Higher Stakes = More Improvement or No?

kollegedave · Oct 25, 2018

I think a significant portion of the pool playing community has long recognized that, at least for many people, engaging in “action” matches can have a positive impact on the skill level of those competing. This makes sense, as with something at stake, the participants are likely going to “try their hardest” to win, so as to not lose money.

Of course, this practice stands in contrast to playing maybe by yourself practicing or against an opponent with “nothing” on the line.

My question to the forum is this: Does anyone believe there is a benefit to developing skill level in pool where a pool player intentionally pushes him or herself to gamble with stakes higher than they would normally be comfortable with. To me, if a player does this over time, they are likely to become more comfortable with higher stakes, but I am not certain that this increased comfort level with higher stakes translates to an improved player over whatever improvement would have occurred if the player in question simply played the same matches with lower stakes…provided, of course, the lower stakes were sufficient to cause the player to try hard.

What you do all say? Do higher stakes make for quicker or more substantial improvement?

kollegedave

ChrisinNC · Oct 25, 2018

kollegedave said:
I think a significant portion of the pool playing community has long recognized that, at least for many people, engaging in “action” matches can have a positive impact on the skill level of those competing. This makes sense, as with something at stake, the participants are likely going to “try their hardest” to win, so as to not lose money.

Of course, this practice stands in contrast to playing maybe by yourself practicing or against an opponent with “nothing” on the line.

My question to the forum is this: Does anyone believe there is a benefit to developing skill level in pool where a pool player intentionally pushes him or herself to gamble with stakes higher than they would normally be comfortable with. To me, if a player does this over time, they are likely to become more comfortable with higher stakes, but I am not certain that this increased comfort level with higher stakes translates to an improved player over whatever improvement would have occurred if the player in question simply played the same matches with lower stakes…provided, of course, the lower stakes were sufficient to cause the player to try hard.

What you do all say? Do higher stakes make for quicker or more substantial improvement?

kollegedave

If losing greater amounts of $$ motivates a player to work harder on their game and improve their fundamentals, stroke, strategy, etc., then yes, playing for higher stakes may indirectly make them a better player over the long haul.

cycopath · Oct 25, 2018

In my opinion, higher stakes will put you in action more with the better players in your area. As well as potentially bringing a lot better players to your area, if the stakes are getting really high.

All that being said I personally think the higher stakes does increase your stress level which should cause you to increase your focus on your fundamentals, shot making and cue ball control.

The big money can get you to where if it’s not on the table you just can’t get into the game.

How many times have you seen a pro level player forfeit their game in a tournament because they had an opportunity at at large stakes pool match?

Bottom line is, yes bigger stakes equals increased focus, but not necessarily increased skill. Skill is developed with time.

Just my opinion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hitman22 · Oct 25, 2018

It depends a lot on your psychological make up and if you can afford to lose that cash or not.I've known for years guys who can afford to lose but to this day still dog it for the cash and there are guys who can play for cash and have none and still win cause the pressure dose not phase them and you have those that lose a ton that chalk it up to experience. ...there are plenty scenarios that you can pull out of the hat..

BRussell · Oct 25, 2018

This is a great post kollegedave, it's something I've been vaguely thinking about for a while, so I'm glad you posted it. You're right that lots of people do assume that higher stakes = more intensity = more improvement.

I'm not sure that's the case. For one, it gets people focusing on the money rather than the game. So people start thinking about other ways to get the money - negotiating the spot, hustling, sharking, upping the bet to intimidate, etc. None of those things have anything to do with skill at making balls.

I personally believe that focused practice is the most important thing to improve pool skill. It's why just lazily hitting balls around in your basement does almost nothing for pool skill. It's intense, focused practice - drills, scores, goals, etc. - that matters. Everyone has heard of the 10,000 hour thing for expertise. Those studies were actually on young musicians, and the 10,000 hours was of intense, solitary practice. Kids practicing scales for hours every day to become world-class violinists and pianists a decade later. Not 10,000 hours playing in front of people, and obviously not playing for money. This is almost the exact opposite of what most pool players say is the key to improvement.

I also think that learning to deal with the pressure of competition is really important, and that's the other thing that playing for "money that would hurt if you lose it" does - it amps up the pressure. The best way to deal with anxiety is to confront the source of the anxiety and get used to it, so in that way playing for "money that would hurt to lose" would be a good thing. But do you need to risk losing a life-altering amount of money to feel pressure?

kollegedave · Oct 25, 2018

You make a good point about the musicians. I read the Outliers book, and I think there is a lot there for pool players and anyone trying to get better at something.

Cycopath, also made a good point and so far, to me, is the best point in favor of upping the gambling amount, which is that it may give you access to a class of player that you otherwise would not be able to play.

The other thing is that gambling pressure and tournament pressure is different. When gambling, most of the time, I have enough bullets to stand and fight for awhile, so I have time to get in gear if I start out weak. However, in tournaments you have to play good NOW, and in a much shorter race. The only way to simulate that, or at least get close, would be to have a short race whilst gambling, which seems to be a disfavored format for more hardcore gamblers.

Interested to hear from others on this.

kollegedave

BRussell said:
This is a great post kollegedave, it's something I've been vaguely thinking about for a while, so I'm glad you posted it. You're right that lots of people do assume that higher stakes = more intensity = more improvement.

I'm not sure that's the case. For one, it gets people focusing on the money rather than the game. So people start thinking about other ways to get the money - negotiating the spot, hustling, sharking, upping the bet to intimidate, etc. None of those things have anything to do with skill at making balls.

I personally believe that focused practice is the most important thing to improve pool skill. It's why just lazily hitting balls around in your basement does almost nothing for pool skill. It's intense, focused practice - drills, scores, goals, etc. - that matters. Everyone has heard of the 10,000 hour thing for expertise. Those studies were actually on young musicians, and the 10,000 hours was of intense, solitary practice. Kids practicing scales for hours every day to become world-class violinists and pianists a decade later. Not 10,000 hours playing in front of people, and obviously not playing for money. This is almost the exact opposite of what most pool players say is the key to improvement.

I also think that learning to deal with the pressure of competition is really important, and that's the other thing that playing for "money that would hurt if you lose it" does - it amps up the pressure. The best way to deal with anxiety is to confront the source of the anxiety and get used to it, so in that way playing for "money that would hurt to lose" would be a good thing. But do you need to risk losing a life-altering amount of money to feel pressure?

JoeyInCali · Oct 25, 2018

No.
I know of two local semi-pro tournament players who choke bad whenever the bet was $100 or more.
One guy's nickname was $20.

Higher stakes is a test of your nerves .

Black-Balled · Oct 25, 2018

The only correct answer is:
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

sjm · Oct 25, 2018

Good thread, Dave.

I think you need to consider the difference between building your competitive pedigree and developing your game to get a handle on this.

Your competitive pedigree is about how well you are able to execute your game under pressure. There is no question that gambling for high stakes (assuming that you can afford to) will help you with your competitive pedigree, toughening you up over time by forcing you to execute at your highest level to keep things competitive.

Alternatively, I'm not convinced that high stakes action is the path to developing your game. No doubt, it might help you in picking up a thing or two about how the best go about their business, but there are better ways to develop your game. Your two pronged approach, in my opinion, should consist of a) lessons and/or structured practice across the entire set of skills required to play god pool, and b) watching professional matches live, on the internet, or on Accu-stats.

Build your competitive pedigree AND develop your game, but never confuse the two.

beetle · Oct 25, 2018

I'm a 550 Fargo. I have rarely gambled and generally prefer tournaments.

Until last month, the highest entry I had ever paid was $200. Last month there was a $1000 entry 550 and under tournament limited to 8 players, single elimination 10 ball, race to 15. Only the top 2 finishers got into the money ($5300 for 1st; $2700 for 2nd).

I am comfortable but not rich. Risking $1000 definitely took me out of my comfort zone, but if I lost it, I would still be fine and I was prepared for that.

However, I felt I had a decent chance and I wanted to see how I handled the pressure and take a shot at the 5 grand. My confidence was pretty high since I had just taken 4th place out of 83 players in a big 600 and under tournament.

My first match was close, but I held the lead the entire way and won 15-12.

All I had to do was win the next match to be guaranteed $2700.

My second match had a horrendous start. My opponent played great (almost perfect) and before I knew it, I was down 5-0. Then 7-1. I won a few games, but we kept trading and then the score was 12-6. I just couldn't get anything going and felt like I was burying myself in a deep hole.

I was going through a mental torture of just wanting to give up at first and then thinking that if my opponent could play so well at the beginning, why couldn't I play that well at the end?

Luckily that other voice prevailed and I started chipping away, 1 game at a time. I was focusing so intensely that I can't really remember much about each game. I had put so much pressure on myself that I had no choice but to think of one shot at a time.

Maybe an hour later, I had somehow won 8 games in a row and I was on the hill, 14-12. I ended up winning 15-13. It was the most surreal and exhausting match I have ever had. But I can't say I was nervous. I was angry to have dug such a deep hole. I went through the emotions of just wanting to lose and be done with it, to wanting just to make it a redeemable showing, to knowing I could come back and win it.

I think that this match was the most important competitive experience of my life and knowing that I could come back from that deficit to win the match has really helped my confidence.

I was ahead the entire time in the third match, but it was close and we decided to chop when the score was 12-11. It had been 12 hours of pool and I was mentally and physically exhausted. We were both very happy to have $4000 after the long day!

I feel like this was the perfect test of nerves: the ideal combination of tournament play and gambling. I gained an incredible amount of experience and knowledge that will go into all my future competitions.

So I encourage everyone to step out of their comfort zone to test yourselves. You might get lucky and have nice ending like I did!

Clusterbuster · Oct 25, 2018

Kollegedave's reference to the recognition of gambling as a path for improved play frames the issue incorrectly from the outset. It is more of an assumption than recognition of a fact. Improved performance as a consequence of gambling is almost impossible to actually prove. The variables are just too great. The common scenario is some kid starts playing pool and, either through aptitude, dedication or whatever, begins to show promise. Then he starts playing more regularly, hanging in the pool hall more, getting ever more experience, etc. At some point he starts gambling, probably at the point he is on an upward trajectory anyway. Then the question becomes whether his improvement stems from playing more, doing drills, and becoming a part of the pool culture or is it specifically because of his gambling. There is really no way to tell. The same guy who is betting substantially is also probably the same guy who is in the pool hall several nights a week, doing the tournaments, etc. In real life, there is never going to be a control group to compare the gambler against the non-gambler. Every story of someone improving at the point he started gambling becomes simply anecdotal. Many people have been observed to improve significantly after they start gambling. They are the heralded ones. You've got to suspect that there are nonetheless substantial numbers who saw no particular effect either way from gambling or gambling actually slowed their improvement by crushing their confidence, pushing them away from the game, etc. They are the ones you never hear about and their experience doesn't work into the lore. I fully accept that a number of people probably improve by virtue of gambling but it is almost impossible to prove in any given case that gambling is what improved their game as opposed to various other factors. While that experience clearly occurs, it can't even be said that it's typical or more common that gambling having a negative effect. Nor is it enough to say that someone knows a dozen guys who were muddling along at a certain level and all of a sudden their game took off after they started playing for high stakes. Correlation is not causation. Could it be? Yeah. Is it proven? No.

Black-Balled · Oct 25, 2018

I thought I was a loser of note.

Hmmmph.

(I enjoyed reading that!)

beetle said:
I'm a 550 Fargo. I have rarely gambled and generally prefer tournaments.

Until last month, the highest entry I had ever paid was $200. Last month there was a $1000 entry 550 and under tournament limited to 8 players, single elimination 10 ball, race to 15. Only the top 2 finishers got into the money ($5300 for 1st; $2700 for 2nd).

I am comfortable but not rich. Risking $1000 definitely took me out of my comfort zone, but if I lost it, I would still be fine and I was prepared for that.

However, I felt I had a decent chance and I wanted to see how I handled the pressure and take a shot at the 5 grand. My confidence was pretty high since I had just taken 4th place out of 83 players in a big 600 and under tournament.

My first match was close, but I held the lead the entire way and won 15-12.

All I had to do was win the next match to be guaranteed $2700.

My second match had a horrendous start. My opponent played great (almost perfect) and before I knew it, I was down 5-0. Then 7-1. I won a few games, but we kept trading and then the score was 12-6. I just couldn't get anything going and felt like I was burying myself in a deep hole.

I was going through a mental torture of just wanting to give up at first and then thinking that if my opponent could play so well at the beginning, why couldn't I play that well at the end?

Luckily that other voice prevailed and I started chipping away, 1 game at a time. I was focusing so intensely that I can't really remember much about each game. I had put so much pressure on myself that I had no choice but to think of one shot at a time.

Maybe an hour later, I had somehow won 8 games in a row and I was on the hill, 14-12. I ended up winning 15-13. It was the most surreal and exhausting match I have ever had. But I can't say I was nervous. I was angry to have dug such a deep hole. I went through the emotions of just wanting to lose and be done with it, to wanting just to make it a redeemable showing, to knowing I could come back and win it.

I think that this match was the most important competitive experience of my life and knowing that I could come back from that deficit to win the match has really helped my confidence.

I was ahead the entire time in the third match, but it was close and we decided to chop when the score was 12-11. It had been 12 hours of pool and I was mentally and physically exhausted. We were both very happy to have $4000 after the long day!

I feel like this was the perfect test of nerves: the ideal combination of tournament play and gambling. I gained an incredible amount of experience and knowledge that will go into all my future competitions.

So I encourage everyone to step out of their comfort zone to test yourselves. You might get lucky and have nice ending like I did!

pvc lou · Oct 25, 2018

I think the right idea is to get better in order to be able to play for higher stakes and win more, not to play for higher stakes in order to get better.

lfigueroa · Oct 25, 2018

kollegedave said:
I think a significant portion of the pool playing community has long recognized that, at least for many people, engaging in “action” matches can have a positive impact on the skill level of those competing. This makes sense, as with something at stake, the participants are likely going to “try their hardest” to win, so as to not lose money.

Of course, this practice stands in contrast to playing maybe by yourself practicing or against an opponent with “nothing” on the line.

My question to the forum is this: Does anyone believe there is a benefit to developing skill level in pool where a pool player intentionally pushes him or herself to gamble with stakes higher than they would normally be comfortable with. To me, if a player does this over time, they are likely to become more comfortable with higher stakes, but I am not certain that this increased comfort level with higher stakes translates to an improved player over whatever improvement would have occurred if the player in question simply played the same matches with lower stakes…provided, of course, the lower stakes were sufficient to cause the player to try hard.

What you do all say? Do higher stakes make for quicker or more substantial improvement?

kollegedave

It's easy to whistle tough shots in, or at least take a swing at them, when nothing is on the line. For money, you're going to discover your "make" percentage isn't what you thought. So in terms of improving your risk assessment skills it'll help and probably motivate you to improve your percentage on any number of shots and your overall technique.

I don't believe playing a big money match, a one off, is of much value. The benefits, if any other than proving you can do it, are transient.

I don't believe playing for high stakes and donating (whether the donatee is aware they're donating or not) is of much benefit either.

However, a regular cash game, where a loss stings monetarily and in which you must play *at least* at your average/normal level (or perhaps even a hair better), can be of great value, IMO.

Lou Figueroa

Black-Balled · Oct 25, 2018

Your chunk of text likely results in the reader missing a good bit...

But the contention the improvement is effectively impossible to prove is completely wrong, Imo.

Playing for fun, I'd rarely shoot a safe in lieu an attempt at continuing a run. Playing for money or in a formal competition, I would be more apt to make the choice that yields higher win probability.

That said, we can all cite examples of the opposite,too.

What is 'better', anyway?

Clusterbuster said:
Kollegedave's reference to the recognition of gambling as a path for improved play frames the issue incorrectly from the outset. It is more of an assumption than recognition of a fact. Improved performance as a consequence of gambling is almost impossible to actually prove. The variables are just too great. The common scenario is some kid starts playing pool and, either through aptitude, dedication or whatever, begins to show promise. Then he starts playing more regularly, hanging in the pool hall more, getting ever more experience, etc. At some point he starts gambling, probably at the point he is on an upward trajectory anyway. Then the question becomes whether his improvement stems from playing more, doing drills, and becoming a part of the pool culture or is it specifically because of his gambling. There is really no way to tell. The same guy who is betting substantially is also probably the same guy who is in the pool hall several nights a week, doing the tournaments, etc. In real life, there is never going to be a control group to compare the gambler against the non-gambler. Every story of someone improving at the point he started gambling becomes simply anecdotal. Many people have been observed to improve significantly after they start gambling. They are the heralded ones. You've got to suspect that there are nonetheless substantial numbers who saw no particular effect either way from gambling or gambling actually slowed their improvement by crushing their confidence, pushing them away from the game, etc. They are the ones you never hear about and their experience doesn't work into the lore. I fully accept that a number of people probably improve by virtue of gambling but it is almost impossible to prove in any given case that gambling is what improved their game as opposed to various other factors. While that experience clearly occurs, it can't even be said that it's typical or more common that gambling having a negative effect. Nor is it enough to say that someone knows a dozen guys who were muddling along at a certain level and all of a sudden their game took off after they started playing for high stakes. Correlation is not causation. Could it be? Yeah. Is it proven? No.

Black-Balled · Oct 25, 2018

pvc lou said:
I think the right idea is to get better in order to be able to play for higher stakes and win more, not to play for higher stakes in order to get better.

And one certainly needs some common sense about the matter too, a little risk/ reward analysis goes a long way.

Is it really a matter of pride sufficient of braggadacio, that you can made 10/10 spot shots for 1k a pop, if you live in your car?

TommyT · Oct 25, 2018

Or go broke trying....

SBC · Oct 25, 2018

Only way you learn the compete at the highest level is in the box. Sell out one shot and lose a few hundred. You will practice that safe 100 times. You learn how to control the table so your opponents complain that they never had an open shot. Play 2 way shots when you have something missable. It's just a whole different level coming back from being down and waking up with a pocket full of other people's money.

336Robin · Oct 25, 2018

High stakes doesnt fix bad fundamentals that need fixing before improvement can be attained.

kollegedave said:
I think a significant portion of the pool playing community has long recognized that, at least for many people, engaging in “action” matches can have a positive impact on the skill level of those competing. This makes sense, as with something at stake, the participants are likely going to “try their hardest” to win, so as to not lose money.

Of course, this practice stands in contrast to playing maybe by yourself practicing or against an opponent with “nothing” on the line.

My question to the forum is this: Does anyone believe there is a benefit to developing skill level in pool where a pool player intentionally pushes him or herself to gamble with stakes higher than they would normally be comfortable with. To me, if a player does this over time, they are likely to become more comfortable with higher stakes, but I am not certain that this increased comfort level with higher stakes translates to an improved player over whatever improvement would have occurred if the player in question simply played the same matches with lower stakes…provided, of course, the lower stakes were sufficient to cause the player to try hard.

What you do all say? Do higher stakes make for quicker or more substantial improvement?

kollegedave

deanoc · Oct 25, 2018

I don't think pool without high stakes is much fun

But I doubt that betting more will make you better

the possibility of betting more might give you a reason to
practice and make the sacrifices needed to play better

even at my age,i put up with playing cheap pool today
for the possibility that the day will come when that big better will show up

to me pool without gambling is like poker without big pots

Higher Stakes = More Improvement or No?

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Call me Banger.

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues

AzB Silver Member

Older and Wiser

Do I bug you?

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Obsessed

AzB Silver Member

Multiverse Operative

AzB Silver Member