A poll
- Thread starter Luxury
- Start date
Player A knows more pool than player B, and knows breaking a cluster with no shot is worst than breaking them. Player A wins with no dispute.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
It is similar to a situation i was in. I bet with a player, playing one pocket that he is not going to make a ball on the break, sure thing he made a ball, but in my pocket; I refused to pay at 1st , my claim was, you were suppose to make a ball in your hole; needless to say he is 6' weighs 500 lb obviously cannot win arguing, so i caved in-good to keep him on my side in a pool hall,,,,wink wink!!!
Thanks.
Player B wins the bet. Consider if he smashes the balls three feet apart but the cueball gets hooked behind an unrelated ball or scratches.
Clearly he accomplished breaking out the balls but unfortunately didnt get a reward. That's the normal lingo.
Freddie <~~~ never gets a reward
Player B.
Bet was for a break out. Balls were broken out.
Simple and done. There was no bet referencing the quality of the breakout.
Bet was for a break out. Balls were broken out.
Simple and done. There was no bet referencing the quality of the breakout.
When I'm just hitting em around with friends and that happens I always say "nice breakout", but I think the intent is to get an actual breakout resulting in a makeable shot.
Breakouts are tough sometimes, but when you don't pull it off it's not a great shot, or a shot good enough to win the game or a bet IMO
Minority vote-A
Breakouts are tough sometimes, but when you don't pull it off it's not a great shot, or a shot good enough to win the game or a bet IMO
Minority vote-A
IMO, a breakout shot does not guarantee a makeable next-shot attempt, it only offers you a possibility of one.
Therefore, I am in the camp of those that say Player B wins the bet, based on the limited information given in the OP as there WAS a breakout of the balls.
Maniac (but......I do see the other side of the argument)
Therefore, I am in the camp of those that say Player B wins the bet, based on the limited information given in the OP as there WAS a breakout of the balls.
Maniac (but......I do see the other side of the argument)
Kobachi
Scarred but Smarter
Player B wins the bet.
The reward to the small break out, even without shape is:
Player B is still shooting, success.
This must've been a very difficult breakout, or the bet wouldn't have been proposed.
Player B, I'm assuming, is proficient enough to play a good safe from there if he was able to make the breakout.
My 2 pennies.
Kevin
.
.
.
.
The reward to the small break out, even without shape is:
Player B is still shooting, success.
This must've been a very difficult breakout, or the bet wouldn't have been proposed.
Player B, I'm assuming, is proficient enough to play a good safe from there if he was able to make the breakout.
My 2 pennies.
Kevin
.
.
.
.
i didnt read the details, but I voted anyway.
The circumstance is a bit vague. A breakout, by definition, is deemed successful by generating a future shot. If player B attempted a breakout and that ended his run, then the breakout was not successful, no matter how many or how far balls were moved.
On the other hand, if Player B had no intention of continuing to shoot, but only to break up the cluster then it could be deemed successful.
On the other hand, if Player B had no intention of continuing to shoot, but only to break up the cluster then it could be deemed successful.
Some players are of the opinion that there is always a shot, that you just have to find it. Since we do not know all the specifics of the scenario in the OP, can we assume that Player B may have played a good safe from the breakout shot, therefore benefiting from the breakout on his/her NEXT trip to the table? We really do need more info. A CueTable layout would have been nice.
Maniac (the poll IS lopsided though)
It seems to me that the bet was basically "I don't think you have the skill to get the cue ball there"... for some reason, he felt sinking the ball and then sending the cue ball to a specific location on the table (where the cluster was) was impossible.
Player B proved him wrong and imo wins.
Player B proved him wrong and imo wins.
That's pretty much how I look at it. The entire purpose of a break out is to gain space while maintaining the run. If you can't continue the run then you didn't successfully complete the breakout you just banged balls around.
I see a pretty significant different between the intention of banging balls around and completing a successful breakout.
So wouldn't "breakout" by definition include the actual intended purpose, breaking balls out to continue the run, otherwise the act would be called something else such as "banging balls around" or "opening the pot".
I don't know anyone who attempts to break balls out without also intending to continue the run. I know plenty of people who attempt to open the table or bang balls for their next turn on the table. Two different things in my opinion.
In the OP the bet has never been quantified! The only information given is that 'both players agree to bet.' It is stated that 'the shot is made' and the cluster is broken-up and the the CB is frozen to a ball that could have been the next shot.
Did the bet state that there be a shot after the break-out? And how about pocketing the OB? Was that in the bet? Could the break-out have been accomplished by playing a safety into the cluster?
I realize that the intent appears to be to pocket the OB and then accomplish the break-up of the 3 ball cluster. That was done! Was it the smartest thing to do? ...maybe not, it doesn't matter at this point. But according to the information given the 'bet' was accomplished.
Maybe, just maybe, 'break-up' has a different meaning to player A and to player B.
Just because a cluster is broken-up doesn't mean it was a failure because your run won't continue. Playing a safety into a cluster is a good example.
If the two parties are friends, I say "no bet". Apparently the definition of "break out" was not agreed upon....no meeting of the minds.
If the parties are not friends, I can see each parties point of view and, in all fairness I cannot vote for either choice.
Disclaimer: This is not to be considered legal advice. Parties should consult with a licensed attorney in their respective states for a qualified legal opinion. :smile:
J
If the parties are not friends, I can see each parties point of view and, in all fairness I cannot vote for either choice.
Disclaimer: This is not to be considered legal advice. Parties should consult with a licensed attorney in their respective states for a qualified legal opinion. :smile:
J
I'm rather surprised that anyone voted for A. Let's take it to the extreme...you are playing 14.1, you have a full rack with the break ball sitting perfectly. You make the ball and scatter the rack so that no two balls are even touching each other. But, you have no shot! Is there anyone willing to say that the shooter didn't get a breakout?? Seems like everyone would be saying he broke the heck out of them and got screwed.
Someone is clutching at straws to avoid paying a bet they lost.
To those that voted A, what constitutes having no shot? I've seen C players pull of shots that they will only make that one time in their life, no matter how long they practice it! There's always a shot. The shooter might not have the skill to make it very often, but the shot is there. What if the balls ended up wide open, but a long shot that the shooter is likely to miss anyways? Does he still have no shot because he doesn't have the skill to make a long shot?
The bet was to make the ob and break up the cluster. That was accomplished. If you are going to bet on something, you better understand the wording of the bet before you agree to it.
Someone is clutching at straws to avoid paying a bet they lost.
To those that voted A, what constitutes having no shot? I've seen C players pull of shots that they will only make that one time in their life, no matter how long they practice it! There's always a shot. The shooter might not have the skill to make it very often, but the shot is there. What if the balls ended up wide open, but a long shot that the shooter is likely to miss anyways? Does he still have no shot because he doesn't have the skill to make a long shot?
The bet was to make the ob and break up the cluster. That was accomplished. If you are going to bet on something, you better understand the wording of the bet before you agree to it.
Last edited: