Did you read how CSI and Big Truck put a halt to a large gambling match in Vega$ for the viewers?
Bergman vs DeChaine
- Thread starter krelldog
- Start date
Lol! Is that why he declined a 1k side bet when he played Shane a few weeks ago?
Oh, wait! Let me get the story straight, he started running his mouth to a friend of mine about making a bet and when my friend said let's do it for 1k, Mike stuck his pp in his mouth and said, " I can't do it"! There is a strong possibility that mikeyfrost knows what I'm talking about! But it was a friend of mine that wanted to bet! And the fearless world beater declined!
I wonder why
I simply prefer long races to short races. your argument of "if the loser doesn't quit you forever" doesn't hold true in short or long races.
There was never a doubt that you had no clue what my argument was.
Great post .
I can tell you what I heard directly from one of the players.
"ya, that $800 really helped out when I just lost $16k+"
Followed by "sarcasm off"
"ya, that $800 really helped out when I just lost $16k+"
Followed by "sarcasm off"
Under the CSI Thank You thread.
This is exactly what happened to Archer when he played Bustamante three races to 13. Archer won 35 games and Bustamante only won 26, but Archer lost 2 out of 3 sets.
The guy who came with it more times when he needed to and when it counted won the match up. Bustamante was able to come with it twice. Archer was only able to come with it once. I see no problem with Bustamante being considered the victor in that particular match. I think most others see Bustamante as the victor in that match as well.
Looks like the ban hammer has dropped, so there will be a bit less arguing on here for a while. I like the streamed challenge match idea! Perhaps banned members can earn there way back on if the stage a challenge match...
race to 100
I enjoy both formats, I really do. I have sweated many races to 100, and many shorter sets, as well as the ahead sets like Alex/Scott and Chip/Larry. I enjoy them all.
From a 'suspense' standpoint the multiple sets do make more sense...UNLESS like me you were giving up games on the wire and it was hard to know if you were going to cover the spread which is usually very close!
I used to be a big fan of the multiple races, and have even structured some money games I've played that way. There's one thing that Chris said that really rings true:
In a race to 100 you have nowhere to hide
Look- I've played probably 30-50 champions in professional tournaments on 9 foot tables. Races to 11. My track record is surprisingly good. Maybe I'm 45% win record. Good enough to cash ok, not good enough to quit the day job. But here's the thing- I was never that worried, because against anyone in the world I know I still have a good shot to get to 11! I can see the finish line! The best player doesn't have to win, I just have to get to 11!
In a race to 100 (or an ahead set, for those that don't know I have played ONE 15 ahead set and yes it was a 42 hour battle over a few days) there is no question the better player has to win. None of this "I don't care if I'm the better player or not, I just have to get to 11" bs. Instead you know that if you're up against it, you're going to be up against it ALL WEEKEND LONG. If you get in a hole it will be miserable. And you DON'T get to just write off a bunch of misses and start fresh with a new set. People say there's more pressure in multiple sets, try knowing that if you fall behind you don't get a 2nd chance and will be absolutely tortured for days!
No, I'm not buying. I am definitely the underdog against many players in a 3/5 short set format, but I could wreck a few people's weekends. In a race to 100 you have to believe you're the best player and back it up.
What the audience wants is a entirely different story and not relevant to my point. My point was that if I were going to play a player I felt I could beat I'd play race to 100 or 15 ahead because that would put the most heat on both of us.
I enjoy both formats, I really do. I have sweated many races to 100, and many shorter sets, as well as the ahead sets like Alex/Scott and Chip/Larry. I enjoy them all.
From a 'suspense' standpoint the multiple sets do make more sense...UNLESS like me you were giving up games on the wire and it was hard to know if you were going to cover the spread which is usually very close!
I used to be a big fan of the multiple races, and have even structured some money games I've played that way. There's one thing that Chris said that really rings true:
In a race to 100 you have nowhere to hide
Look- I've played probably 30-50 champions in professional tournaments on 9 foot tables. Races to 11. My track record is surprisingly good. Maybe I'm 45% win record. Good enough to cash ok, not good enough to quit the day job. But here's the thing- I was never that worried, because against anyone in the world I know I still have a good shot to get to 11! I can see the finish line! The best player doesn't have to win, I just have to get to 11!
In a race to 100 (or an ahead set, for those that don't know I have played ONE 15 ahead set and yes it was a 42 hour battle over a few days) there is no question the better player has to win. None of this "I don't care if I'm the better player or not, I just have to get to 11" bs. Instead you know that if you're up against it, you're going to be up against it ALL WEEKEND LONG. If you get in a hole it will be miserable. And you DON'T get to just write off a bunch of misses and start fresh with a new set. People say there's more pressure in multiple sets, try knowing that if you fall behind you don't get a 2nd chance and will be absolutely tortured for days!
No, I'm not buying. I am definitely the underdog against many players in a 3/5 short set format, but I could wreck a few people's weekends. In a race to 100 you have to believe you're the best player and back it up.
What the audience wants is a entirely different story and not relevant to my point. My point was that if I were going to play a player I felt I could beat I'd play race to 100 or 15 ahead because that would put the most heat on both of us.
Lol! Is that why he declined a 1k side bet when he played Shane a few weeks ago?
Oh, wait! Let me get the story straight, he started running his mouth to a friend of mine about making a bet and when my friend said let's do it for 1k, Mike stuck his pp in his mouth and said, " I can't do it"! There is a strong possibility that mikeyfrost knows what I'm talking about! But it was a friend of mine that wanted to bet! And the fearless world beater declined!
I wonder why
Yeah I wasn't a fan of him not willing to take a free roll on himself. I thought it was a little shaky. He's trying to swim through a river of shit to play Gomez some though who knows what he thinks about.
Whatever happened to Ten Ahead sets? That was a good test to see who plays the best. Ten Ahead, Ten Ball and let's light 'em up!
That's about all we played years ago, five ahead or ten ahead and sometimes a race to eleven. My standard action game at 9-Ball with another shortstop was five ahead for 50. I must have played a hundred guys that way.
That's about all we played years ago, five ahead or ten ahead and sometimes a race to eleven. My standard action game at 9-Ball with another shortstop was five ahead for 50. I must have played a hundred guys that way.
But will you get to 11 more times than they do when you have to play nine of those races to 11? Because nine races to 11 is what it takes to be roughly the same as a single race to 100. Of course the answer is no way in hell. You have been choosing to look at it as a single race to 11 instead of the reality which is after nine races to 11 you need to have won more of them than they did. No way you are going to come out ahead in number of sets won, just like if you played them a race to 100 you might be the first guy to win 11 games but you won't be the first to hit 100.
This isn't really true at all. If the score isn't a blowout then the question still looms large in a race to 100. A five game margin of victory is near meaningless after that many games for example, and a ten game margin of victory isn't exactly a definitive statement either for that matter. The lesser player can easily win a race to 100 if the two players are fairly close in skill. Unless the score is a blowout nothing is definitively settled with a race to 100.
If you were a head and shoulders better player than your opponent then the race to 100 might work fine (aside from it being boring and getting no viewers and making no ppv money etc). But if the opponent is anywhere close to your speed at all I think you have a much better chance with smaller sets and just more of them like say nine races to 11, or seven races to 15.
In a race to 100 depending on how the swings go he could have a swing at just the right moment that puts him over 100 first. Or could hit a gear at the last second playing over his head that puts him to the 100 mark first. Or towards the end of the match starts getting the good rolls and you get the bad ones and he hits the 100 first. But do you think the swings and rolls etc are going to go his way over and over and over again for him to keep hitting the 11 mark more times than you when you run that race nine separate times? Fat chance. It could happen once, but almost no chance it happens repeatedly enough to allow him to win a best of nine races to 11. That many races reduces the variance and almost ensures the best player prevails.
And when you factor in the added pressure of the shorter sets it even more clearly separates the better players. When you have to come with it again and again nine times for the nine sets, and know that you can't afford even a short spell where you play bad because it will cost you the set, the better player is favored by an even larger margin than they they would be in a single long race, again, assuming the two players are anywhere close in skill level.
The many shorter races all but eliminates variance caused by rolls, swings, playing over their head for a short spell etc, and it adds a lot more pressure, all of which makes it better for truly separating the skills of two players and ensuring the better player does in fact win.
There really is no such thing as race to 100 ; it is just semantics
It is only race to 100 if the 2 players play non stop with only bathroom and short meal breaks.
If they go long rest /sleep end of day and continue next day then each day is a set. If they play it over 3 days then it is like sets with first to reach 100 and they count and cumulate the results for 3 sets. Cos when you go sleep and rest for 10 hrs or so , your form changes and you come back next day a different player so it is a new and different set
Which means that race to 100 are essentially same as sets but the difference is in the arithmetic whether the overall winner is the one with most games won or most sets won
They could play the 3 or 5 sets over period of 1 year like maybe 1 set every few months when they are playing in same tourney. So winner of each set wins a certain amount . They could bill it as Part 1, Part 2 and part 3 etc and attract more viewers (if they stream it) overall rather than just 1 long race to 100
The overall winner will get a bigger amount but the difference is in which method is used to decide the winner - most sets won or most games won
Most sets won is common convention used in other sports like tennis , squash , badminton etc. so most sets / best of sets won is way to go. Because most sets won elicit best performances for every set
It is only race to 100 if the 2 players play non stop with only bathroom and short meal breaks.
If they go long rest /sleep end of day and continue next day then each day is a set. If they play it over 3 days then it is like sets with first to reach 100 and they count and cumulate the results for 3 sets. Cos when you go sleep and rest for 10 hrs or so , your form changes and you come back next day a different player so it is a new and different set
Which means that race to 100 are essentially same as sets but the difference is in the arithmetic whether the overall winner is the one with most games won or most sets won
They could play the 3 or 5 sets over period of 1 year like maybe 1 set every few months when they are playing in same tourney. So winner of each set wins a certain amount . They could bill it as Part 1, Part 2 and part 3 etc and attract more viewers (if they stream it) overall rather than just 1 long race to 100
The overall winner will get a bigger amount but the difference is in which method is used to decide the winner - most sets won or most games won
Most sets won is common convention used in other sports like tennis , squash , badminton etc. so most sets / best of sets won is way to go. Because most sets won elicit best performances for every set
I agree, I feel like the ahead sets really make players grind it out.
My favorite game was 9-ball. $10 or $20 a game, put the stake on a table or light before each break. Quit whenever you want, just don't be too nitty about it. Johnnyt