100 or NO COUNT

[bbb]

in a thread at onepocker.org
this story was told
how strong a player do you have to be to play that kind of proposition game??




Theres a few paragraphs where Tooth talks about playing and braking even with a guy named Mac.
He did play Mac (Angus Macdonald) and he did not break even he won about 7 or 8 hundred and excaped from powerful trap I was there with him and in on the money.
we went there looking for a player named Bert Walker an older guy that liked to play and bet it up pretty good.
When we got to the pool room a few tables were busy with some young guys playing for fun, and two older guys sitting on a bench sweating the action. We could not figure out who Bert was!
Some how Tooth promotes a game of one pocket and the battle is on. The guy Tooth is playing is definitly not Bert, Tooth was suposed to be able to give Bert the 5 and nine according to our informant Okie Sam.
At one point in the session the guy Tooths playing looks over a real tough risky shot, he bends over to shoot and he takes a deep breath and his cheeks puff up like asquirrel with its mouth full of nuts. He pops the shoot in and runs 4 or 5 balls. Tooth looks over at me and says, thats the guy my uncle played in Oakland, he puffs up his cheeks when he shoots a tough shot.
So thats how Toothie met Angus Macdonald! Angus was a top player on the East Coast in the 40's and 50's, he beat a lot of players playing hundred or no count straight pool.I think he gets some mention in Robbins book SMS.
Tooth and I were real lucky to get out of that spot with any kind of a score. Bert Walker had another ace up his sleeve for awhile a player named Long Beach spent about a year hanging around Bert in Lawton and any player who though Beach was Bert was in for a huge suprise.

Have a good afternoon, George

 

[LightsOut]

This is the ultimate test for your game that really separates those who can perform well under pressure and those who can't. I think you can set the no count # to whatever is appropriate to your skill level (for me it'd be 16-20 or something like that).

Here in SE PA, former resident and 14.1 sensai (taught me everything I know about it anyway) Andy Toth told me stories about playing 80 and 90 no count here in years gone by and winning. I believe it as he spotted me 100 in games to 150. He ran out the spot on me many times. For the record, I never won one of these games. If you didn't get to 50 in 2 or 3 innings you'd never win...

 

[sjm]

The 100 no count version of 14.1 is for the game's greatest champions only.

I think that guys like John Schmidt, Thorsten Hohmann, Darren Appleton, Niels Feijen, Oliver Ortmann and, perhaps, Corey Deuel might have even action against a "B" player (a capable, but not a strong amateur) if the game were played this way in a race to 100.

This version of the game is for the guys who run 100 almost every time they play, not the guys who can run a 100 or even 200.

 

[Bob Jewett]

The 100 no count version of 14.1 is for the game's greatest champions only.

I think that guys like John Schmidt, Thorsten Hohmann, Darren Appleton, Niels Feijen, Oliver Ortmann and, perhaps, Corey Deuel might have even action against a "B" player (a capable, but not a strong amateur) if the game were played this way in a race to 100.

This version of the game is for the guys who run 100 almost every time they play, not the guys who can run a 100 or even 200.

I was talking to George Rood at one of the DCCs. 60 years ago or so he was playing someone to 100 points and George was doing 50-no-count. That means anything between 50 and 99 would be the first half of his game and 100 would win immediately. George said he had 11 runs of 100 in that session.

The problem with no-count as a 14.1 handicap is that the weaker player still sits a lot -- maybe even more than in a normal game. Another way to play is "and stop" so that the stronger player must leave the table when he has run, for example, 5.

 

[acousticsguru]

The problem with no-count as a 14.1 handicap is that the weaker player still sits a lot -- maybe even more than in a normal game. Another way to play is "and stop" so that the stronger player must leave the table when he has run, for example, 5.

The problem with this scenario is that there are too few Straight Pool tournaments, and seemingly even fewer people who like to play the game, and since I don't practice anymore, there's no way I'll run any balls…

That's a useful spot instructing players of different levels, because it's more difficult for an intermediate player to leave the table on a safety mid-rack than for the incoming "weaker" player to run five and more on average. Just saying, as there's not much gambling in this country, and if so, exclusively at rotational games, so our players have little experience at handicapping, which in turn is the reason they're not playing Straight Pool with better players - they can't stand sitting and waiting for their turn.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.
_________________

„J'ai gâché vingt ans de mes plus belles années au billard. Si c'était à refaire, je recommencerais.“ – Roger Conti

 

[alstl]

The 100 no count version of 14.1 is for the game's greatest champions only.

I think that guys like John Schmidt, Thorsten Hohmann, Darren Appleton, Niels Feijen, Oliver Ortmann and, perhaps, Corey Deuel might have even action against a "B" player (a capable, but not a strong amateur) if the game were played this way in a race to 100.

This version of the game is for the guys who run 100 almost every time they play, not the guys who can run a 100 or even 200.

If I could play that with the stipulation that upon failing to pocket a ball my opponent gave me bih I think I could win that against just about anybody most of the time. Run a few balls, play safe, get ball in hand, rinse and repeat.