InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
They wouldn't play one short race for that much. A best of 7 best of 5 etc. But anyway.
Dominguez vs Guama race to 50 for 80+ per side
- Thread starter SBC
- Start date
Guama is now accusing Oscar of cheating for tightening up a few loose bolts on the table before the match. Obviously Oscar is one of the most honorable players in the game and this is nothing but them trying to get out of paying. As of now Oscar has only been payed $30k of the $80k smh.
Last edited:
table was supposed to be even more gaffy?
maybe oscar is just seen as someone you can air barrel and get away with it
Guama and Reyito are bad action in my opinion. The only reason they get played is because their backers have money to blow.
I guess to some bad action is better than no action?
Yeah, if some rail bolts were loose and Guama knew it, it was indeed a gaff table. The rail bolts should always be torqued tight so the rails play like they are supposed to play.
If this is true, Oscar had every right to check the table out before the match and make sure the rail bolts were tight and correct them if they weren’t. This accusation, if true, certainly makes Guama look like the cheater.
Apparently, shooting the ball down the rail at that one pocket, is a tough angle.
Right, exactly.So Guama and his camp tried to gaff up the table to gain an advantage and Oscar is the cheater? Makes perfect sense.
money to blow or money from blow?
That's where most big scores come from. About all of mine came from that
I'm shocked
So Guama and his camp tried to gaff up the table to gain an advantage and Oscar is the cheater? Makes perfect sense.
I don't believe Guama and his backers "tried to gaff" the table. It was a gaffy table that Guama played on regularly and was used to how it played. That is one of the main reasons Guama wanted to play on this table instead of a neutral table.
I’m a little confused - for a huge $ match like that, wouldn’t all the $ have to be posted up by both sides? How could someone get away without paying? If not, that’s just ignorance and negligent to assume gamblers and their backers can be trusted to pay up when losing, especially if you’ve been stiffed before.
Often in these big stream matches its not winner-take-all but a % for each player. From what i'm reading/hearing all the money was posted and paid out. Should have been 160k in the pot with a % to each side. The loser gets something is how they usually do these.
IIRC Oscar posted during the Archer drama about how when he played Reinhold for 40k or whatever that only 15k IIRC is actually posted in the safe, and that's how ALL these big $ matches are done. So basically all these matches are on some random payment plan?? I would wonder if this is just because each side doesn't have the total amount at the time or some other reason. Oscar seems like one of the most trustworthy guys in pool and the Reinhold match was in Louisville so I'd assume the Swords were backing him or partially in on his side as they have been in a lot of BIG matches over the past 5 - 8 years.
I personally think that any of the matches that Dunn plays for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands are FISHY on the dollar amounts because he's barely a 600 player, minus Carl no other lower rated players are betting over 10k a set or 50k or 100k or whatever # they come up with. A match like Lou vs JB is totally believable because either one would quite likely have 10k to bet (for multiple sets) but most other people without a trust fund don't have 50k to randomly throw at a random game! Lil John's match ups never seemed to make sense to me because of his skill level and I never hear of him winning but who knows on that one!!
I was just stating what Tony said on the stream.Apparently, shooting the ball down the rail at that one pocket, is a tough angle.
If the angles the pockets are cut at are weird... Shooting balls into the facing from certain angles makes balls rattle.Apparently, shooting the ball down the rail at that one pocket, is a tough angle.
This is an interesting situation. Oscar is a very standup guy and would never intentionally cheat and his character shows that. But it seems that the scenario is "Guama accepts the action that Oscar comes and they play on Guama's specific table the way it is." Oscar is allowed to practice before the match, checks pocket sizes for knowledge, then notices that rail bolts are loose or not installed. Corrects this, as playing for that amount of money makes it ridiculous to use incomplete equipment. He does this in front of the cameras but does not mention it and it comes out after the match.
The problem is that Oscar's intentions while good, gave the other side an out. Their argument could be that you accepted a game on this table as is. You can inspect it, offer a request to fix it, or cancel the action if you don't like it. The original parameters of the bet was altered. Does that warrant not getting paid? Probably not, but it introduces an argument for it.
What if after day 1, Guama's side modified the table without telling Oscar and he loses badly and it comes out equipment was modified without his knowledge, should he pay? This is not a WNT event where the equipment is held to a perfect standard. This is accepted action on a known "gaff" table which now makes the "gaff" the equipment standard for that match.
The problem is that Oscar's intentions while good, gave the other side an out. Their argument could be that you accepted a game on this table as is. You can inspect it, offer a request to fix it, or cancel the action if you don't like it. The original parameters of the bet was altered. Does that warrant not getting paid? Probably not, but it introduces an argument for it.
What if after day 1, Guama's side modified the table without telling Oscar and he loses badly and it comes out equipment was modified without his knowledge, should he pay? This is not a WNT event where the equipment is held to a perfect standard. This is accepted action on a known "gaff" table which now makes the "gaff" the equipment standard for that match.
You hit on the key points. Oscar is a respectable guy and not a cheater. I have nothing but respect for him as a player, and he's always shown a lot of heart. Guama never mentioned the word "cheater" in his post, which is a very strong word. He said the table was "modified." The issue appears to be that Oscar took it upon himself to fix the rails. If he had brought it to the attention of the room or Guama's side and said it needed to be addressed, then it isn't an issue.
That part isn't even clear to me. Oscar said he did it in public, but Guama's side didn't seem to be aware of it. I think Oscar's intention were pure. He didn't cheat. He intended to fix the table. In the end, Oscar outplayed Guama on the table and there is no excuse not to pay. I'm not clear on dthat either. Oscar said some of the money hasn't been paid. Has anybody on Guama's side indicated that they don't intend to pay? If they don't, Oscar should absolutely put them on blast.
That part isn't even clear to me. Oscar said he did it in public, but Guama's side didn't seem to be aware of it. I think Oscar's intention were pure. He didn't cheat. He intended to fix the table. In the end, Oscar outplayed Guama on the table and there is no excuse not to pay. I'm not clear on dthat either. Oscar said some of the money hasn't been paid. Has anybody on Guama's side indicated that they don't intend to pay? If they don't, Oscar should absolutely put them on blast.