I'm taking this to a new post so as not to heavily pollute the other thread.
If anyone missed it, we were talking about the race to 120 in 9 ball where efren took earl 120-117. Russ has some bold statements that I kinda disagree with
I feel it's supposed to be about who plays better period... the length of the set is just used to make sure it's a fair competition, at the end it's just a statistic. 3 racks would be fair for a couple of C players and over 100 might be needed for world champions. In both cases the goals is the same, to see who's better, not whether "I'm better than he is at races to 5" or "he's better than I am after 4 days but not after 2". If it becomes about 'who's playing better on Tuesday' or whatever, what's the sense in risking the farm on it?
You want to say with a straight face that you could have predicted the outcome despite how close it was? At 117-117 you wouldn't have been sweating even the tiniest bit if you had 2 years salary riding on the match? You could for example predict that efren couldn't possibly have scratched on the break on rack 118, and that earl wouldn't have run it with ball in hand and then run 2 more?
It's easy to say "I can see which way the wind's blowing" but... seriously, if it's so cut and dried, you can quit your day job and just back players for a living. "Good news honey! Neither of us ever has to work ever again! And all the kids are going to college for free!"
I think you suffer from magical thinking. You see it as very significant that efren's asskicking was done on day 3, while earl's was on day 2. Based on that, you're saying that having a string of great racks at the end of the race made efren the clear cut best player, and he would have continued to pull ahead no matter how many games they played. I don't think that's true. The final score is more significant than the day 3 performances. The fact that heads came up a bunch of times one day and tails came up a bunch the next day doesn't mean tails is more likely to come up every time. Look at the numbers, don't romanticize it with talk about heart or clutch or whatever. It was practically a coin toss. If they played twice as long, there's no reason to think that earl might have gone back to kicking ass on day 4, and then maybe it would have seesawed to efren on day 5, etc etc.
Also, I don't see any indication that earl rolled over and died. In fact, he was safe after efren's break, played a nice kick, got stuck a little afterwards, then did a nice semi-masse that kicked in the 1 ball and then got a very unlucky roll to scratch in the side after 3 rails. That was his losing shot. If that ball had stayed up, he had an easy 2 ball and it's very possible he could have finished up the race and left with the 100K.
And suppose it had been played to, say, 70, or whatever... played to the point where strickland was 16 racks ahead. You'd probably be confidently crowing that it indisputably proves earl had the staying power and clutch ability and blah blah blah and that efren simply wasn't up to earl's speed.
I'll let you out for half ;D
Nope, never said that. I'm all for gambling between nearly even players. One thinks he has an edge that maybe the other doesn't see. What I'm saying is that someone pulling ahead by X games doesn't ALWAYS mean he is the better player. I think the color of money match illustrates that - one guy pulled ahead 16 racks so it might seem like he's better, but according to you he wasn't even close. Doesn't mean they shouldn't gamble, but it probably shouldn't be decided by a somewhat meaningless statistic about who pulled ahead at some point. I think the most fair way to gamble is a race that's long enough for that edge to come through. That means more than 120 games in earl and efren's case.
PS: Secretly I agree with you that efren's better
What I mostly disagree with is the sorta "oh please, any noob can see it" attitude. I don't think efren was better by a big, obvious margin. I think it was a very small edge and it's cocky for anyone to claim they can easily see a big skill difference (at least in 9 ball). It's easy to make claims with the benefit of hindsight.
If anyone missed it, we were talking about the race to 120 in 9 ball where efren took earl 120-117. Russ has some bold statements that I kinda disagree with
How do you figure? Gambling is always about who plays better over a set amount of time or games.
I feel it's supposed to be about who plays better period... the length of the set is just used to make sure it's a fair competition, at the end it's just a statistic. 3 racks would be fair for a couple of C players and over 100 might be needed for world champions. In both cases the goals is the same, to see who's better, not whether "I'm better than he is at races to 5" or "he's better than I am after 4 days but not after 2". If it becomes about 'who's playing better on Tuesday' or whatever, what's the sense in risking the farm on it?
I take it you thought Earl and Efren played even back then?
You want to say with a straight face that you could have predicted the outcome despite how close it was? At 117-117 you wouldn't have been sweating even the tiniest bit if you had 2 years salary riding on the match? You could for example predict that efren couldn't possibly have scratched on the break on rack 118, and that earl wouldn't have run it with ball in hand and then run 2 more?
It's easy to say "I can see which way the wind's blowing" but... seriously, if it's so cut and dried, you can quit your day job and just back players for a living. "Good news honey! Neither of us ever has to work ever again! And all the kids are going to college for free!"
I think you suffer from magical thinking. You see it as very significant that efren's asskicking was done on day 3, while earl's was on day 2. Based on that, you're saying that having a string of great racks at the end of the race made efren the clear cut best player, and he would have continued to pull ahead no matter how many games they played. I don't think that's true. The final score is more significant than the day 3 performances. The fact that heads came up a bunch of times one day and tails came up a bunch the next day doesn't mean tails is more likely to come up every time. Look at the numbers, don't romanticize it with talk about heart or clutch or whatever. It was practically a coin toss. If they played twice as long, there's no reason to think that earl might have gone back to kicking ass on day 4, and then maybe it would have seesawed to efren on day 5, etc etc.
Also, I don't see any indication that earl rolled over and died. In fact, he was safe after efren's break, played a nice kick, got stuck a little afterwards, then did a nice semi-masse that kicked in the 1 ball and then got a very unlucky roll to scratch in the side after 3 rails. That was his losing shot. If that ball had stayed up, he had an easy 2 ball and it's very possible he could have finished up the race and left with the 100K.
But it was. It was long enough for us to see Earl choke big time at the end.
And suppose it had been played to, say, 70, or whatever... played to the point where strickland was 16 racks ahead. You'd probably be confidently crowing that it indisputably proves earl had the staying power and clutch ability and blah blah blah and that efren simply wasn't up to earl's speed.
Ummmmmmmm.. WOW. Please detail how it is mathematically possible for a person to win a 7 ahead session and have won fewer games.
I'll let you out for half ;D
By your reasoning, no one should ever gamble, because there is the slightest chance they are only two games better than their opponent over their ENTIRE LIVES.
Nope, never said that. I'm all for gambling between nearly even players. One thinks he has an edge that maybe the other doesn't see. What I'm saying is that someone pulling ahead by X games doesn't ALWAYS mean he is the better player. I think the color of money match illustrates that - one guy pulled ahead 16 racks so it might seem like he's better, but according to you he wasn't even close. Doesn't mean they shouldn't gamble, but it probably shouldn't be decided by a somewhat meaningless statistic about who pulled ahead at some point. I think the most fair way to gamble is a race that's long enough for that edge to come through. That means more than 120 games in earl and efren's case.
PS: Secretly I agree with you that efren's better