Does anyone else dislike the term "free roll"?

CreeDo

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
Lately I've been seeing this term applied to TAR matches.

Maybe it's all in my head, but there's something kind of disparaging about it... like the match is not really serious and the players just won some sort of lucky lotto. Like win or lose they'll both go home grinning because they have a little money in their pockets.

To me TAR matches have always had that serious feel of an after-hours gambling session between two great players. Both guys are playing dead nuts serious and nobody wants to lose, especially with hundreds of people sweating the match.

"Free roll" kind of wrecks that vibe, like it's a meaningless exhibition.

We should be focusing on the players and not so much on TAR's financial arrangement with them. Football players are all going home rich but nobody (least of all the players) looks at a playoff game as a 'free roll'.
 
How much do the players actually make in these matches or is it all based off of bets?
 
Aren't they also playing for a chance at another "freeroll"? That seems like a pretty big incentive to win.
 
Agreed, CreeDo.

Sadly, too many people worry too much about other peoples money.
 
It has been applied disparagingly to the non-gambling TAR matches but it's also an accurate description of the event. When a player has no skin in the game then it's a freeroll.

However I like how Darren put it. No one at that level wants to lose for any amount. So wit that in mind I think that Chris' question was answered adequately. For them it's not about the money, could be a match for $20,000 or for $1000 they still want to win.

And probably that's how it is for most top athletes in any sport. The money comes and goes but victories are forever. Unless you're caught doping that is.

Did you know that in China in WPA events the winners get drug tested? That's off topic but still true.
 
JB Cases said:
It has been applied disparagingly to the non-gambling TAR matches but it's also an accurate description of the event. When a player has no skin in the game then it's a freeroll.

However I like how Darren put it. No one at that level wants to lose for any amount. So wit that in mind I think that Chris' question was answered adequately. For them it's not about the money, could be a match for $20,000 or for $1000 they still want to win.

And probably that's how it is for most top athletes in any sport. The money comes and goes but victories are forever. Unless you're caught doping that is.

Did you know that in China in WPA events the winners get drug tested? That's off topic but still true.
Click to expand...

No one gives a sh!! About the victories, it's all about the money. (In competition ).
 
'Free roll' is fine w me. I am very happy though that 'pretty sporty' seems to have finally petered out.


PS- the fact that the US Open fills up every year is pretty good evidence that it isnt strictly about the money and thankfully so.
 
jcrack_corn said:
No one gives a sh!! About the victories, it's all about the money. (In competition ).
Click to expand...

I think that there are plenty of people like me, who aren't worried about what these guys make or don't make, but are very interested in who wins the big matches.

Of course I would like the pro's to get paid better, in general terms. But who gets paid how much from TAR, or who took how much from the room somewhere has no interest to me.

Who won the latest big tournament or TAR PPV does interest me, greatly.
 
It might be a "free roll" at the cash provided by TAR and Co., but I'm guessing they have a little something on the side in most cases. I know I would.
 
free roll is not at all acurate

Freeroll is not a acurate statement by any means concerning the TAR matches. This is not gambling. These are matches between atheletes who are being paid to perform for resale to the public. Period. There are performance bonuses as it should be. Just because they both get paid doesn't mean its a free roll. Look at it this way. You have 2 proffesional boxers. They both get paid to fight. Maybe the winner gets more money. Maybe he doesn't.. Are they both on a free roll? No , they are both being paid as performers. Same as TAR and same as any similar buisness.
 
I have absolutely no problem at all with what TAR is doing now. Actually I love it. It's an easy way to get these guys together and actually play matches and long sets. It's takes all the stupid quibbling over every little thing out of the equation. As for the term itself it sounds like some sort of antiquated 70's gambling slang to me like it could be easily used in a sentence with the words "jive turkey". No thanks.
 
Think that's about right JB. Except I don't like "no skin in the game" any better because it has the same problem as "free roll"... it has the wrong connotation. The player may not be literally risking dollars in their wallet, but reputation is on the line (which is hard to quantify in dollars)... and as zpele points out, the loss has actual financial repercussions - you don't get invited to the next tar match and lose that guaranteed money. And who's to say sponsors don't also pay attention to TAR performances?

I know you and I both basically agree that the players want to win. When you're a pro with limited opportunities to collect a guaranteed paycheck... I bet there's a little extra sting thinking "not only did I blow a 5k match, I coulda also secured next months rent with an 'appearance fee' at the next tar... if I had won."

Just can't stand seeing people talk about these matches like "sweet! free money!". It cheapens a great match between the world's best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top