If there was a rating system for gambling.

ChrisSjoblom said:
It sounds like most of the posters here either strongly favor gambling or don't like playing for stakes much at all. I'm different in that I enjoy playing pool about equally either way, although I will say when I gamble it usually is for small amounts. About $5 per game (8-ball) or $20-$30 for races to 4 is my norm, and the most I ever wagered on a single game was $100.

I do get a different kind of enjoyment from playing depending on whether it is for free or for money, though, and it depends on who I am playing with. There are guys I know that I won't gamble with even though I usually have the better of it with them. They take it (and themselves) way too seriously when gambling, and their foul mood ruins the experience for me. There are also guys who I will only gamble with because without something on the line they don't care enough to give me their A game.

When I'm not playing for money the games are usually more social, with more conversation and teaching/learning opportunities. I don't include playing for a beer/drink as gambling in these scenarios as we would most likely be buying each other drinks anyway. Sometimes these free sessions can be quite competitive, too, and I find that I can focus just as well in these as when I am gambling. Bragging rights can be just as big a motivator as money as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Good post. I believe most people will enjoy it either way, but whether they play their best or not is the question.
 
WobblyStroke said:
Out of shape guys will def have a higher 'rating' in gambling matches than tournament play. Tourneys are a grind and it is difficult to maintain a high level of play for so long. In cash games, you can play for however long you want and quit as soon as you aren't feeling good.

Compared to league play, I think most players step their game up when playing for $ and would be higher rated in terms of their overall level of play. $ on the line has a way of sharpening you up the way playing a soccer mom SL2 just can't.

Regarding the $ won vs sets won, I'm firmly in the games/sets won camp in terms of actual rating bc sometimes a player can be a very good player, but a bad gambler. To use a simple gambling example of either sportsbetting or poker games, someone who has bad $management and bets too large a portion of their roll at a time can have a mathematical 'risk of ruin' of 100%, meaning that even with a significant skill edge that will have them win significantly more than they will lose, they are mathematically guaranteed to go broke due to standard variance.
Click to expand...
Pool doesn’t have the variance of poker. It’s more like chess. The better player wins.

Pool matches are won or lost when you match up in action. There’s no draw like in a tourney.

It’s very unusual to see a worse player go all-in and win in pool and bust out the stronger player. Which happens often in poker. It’s not a good comparison.

When there was lots of action in pool it was possible to take a bad game and play it to learn and then go play 3 easy games in a row to get pumped up again just to fire it at a stronger player. Those days are long gone in most places now.

Of course you are right $ management is key in pool for success, but it’s not as complex as $ management is in high variance games like poker of backgammon where the weaker player often wins in the short run.

Best
Fatboy
 
Fatboy said:
Pool doesn’t have the variance of poker. It’s more like chess. The better player wins.

Pool matches are won or lost when you match up in action. There’s no draw like in a tourney.

It’s very unusual to see a worse player go all-in and win in pool and bust out the stronger player. Which happens often in poker. It’s not a good comparison.

When there was lots of action in pool it was possible to take a bad game and play it to learn and then go play 3 easy games in a row to get pumped up again just to fire it at a stronger player. Those days are long gone in most places now.

Of course you are right $ management is key in pool for success, but it’s not as complex as $ management is in high variance games like poker of backgammon where the weaker player often wins in the short run.

Best
Fatboy
Click to expand...
Top chess players are getting bored with the game. All the openings have been played and researched to death.
Fischer random needs to happen where the best thinker wins. Forgot to add besides blitz and bullet.
 
Last edited:
ChrisSjoblom said:
It sounds like most of the posters here either strongly favor gambling or don't like playing for stakes much at all. I'm different in that I enjoy playing pool about equally either way, although I will say when I gamble it usually is for small amounts. About $5 per game (8-ball) or $20-$30 for races to 4 is my norm, and the most I ever wagered on a single game was $100.

I do get a different kind of enjoyment from playing depending on whether it is for free or for money, though, and it depends on who I am playing with. There are guys I know that I won't gamble with even though I usually have the better of it with them. They take it (and themselves) way too seriously when gambling, and their foul mood ruins the experience for me. There are also guys who I will only gamble with because without something on the line they don't care enough to give me their A game.

When I'm not playing for money the games are usually more social, with more conversation and teaching/learning opportunities. I don't include playing for a beer/drink as gambling in these scenarios as we would most likely be buying each other drinks anyway. Sometimes these free sessions can be quite competitive, too, and I find that I can focus just as well in these as when I am gambling. Bragging rights can be just as big a motivator as money as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Good post

Good insights.

Over many many years of playing the dynamics of action have changed for me.

Early in action got my blood pumping, then it was something I had to do because a job wasn’t a plan for me. Then it became trivial $ and not worthwhile. Then it was fun again as it didn’t matter and was a way to keep score. It’s a fluid experience.

And yes some(very few) people I enjoy playing just to win! Bragging rights.

Other people I wanted to bust so bad because it was personal. Just to cost them $ felt better than the gain did for me. Those are the sweeties 😍😍. When you bust someone you can’t stand, I mite respect them, but I don’t like them personally.

And for those who don’t like action, that’s cool. I respect that. It’s not for everyone. Action doesn’t define me or anyone. Being a degen isn’t something to be proud of that’s for sure. I saw enough of them in the last 30 years being in Vegas(it’s a sad disease actually)

I love action, I’m not addicted to gambling, but it’s hard for me to play for free. Yet I did the other night in Texas. There was a hotel with a table. I was at a non-pool event. There was about 15 of us there in the room with the table. They all know I’m a pool player-they wanted to see me play. Garbage equipment, but I played 5-6 people and won every game. One guy was a APA6 (he knew who I am here on AZB) I played like shit. But it was fun. Was 100% social, everyone had fun, I showed them a couple simple trick shots, banks. How to hold a cue. Good times.

Point is pools fun, in that setting action was the last thing on my mind. But on the daily grind-I have to be in action. 2 different circumstances

Fatboy <——-needs to get in stroke
 
Last edited:
JolietJames said:
I was probably still in the red from climbing the ladder in my first pool room until a few years ago.
When I first started going in there I was playing the worst player there, who happened to work behind the counter, races to 5 for $5.
After a month or so I passed him and began donating to the next guy until I beat him, etc.
You couldn't climb the ladder for free.
I was a couple rungs from the top of the ladder when the place closed.
I took some time off and now everything is Fargo.
No more striving to be better in order to win.
Times sure have changed.
Click to expand...
Fargo Smargo is my new saying
 
Fatboy said:
Pool doesn’t have the variance of poker. It’s more like chess. The better player wins.

Pool matches are won or lost when you match up in action. There’s no draw like in a tourney.

It’s very unusual to see a worse player go all-in and win in pool and bust out the stronger player. Which happens often in poker. It’s not a good comparison.

When there was lots of action in pool it was possible to take a bad game and play it to learn and then go play 3 easy games in a row to get pumped up again just to fire it at a stronger player. Those days are long gone in most places now.

Of course you are right $ management is key in pool for success, but it’s not as complex as $ management is in high variance games like poker of backgammon where the weaker player often wins in the short run.

Best
Fatboy
Click to expand...
You're right of course about the level of variance given that even an absurd edge in poker or sports betting is like 60/40. But my point was more so that there is a skill to gambling that is entirely separate from your skill at the game itself. Even with sports betting, there is a distinction between handicapping skills and betting skills. They are distinct and separate skill sets. Same goes for gambling at pool. Giving and getting spots, knowing when to quit a guy ahead or behind, knowing when to jack up the bet and when to tuck ur tail and run....these are not affected by your skill on the table or what your 'rating' would be but have a massive effect on what your $ winrate will be. So judging results by $ is weaker in determining somebody's speed in cash games than looking at their win/loss because so much more goes into the $ side.
 
JolietJames said:
I was probably still in the red from climbing the ladder in my first pool room until a few years ago.
When I first started going in there I was playing the worst player there, who happened to work behind the counter, races to 5 for $5.
After a month or so I passed him and began donating to the next guy until I beat him, etc.
You couldn't climb the ladder for free.
I was a couple rungs from the top of the ladder when the place closed.
I took some time off and now everything is Fargo.
No more striving to be better in order to win.
Times sure have changed.
Click to expand...
I've talked to a few Good players this past yr JJ. They know how to work that system and Keep there Fargo rating way below their skill level. Just get on a league and work it' to your advantage, they do it all the time to keep their scores 50-70 pts lower that what should be.
 
Island Drive said:
I've talked to a few Good players this past yr JJ. They know how to work that system and Keep there Fargo rating way below their skill level. Just get on a league and work it' to your advantage, they do it all the time to keep their scores 50-70 pts lower that what should be.
Click to expand...

I know a few people in my area that do the same.
 
u12armresl said:
A lot of us play better if there is even .25 on the line.
If you have to reach into your pocket, it hurts and you want to win even more.

That being said, if there was a Fargo type rating for gambling, do you think your rating would be higher?
In addition, do you think that the current Fargo ratings would be correct for gambling, say the top 100.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the Fargo ratings are based on tournament play, which is close enough to gambling. Playing $50, $500, $1,000 to enter a tournament is not much different than playing one on one. I think tournaments are even more pressure since if you lose, you are out, no playing a second set, or a 5th set or coming back another day.

This is as much of a guess as the questions about if the players from X year can beat the players from Y year.
 
u12armresl said:
Top chess players are getting bored with the game. All the openings have been played and researched to death.
Fischer random needs to happen where the best thinker wins. Forgot to add besides blitz and bullet.
Click to expand...
Classic chess is just about over with.

960 and blitz/bullet are the future.

I can’t play a lick of chess, I just follow it.

You are spot on correct
 
WobblyStroke said:
You're right of course about the level of variance given that even an absurd edge in poker or sports betting is like 60/40. But my point was more so that there is a skill to gambling that is entirely separate from your skill at the game itself. Even with sports betting, there is a distinction between handicapping skills and betting skills. They are distinct and separate skill sets. Same goes for gambling at pool. Giving and getting spots, knowing when to quit a guy ahead or behind, knowing when to jack up the bet and when to tuck ur tail and run....these are not affected by your skill on the table or what your 'rating' would be but have a massive effect on what your $ winrate will be. So judging results by $ is weaker in determining somebody's speed in cash games than looking at their win/loss because so much more goes into the $ side.
Click to expand...
We agree. 😃
 
xX-Wizard-Xx said:
Has anyone ever ran into a graduate from the Harriman Academy? if so how did they play? were they hardcore gamblers? Lmao
Click to expand...
Not yet, I believe that information is still classified at this point. Possibly in the future we shall hear something.


To be clear-I like DH and this is just humor, not an insult or a knock against him.

Best
Fatboy 😃
 
Island Drive said:
I've talked to a few Good players this past yr JJ. They know how to work that system and Keep there Fargo rating way below their skill level. Just get on a league and work it' to your advantage, they do it all the time to keep their scores 50-70 pts lower that what should be.
Click to expand...
Did you mention that to the Fargo people as a known ranking. That's the only way we stop crap like that.
If you knowingly play below your level to enter events or gamble with people that you are way the better of, there are no consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top