The "amateur" version is not lazy.
You still need a very good spread, with few or no tied up problem balls, and you still would want to make as many balls as possible on the break to limit the number of balls you have to run.
You can't just define it as tournament vs. gambling, way too many variables.
Say in a tournament you are on a small heater and have won 4 matches, each a race to 11. Played a minimum of 44 games max of what 84 games?
There is a very very strong possibility that you never have to play that many...
Bank ring game and golf though are 2 wildly different animals, although a good/great player can run both.
Our really good local guy had to go around 2x in golf to everyone else's 1x. Problem is that once he got a shot on the 3 hole (a good shot) he ran the rest of the holes unless congestion...
I never saw any fun in the big 5x10 or 6x12 tables that were so tight like bertha. What is the fun or even the skill of dinking a ball 1" at a time until you can get that final 1/2" to be able to move to hole 2.
My best pro event finish I drew Dave Favor and Cornbread back to back and beat them. In true Cornbread fashion he offered me weight and tried to get me to gamble. I was over the top happy on beating those 2 guys and had no illusions of gambling with either.
Haven't heard double or triple shim in a long long time. Before all the good table mechanics, shimming was the way. Also heard double and triple tough as a reference to tables.
Stupid tough only comes to mind thinking about the golf table at Hard Times.
Used to be able to run a rack of 9 ball no problem is rather ambiguous. Lots of people talk about how they or someone they know used to be able to run racks. You 100% wont be running racks on a 4.25, and unless you adjust the rails it wont play anywhere near right.