get into hiz biz.
Oh I see. Well you had to be there. It was really hard to watch. The guy losing was a grown man in his forties..
Well you had to be there. It was really hard to watch. The guy losing was a grown man in his forties..
What you are not understanding is that in the pool world most see this not only as being acceptable, but as a beautiful thing. Everyone agrees that it is wrong to take the lollipop from the baby. Everyone agrees that it is not ok for a man to beat a woman. Everyone agrees that it is wrong for the cashier to give a blind guy back less change than he should be getting back. Nowhere else in life is it seen as ok to take advantage of people or to pick on the defenseless except in the pool world where it is seen as something to be proud of and to be held in high esteem because of.
All true. But this is called gambling, being done by two willing adults. Would you care too much for a ( stranger ) to not only tell you what to do with your money but also physically interject themselves to stop you from doing what you wanted with you're money?
What you are not understanding is that in the pool world most see this not only as being acceptable, but as a beautiful thing. Everyone agrees that it is wrong to take the lollipop from the baby. Everyone agrees that it is not ok for a man to beat a woman. Everyone agrees that it is wrong for the cashier to give a blind guy back less change than he should be getting back. Nowhere else in life is it seen as ok to take advantage of people or to pick on the defenseless except in the pool world where it is seen as something to be proud of and to be held in high esteem because of.
I know what you are getting at and there is a fine line in there but yes, I would want to know when I am being deceived and taken advantage of just like you and every other person in the world would. The "two willing adults" argument holds no water and isn't what makes the difference. The transaction between the cashier and the blind man (where the cashier intentionally gives him back less change than he is owed) is between two willing adults. What makes the difference is not whether both parties are adults, and willing, the difference is whether or not there is a deception being done to take advantage of someone.
Intentionally deceiving someone to take advantage of them is universally seen as wrong in literally pretty much every other situation on earth. For some reason that is not logical, the pool world has decided to see things differently when it comes to trying to get somebody's money playing pool.
Now I wasn't there in this case to be able to make a judgement on it. I don't know how much deception was going on, or how much player B was being taken advantage of.
lol,he STILL don't get it !!!
If you saw a man putting in $50 chips in Vegas every 5 min ( slut machine ) and you knew for a FACT that particular machine was dead would you not say something?
Especially if that man was down big bucks already and was desperately trying to come back and thought he had a big chance.
If you did you would be killing the action for the casino owner..
Maybe I didn't tell the story right: guy B had ZERO chance of coming back. No chance.
----
Let me put it another way. If a B+ player is playing SVB 50/game. He has no idea who SVB is. You do. SVB takes a bathroom break. B+ player is down a grand already. He's standing next to you and goes "I can get him! I know I'm better than this clown! He's getting lucky rolls!". Do you not go "dude, that's um shane van boening, chill, he's not only a pro but one of the best in the world". Or do you keep your mouth shut and enjoy the action
The same thing can happen in Open tournaments. Weaker players that have no shot of winning (but think they do) will put up their money to play. Hence the term, "dead money"
So what's the difference? I get that in a gambling situation, the weaker player could and likely is being intentionally deceived. However, in both situations it is the weaker player's faulty analysis of their own game that got them there.
Again, it is real simple. If nobody is trying to take advantage of anyone else, there is no problem. If someone is trying to take advantage of someone else then of course it isn't right and we all know that. We don't accept it or see it as being right anywhere else in life and there is no logical reason whatsoever for seeing it any different in pool.
If I was spending my money the way I wanted to spend it NO, I would not want you to say anything about what I was doing with my money.
Let me put it another way. If a B+ player is playing SVB 50/game. He has no idea who SVB is. You do. SVB takes a bathroom break. B+ player is down a grand already. He's standing next to you and goes "I can get him! I know I'm better than this clown! He's getting lucky rolls!". Do you not go "dude, that's um shane van boening, chill, he's not only a pro but one of the best in the world". Or do you keep your mouth shut and enjoy the action
I know what you are getting at and there is a fine line in there but yes, I would want to know when I am being deceived and taken advantage of just like you and every other person in the world would. The "two willing adults" argument holds no water and isn't what makes the difference. The transaction between the cashier and the blind man (where the cashier intentionally gives him back less change than he is owed) is between two willing adults. What makes the difference is not whether both parties are adults, and willing, the difference is whether or not there is a deception being done to take advantage of someone.
Intentionally deceiving someone to take advantage of them is universally seen as wrong in literally pretty much every other situation on earth. For some reason that is not logical, the pool world has decided to see things differently when it comes to trying to get somebody's money playing pool.
Now I wasn't there in this case to be able to make a judgement on it. I don't know how much deception was going on, or how much player B was being taken advantage of.
The blind man is the one who is being taken advantage of in that example. But if no one else is around, the blind man wouldn't know he was receiving the wrong change. In other words, there is nothing to prevent the blind man from being taken advantage of.
Back to the OP's example, or any example of a weaker player getting into a match they can't win. The weaker player doesn't have to play.
Guess none of Yall have been in a bad game and knew and chased your money huh? This guy could have known it but just chasing. Maybe there was no one else to play and he really wanted some action.
Nobody thinks u were trying to steal the action. Everyone thinks you were trying to kill the action , which is the problem.
So.....let me get this straight.
If the OP, Playa, or Charlie were at a poker game and saw the one of the players had the
best hand, you guys feel it is okay to warn the other players?