View Single Post
AzB Silver Member
acesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond reputeacesinc1999 has a reputation beyond repute
Status: Offline
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
05-10-2014, 01:34 PM

I know this is an older thread, but Saturated Fats, I am wondering how your banquet turned out, what games you played, and results. You may have noticed in a recent thread of mine, I am trying to put together a small, socially oriented tournament (albeit on a full size snooker table so potting balls is very tough anyway) and I am also looking for these similar types of games. I already have several planned, but always open to ideas. I like this below, but I am considering some additional changes as detailed following:

Originally Posted by itsfroze View Post
I've done this game before it's good for large groups and it's fun. It also is good when you have a bunch of different skill levels.
Any number can play, what you do first is this:

1) Figure out what the ante is going to be like a dollar or two dollars,what ever everyone agrees on. Every time all 15 balls are racked again, everyone still left in puts in another dollar (or whatever the ante was) .

2) Say there's 18 people playing, first draw for an order to shoot in. Order remains the same except you skip over people as they're eliminated.

3) Every player is given 3 poker chips, any three chips.

4) To start play you rack all 15 balls in any order, the first player to go will break any balls made will be spotted on the foot spot.

5) The same player will then get to shoot one shot, he can shoot any ball in any pocket. If he makes a ball any ball in any pocket (which he doesn't have to call, by the way) He gets to keep his 3 poker chips, and the next player in line goes. If he misses the next player still goes, but he (the first player has to turn in 1 of his 3 poker chips.

6) So the players just keep shooting , only one shot each at a time, lose a chip if you miss, keep the chips you still have if you make a ball.

7) When a player loses his last chip he or she is out for the rest of that game.

8) When a player shoots the last of the 15 original balls in then the 15 balls are re-racked and the next player up breaks them spots anything made as before. Then shoots his one shot and play continues.

9) The winner is the last person to have a chip left. Since there are no called shots if a lesser skilled player is left with a real hard shot, they can just blast the balls and pray, it sort of makes it fun because if they make something they don't loose a chip.

!0) The more people the more the pot builds up, because every new rack everyone still left antes up again. You can split the money any way you want, there was one winner the place where I played this. But you could make it so the last three get paid.

Everyone had fun, Good Luck ![FONT="Verdana"][SIZE="1"]
Originally Posted by BeiberLvr View Post
I take it the correct strategy would be to make a ball and NOT play shape
My tournament will also have significantly differing skill levels, but I want everyone, no matter skill level to have a chance at the gold, silver, or bronze. I don't like the "screw your neighbor" aspect of the original game (anyone have a name for it?) because beginners have a hard enough time making a ball on a snooker table to begin with. So how is this as a twist? Instead of "turning in" a chip upon a miss, the first player instead "passes the chip" to the following player, the one playing the next shot. Then, if the second player makes the shot, he passes BACK the first chip (as a "thank you" for the good leave) and keeps his original chip(s). This gives incentive to leave the next player on, whether you make your own shot or not (will clear the table quicker; after all, we are talking about including low level players, and the easier the shots, the quicker the table is cleared with more players still in, the faster the pot will grow). If the SECOND player misses his shot, he has to turn in the chip passed to him (it's now out of the game) and pass on one of his chips to the next player (that chip is in limbo...awaiting outcome of next shot. So now he is short a chip for his miss, but might get "saved" by his good positional play). But when a player loses his LAST chip, he and the chip are out of the game; NOT passed forward (meaning that the CHIP-LESS player cannot be "saved" by a good position...he better concentrate on making the shot and nothing else.) Also, the following player should not get the advantage of picking up an extra chip when a player goes out--the "extra" chip always has to either be passed backward (if he pockets), or lost out of the game (if it was the previous shooter's last chip, or if the current shooter misses).
I think this will make the game last longer thus collecting a larger pot for a bigger payout at the end. It gives incentive for higher skilled players to leave their (possibly lower skilled) "neighbor" an easy shot (in case they "accidentally" miss their own shot), but the lower skill players can't position themselves out of a paper bag anyway thereby eventually forcing their (possibly higher skilled) "neighbor" to play at the "trouble" balls when there is no good shot on. And that player will do his best to at least get the trouble ball into the jaws so he can be "saved" by his (again possibly low skilled) neighbor when faced with a near impossible situation. And when players get down to a single chip, it's every man for himself as your next miss puts you out of the game anyway. On the snooker table, of course every pot is tough, so I suspect we will be doing well to get into the third rack before everyone is out of chips. How long did this last on a pool table?
Reply With Quote