2 players, strangers, match up to play multiple sets in a players poolroom, not a barbox type situation in a bar. I realize there are absolutely no guarantees or rules with gambling, but what is the proper way for this to be handled to be fair for both players? This only pertains to strangers. When two players that know each other are gambling, in my opinion, protocol is totally different, since they are very likely to be playing again soon regardless of the outcome.
My opinion is that both players need to post up to the proprietor or a trusted neutral party, the amount of cash they are willing to lose, which represents multiple sets, unless they agree up front to just play just one or two sets or whatever, then they need to post up that amount. For instance, say they are playing $100 sets, and agree to go until one of them is 5 sets up, they should both be willing to post up $500 each.
If one player then gets up that $500 and gets paid off, I feel the only way they continue is if the losing player is willing to post up another $500. If the losing player says he can only post up another $200, is there an obligation for the winning player to keep playing, knowing that the other player is down to their last $200? I don't think so. Why should he risk losing the $500 he's already won plus his own $500 or more, when he knows his opponent is down to their last $200? I feel if the winning player wishes to continue in that circumstance, the most he should post up before quitting would be $200, which represents the last $200 the trailing player has left in his pocket, but no more.
Is the winning player obligated to keep playing on a set by set basis until the losing player is completely busted and quits? I realize he may choose to do so anyway, if he feels he's not going to lose, but it doesn't seem to make alot of sense to me for the winning player to continue playing at that point, when there is such a discrepancy between what each player still has left in their pocket.
Just curious as to opinions from experienced players regarding this.
My opinion is that both players need to post up to the proprietor or a trusted neutral party, the amount of cash they are willing to lose, which represents multiple sets, unless they agree up front to just play just one or two sets or whatever, then they need to post up that amount. For instance, say they are playing $100 sets, and agree to go until one of them is 5 sets up, they should both be willing to post up $500 each.
If one player then gets up that $500 and gets paid off, I feel the only way they continue is if the losing player is willing to post up another $500. If the losing player says he can only post up another $200, is there an obligation for the winning player to keep playing, knowing that the other player is down to their last $200? I don't think so. Why should he risk losing the $500 he's already won plus his own $500 or more, when he knows his opponent is down to their last $200? I feel if the winning player wishes to continue in that circumstance, the most he should post up before quitting would be $200, which represents the last $200 the trailing player has left in his pocket, but no more.
Is the winning player obligated to keep playing on a set by set basis until the losing player is completely busted and quits? I realize he may choose to do so anyway, if he feels he's not going to lose, but it doesn't seem to make alot of sense to me for the winning player to continue playing at that point, when there is such a discrepancy between what each player still has left in their pocket.
Just curious as to opinions from experienced players regarding this.