Gambling Scenario - Opinions?

[ChrisinNC]

Ummm, your previous statement made it sound like it was a forgone conclusion to happen eventually. You are obviously very upset by this. You either can let it go, and resume your friendship, or you can't. If you can, then you are probably better off leaving it alone. If you can't, a man to man conversation is the best way to go. He can then either abide by your expectations, or choose his own different path, which may of course include going elsewhere with is business.

Time has a way of making us forget things that upset us, which I'm sure will be the case here. I, as the owner/manager, have never gambled with this customer anyway. Generally speaking, I don't feel it's a good policy to gamble with regular customers.

Unfortunately, for now, I don't feel like I even want to continue occasional practice sessions with this player, at least until this fades from my memory. And to be clear, player B did not whine to everyone in the poolroom about what happened. When I asked after they'd finished how it went, player B told me the story in private. No one in our poolroom that I'm aware of even checks this forum, so no one even knows who I'm talking about here, and that will remain confidential.

 

[stevenw00d]

Why is it assumed that it is Player A's responsibility to say when the session can end? He gave Player B one set of notice that he wanted to quit. At no point did Player B say he wanted to go a certain time/number of sets.

Player B has no grounds to whine, and OP should stay out of it. Let it be a learning experience to Player B that if he doesn't want someone to quit while their ahead he should 1.) win or 2.) set terms himself before the session.

 

[Jonbouy]

I guess I come from the old school that you don't quit a winner unless you have a reason, like you need to leave. To stick around, and then have the gall to ask the guy you just quit on if he wants to continue shooting for fun, is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I think I'll choose to stay out of it, based on what many of you here recommend. Personally, I've enjoyed playing sessions with this player. However, after this incident, I have no interest in playing with him anymore, knowing he thought this was OK to do this to another regular here.

If one has a time or money limit, the time to advise your fellow player is BEFORE play begins, not before the last game. Where I'm from that kinda stuff can get one killed or severely maimed.

 

[jimmyco]

I think most of us will agree that when one of the player states that $80 is his limit, the assumption is he means $80 loser, not $80 winner.

...

That is not at all what you stated Player A announced after the third set.

 

[stevenw00d]

If one has a time or money limit, the time to advise your fellow player is BEFORE play begins, not before the last game. Where I'm from that kinda stuff can get one killed or severely maimed.

So Player B should have stated he had a time/money limit. If neither of them mentioned it to start, neither of them can complain later. Are they supposed to just play forever or until they break even? Statements like this make no sense. You can't assume that you get to play till the bar closes every time you start gambling.

 

[$TAKE HOR$E]

Lol...player A sounds nitty, but to his defense he could have kept the "play play" quiet and let player B go off and then say you know what just give me $80 and call it a day. Player A gets his designated $80 and player B might see the light and realize hes in a bad game or just chalk it up as a cheap lesson learned.

Them player A & B types are treacherous, could be like player A in my town that always beats player B and never gets paid. The worst part is when player B wins and is already $200 in debt he still wants paid :shrug: Heres another good player A move, he beats player B all the time and gets paid and the one time player B wins he gets the stiff by player A. To make matters even funnier he bad mouths player B when he asks for the money :thud:

 

[Black-Balled]

Low down, dirty rotten!

You forgot the player who owed me a clue hundred and when I asked him for it, he got all shitty and said:
Now you asked for it, you never gonna get it.

Lol...player A sounds nitty, but to his defense he could have kept the "play play" quiet and let player B go off and then say you know what just give me $80 and call it a day. Player A gets his designated $80 and player B might see the light and realize hes in a bad game or just chalk it up as a cheap lesson learned.

Them player A & B types are treacherous, could be like player A in my town that always beats player B and never gets paid. The worst part is when player B wins and is already $200 in debt he still wants paid :shrug: Heres another good player A move, he beats player B all the time and gets paid and the one time player B wins he gets the stiff by player A. To make matters even funnier he bad mouths player B when he asks for the money :thud:

 

[$TAKE HOR$E]

Low down, dirty rotten!

You forgot the player who owed me a clue hundred and when I asked him for it, he got all shitty and said:
Now you asked for it, you never gonna get it.

Hahahahaha that had to be a player A...they're usually the worst :banghead:

 

[Celophanewrap]

Let me preface this by saying I don't gamble, and never at pool. Now I have spent enough
time in the pool halls to know that there is a generally accepted etiquette and nuance to the
art of gambling that I have never understood.

Sure, in Las Vegas or Laughlin or here in Central City of some little gambling town I'll feed
change into a slot machine for the beer and so I can hang out with friends but I don't think
anyone really considers what I do gambling, they know I'm just there for the food, drink, and girls, but I digress.....

Anyways, what I see is that people gamble to make money.

Any time someone has tried to talk me into gambling it's because they thought they could beat me, so if I ever
were to gamble it would be with the thought of coming out ahead.

With that being said, if I'm ahead by $80 or $100 why would I ever want to let you win it all back?

I choose to live by the edict that you can't lose what you don't put in. I want that $100,
why would I ever give it back?

In Las Vegas if you're having a good night at the tables and you're up $10,000 or $15,000 wouldn't
it prudent of you to take your money and go get a nice steak and lobster and maybe enjoy a few
Johnny Blue, or would you really feel poorly about taking your winnings and leaving?

Cause the house certainly doesn't harbor any guilt about taking and keeping your money if you lose.

If I beat you and I want you to pay up you should do so like a man and not whine about it.

As gambling goes, next time you're likely to beat me anyways.

 

[M.G.]

Just curious what others here think about this situation and as to what I, as Proprietor, as well as being a friend of both players should do, if anything?

Forbid gambling in your room - at lot of problems solved instantly.

As no money on both sides exchanged hands I can't say that I think somebody has "lost" any money. Write it off as experience and good games, and that some people are just not to be trusted.

Cheers,
M

 

[buckshotshoey]

If one has a time or money limit, the time to advise your fellow player is BEFORE play begins, not before the last game. Where I'm from that kinda stuff can get one killed or severely maimed.

Your reading comprehension skills need a little work. No one said it was the last game. It was the last SET. So it could have been a race to 5 or 7 or whatever.

 

[Johnny Rosato]

Not this player's first incident. He's just a different person when/where money is involved. In one of our big $$ quarterly tournaments, in a match deep in the tournament, crucial game/shot late in the match, I witnessed him fail to tell his opponent he had 3-fouled by not getting a ball to a rail.

I was the TD, and he knew that I knew he'd fouled, as I made eye contact with him from his chair and I put my hands up to gesture to him like really, you're not going to tell him you just fouled. I never said a thing - he had his opportunity to do that right thing and he didn't, and he went on to win that game and that match.

That incident revealed to me the real side of him, which I found very disappointing. The other night was just another example.

Just tell the guy you don't want his business anymore!

 

[BC21]

Since player B has more gambling experience he should've simply chalked it off as an $80 lesson in poor assumption. Doesn't sound like he has much gambling experience. I mean, if I'm down 3 sets and the guy I'm playing says he'll only play one more set, I might ask to play the last set for what I'm down. If he says no, which is certainly his prerogative, then I might quit right then and let him have those 3 sets, or I might go ahead and play to try to get one of those sets back. It all depends on how tight the first 3 sets were and how I'm hitting them. Regardless, there are options.

Maybe player A has a heart and knows player B is not hitting them very well, so he's giving him a way out i instead of continuing to rob him. One thing is certain.....it's between A and B, and no third party should be involved.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Two of our top players got knocked out of our weekly 9-ball tourney early last night, so they decided to match up and play some $20 sets. Both players, in their 30s, have played in our room as well as other poolrooms and tournaments for 20+ years and are among our top players. Player B has far more gambling experience than player A, but player A still has been around long enough that he should know what is acceptable in terms of gambling protocols. Neither of them are big gamblers, but they enjoy placing something $$ on their sets.

Player A got 3 sets ($60) up on player B, then player A informed player B his limit was $80 and he was planning to quit if he got to $80. The next set went hill-hill and player A won, and then quit. Player B still wanted to play more sets, but player A refused.

Then player A informed player B they could keep playing, just for fun, and player B refused, saying that was out of the question, and that he would never be playing him again. Player A then sat and observed tournament matches for another hour or more, before leaving. If he had made it to the finals of the tourney, which he often does, he would have been there up to 2 more hours.

I am the tournament director, as well as the proprietor and owner of the poolroom.
Both of these players are regular customers, and I consider both of them as friends of mine for many years. When player B told me what transpired, I was very angry.

I understand that what transpires between 2 players gambling is their business, so I am contemplating whether I should choose to stay completely out of it, or when I get the chance, to have a private conversation with player A, explaining to him that what he did was not acceptable, that player B had valid reason to be very angry, and explain to him exactly why, in hopes that he would learn from his mistake and not think he could do this again.

Just curious what others here think about this situation and as to what I, as Proprietor, as well as being a friend of both players should do, if anything?

I started this thread, which was a true story, as things seemed to be slow on the forum lately, with no interesting topics, at least to me, so I thought I would share this incident, to get some various opinions on what transpired. I guess I got more than I wished for. Unfortunately, no one here really knows these two players, knows our poolroom or knows the situation like I do, so I must accept that many responses were going to differ from my opinion, for valid reasons.

In my mind, when it comes to gambling between two players, the rules of what may be acceptable in terms of gambling etiquette are very different between two strangers who don't know each other and have never played each other, than the rules of gambling etiquette would be if they are both regulars in a poolroom who know each other well, know each others games, and know exactly what they are getting themselves in to.

Two strangers matching up need to get everything stipulated up front before they start in terms of what they are committing to, so that there are no surprises and potential conflicts - particularly in regards to when either player can call it quits. If there are no stipulations before they start, then either player has the right to quit anytime they wish, at the end of each set, or games - if they are playing individual games.

I feel there are totally different expectations and rules of etiquette when two players that know each other well and are both regulars in the same poolroom match up - the main one being that the player who is wiinning does not pull up unless he has a time constraint, in which hopefully he can give his opponent a time estimate as to when he needs to leave by, or at the very least a one set warning as to when he needs to leave. If that is made clear, then when that time comes or that set ends, regardless of whether the player that needs to leave is winning or losing at the time, they can square up and then agree to resume their play on another day, if the loser so desires to.

That's just the way I feel it should transpire, and I've been around pool halls for 45 years.

 

[BC21]

I started this thread, which was a true story, as things seemed to be slow on the forum lately, with no interesting topics, at least to me, so I thought I would share this incident, to get some various opinions on what transpired. I guess I got more than I wished for. Unfortunately, no one here really knows these two players, knows our poolroom or knows the situation like I do, so I must accept that many responses were going to differ from my opinion, for valid reasons.

In my mind, when it comes to gambling between two players, the rules of what may be acceptable in terms of gambling etiquette are very different between two strangers who don't know each other and have never played each other, than the rules of gambling etiquette would be if they are both regulars in a poolroom who know each other well, know each others games, and know exactly what they are getting themselves in to.

Two strangers matching up need to get everything stipulated up front before they start in terms of what they are committing to, so that there are no surprises and potential conflicts - particularly in regards to when either player can call it quits. If there are no stipulations before they start, then either player has the right to quit anytime they wish, at the end of each set, or games - if they are playing individual games.

I feel there are totally different expectations and rules of etiquette when two players that know each other well and are both regulars in the same poolroom match up - the main one being that the player who is wiinning does not pull up unless he has a time constraint, in which hopefully he can give his opponent a time estimate as to when he needs to leave by, or at the very least a one set warning as to when he needs to leave. If that is made clear, then when that time comes or that set ends, regardless of whether the player that needs to leave is winning or losing at the time, they can square up and then agree to resume their play on another day, if the loser so desires to.

That's just the way I feel it should transpire, and I've been around pool halls for 45 years.

This makes sense. I gamble $20 sets with friends. It's a friendly bet. And sometimes if I get up 3 or 4 sets, or down 3 or 4 sets, we stop playing and agree next time it'll be flipped around. We aren't trying to rob each other, but just putting a little something on the line to keep a little pressure on.

 

[ideologist]

Believe me, the financial well being of his opponent was the last thing on his mind. He had lost $75 in his tournament entry fee and his calcutta purchases for himself and a few other players - all of which got knocked out early. As soon as he'd virtually won back his night's losses, he was satisfied.

He had absolutely no consideration for his opponent, who still wanted to play, and could afford to. Problem is, he didn't have the decency to leave the poolroom after quitting. Clearly, some of you who have responded to this thread don't have any problem with his actions. I see it very differently.

You see it as you own your opponent until they decide to quit

You are wrong

B can choose to not gamble with A anymore. A may not have displayed great "customer service" but he can do anything he wants for any reason, after the set is done

 

[ChrisinNC]

You see it as you own your opponent until they decide to quit

You are wrong

B can choose to not gamble with A anymore. A may not have displayed great "customer service" but he can do anything he wants for any reason, after the set is done

Believe me, based on what he told me, player B will not be playing with him again. And I realize player A has the right to quit anytime he wants, with consequences.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Believe me, based on what he told me, player B will not be playing with him again. And I realize player A has the right to quit anytime he wants, with consequences.

And here is the problem with pool ladies and gentleman. You have obviously taken sides in the matter. Good for you. You will probably lose a customer of 20 years because you took sides in a grade school level argument. You should be proud.

 

[book collector]

Believe me, both these players are close enough in skill level to where neither one is taking advantage of the other, either one is capable of winning the session, and neither player is in a financial position to where losing a couple hundred bucks would create a hardship. In 9-ball short races, we all know how lobsided sometimes the session may go.

As both being regulars, if I really felt like one player couldn't beat the other player, I feel I have the obligation as the houseman / proprietor to confidentially inform the weaker player that in my opinion, he can't win without some kind of spot.

I'm guessing I may get criticism here for stating that I'd get involved even to that extent, but to me it's just the right thing to do when the matchup involves two regulars - one of whom can't win. Once I give him my opinion, if he plays anyway, that's not my problem and my conscience is clean.

I agree with telling a guy if he has no chance ut 90% of the time that makes them want to play and show you how stupid you are lol. The only time this would apply is if it is a customer friend or relative, everybody else needs to learn the way we did.

 

[ChrisinNC]

And here is the problem with pool ladies and gentleman. You have obviously taken sides in the matter. Good for you. You will probably lose a customer of 20 years because you took sides in a grade school level argument. You should be proud.

As far as I'm concerned, it will be handled appropriately, and I will not lose a customer. Contrary to what many of you may think, to run a non alcoholic rural poolroom and grill as long as I have, you learn how to deal with customers and with situations with discretion, in order not to lose their business.

It's just sometimes helpful for me to vent my experiences / feelings here, and to get some valuable feedback in return, so I don't end up doing something I regret and losing a customer.