Does Thorsten Hohman gamble?

[Masayoshi]

Thorsten came to Japan 2 years ago to play challenge matches. In these challenge matches, you can either play a "challenge" where, even if you win you don't get your money back, or you can "gamble" where, for a slightly higher entry, you win money if you beat him.

Thorsten told me that this was the first time in his entire life that he gambled. Although you couldn't really consider it gambling because its only one set and its an even race against a former world champ. Most would consider it donating.

 

[alstl]

Thorsten came to Japan 2 years ago to play challenge matches. In these challenge matches, you can either play a "challenge" where, even if you win you don't get your money back, or you can "gamble" where, for a slightly higher entry, you win money if you beat him.

Thorsten told me that this was the first time in his entire life that he gambled. Although you couldn't really consider it gambling because its only one set and its an even race against a former world champ. Most would consider it donating.

Reminds me of a line from a W C Fields movie. He is getting ready to rob a kid in a card game and the kid asks "Is this gambling"?

"Not the way I play".

 

[AtLarge]

I thought I remembered Fats saying ...

Well if Fats said it, it has to be true, right?

 

[mista335]

I had heard a story once that the line on Thorsten was something like 50:1 at the World Championships (when he first came on the scene) & that he placed a $2-3k wager on himself & WON. Something like a $150,000 pay day or thereabouts.

Could someone corraborate or add details?

I remember that from somewhere too.

I think it might have been Jim Wych during a Mosconi Cup match, can't quite remember exactly.

I don't think you can call this gambling anymore than buying a lottery ticket makes you a gambler.

 

[The Chinchilla]

By the way, those comparisons with tennis are wrong, at least with respect to my comments, because THEY DON"T PLAY THE EQUIVALENT OF RACES TO 11!!!

They play actual tennis and you have to be a great athlete to win, and play All day at times. We don't have it set up like that in pool.

Look, disagree all you want, if all you have done is win race to 9 or 11 tournaments your whole life, you havn't really beaten anybody. If all you care about is the money, fine.... you're cool with it and you're cool in your own head, more power to you. But you have to beat real pool players to be one of the best in most people's books, or maybe I should say most player's books. Every single day tennis players beat others though, because their format is an actual test. You can really be as great as you want in tennis, and don't have to gamble.

 

[The Chinchilla]

Most of the so called "gamblers" have backers so they aren't really gambling. A lot of the guys who do gamble their own money are frequently broke.

If Thorsten wanted to gamble he would have a line of people willing to back him.

Right, put this another way, he is pretty much throwing free money away (assuming he can beat these people for the cheese). There are just no two ways about it. It is commendable if that is what he believes.

 

[SeanC]

Has it ever occurred to those who think that "gambling" is the way pool is supposed to be played the reason why it doesn't get the attention we all think it deserves?

In most other sports, the "title" comes first, money is of secondary importance and comes naturally as you go up in the ladder. Not so much the case with pool, but unfortunately it is the truth.

 

[The Chinchilla]

Has it ever occurred to those who think that "gambling" is the way pool is supposed to be played the reason why it doesn't get the attention we all think it deserves?

In most other sports, the "title" comes first, money is of secondary importance and comes naturally as you go up in the ladder. Not so much the case with pool, but unfortunately it is the truth.

No because the evidence doesn't support this. Golfing is really a gambling game, and was before it got big. I think the gambling in pool would diminish or at least be a lot less conspicuous if there was good money to be made.

Also, it isn't so much "gambling" is the way it is supposed to be played. It is that the competition (tournaments) should be a real test. Round robin format was good, longer races are good. But we can't find a way to do this.

 

[pt109]

I had heard a story once that the line on Thorsten was something like 50:1 at the World Championships (when he first came on the scene) & that he placed a $2-3k wager on himself & WON. Something like a $150,000 pay day or thereabouts.

Could someone corraborate or add details?

The story I heard, from a reasonably reliable source, was that Thorsten,
as an unknown, was 1,000 to 1. He bet $100 usd on himself...a very nice
pickup.
However, another one told me he bet $1,000 on himself.
...both these guys were in Taiwan at the time.

 

[D_Lewis]

I had heard a story once that the line on Thorsten was something like 50:1 at the World Championships (when he first came on the scene) & that he placed a $2-3k wager on himself & WON. Something like a $150,000 pay day or thereabouts.

Could someone corraborate or add details?

I have heard this also. Great story of confidence.

There are two types of players: Gamblers and tournament players. Its like the weather though, some are 80% tournament with a 20% chance of gamble.

Im like a 60% gamble with 0% chance of tournament. hahaha. Worst. Tournament. Player. EVER.

 

[The Renfro]

No because the evidence doesn't support this. Golfing is really a gambling game, and was before it got big. I think the gambling in pool would diminish or at least be a lot less conspicuous if there was good money to be made.

Also, it isn't so much "gambling" is the way it is supposed to be played. It is that the competition (tournaments) should be a real test. Round robin format was good, longer races are good. But we can't find a way to do this.

I truly believe you just don't get it.... Mika is not a gambler... Ralf is not a gambler.... Thorsten is not a gambler..... And there is reason for that.... In a tournament today there is no round robin... There is no race to 100.... There is No Chance to dog it for any length of time and win. The races are so short and tourneys last so many days that you have to learn how to focus 100% for the match... These 3 and several other World Class players come to win.... They don't hit the green room trying to work up a score... They come to win the tournament....

Now lets say they decide to gamble..... Let's say Mika loses to Chris Batram in the 2nd round of the US Open... At that point if Mika gambles he has a backup plan. Winning the Open from the left side is near impossible that early... He can hit QMasters and make some games and recoup his travel and be done..... Or he can stay with the original plan which is single dimensional in purpose and win 12 or 13 or however many it was from the losers side and win the fuggin US Open... While part of the field burned the candle at both ends trying to make a score.............

It takes 2 hours of super human focus to win at the highest level..... After 2 hours of that kind of exertion you start to not be bullet proof...

You ever wonder how many tournaments Shane would have won by now if he DIDN'T gamble????

 

[The Chinchilla]

I truly believe you just don't get it.... Mika is not a gambler... Ralf is not a gambler.... Thorsten is not a gambler..... And there is reason for that.... In a tournament today there is no round robin... There is no race to 100.... There is No Chance to dog it for any length of time and win. The races are so short and tourneys last so many days that you have to learn how to focus 100% for the match... These 3 and several other World Class players come to win.... They don't hit the green room trying to work up a score... They come to win the tournament....

Now lets say they decide to gamble..... Let's say Mika loses to Chris Batram in the 2nd round of the US Open... At that point if Mika gambles he has a backup plan. Winning the Open from the left side is near impossible that early... He can hit QMasters and make some games and recoup his travel and be done..... Or he can stay with the original plan which is single dimensional in purpose and win 12 or 13 or however many it was from the losers side and win the fuggin US Open... While part of the field burned the candle at both ends trying to make a score.............

It takes 2 hours of super human focus to win at the highest level..... After 2 hours of that kind of exertion you start to not be bullet proof...

You ever wonder how many tournaments Shane would have won by now if he DIDN'T gamble????

I do get it, those guys can never say they are better than an efren or a shane because they have only beat them in races to 11, and they have gotten beaten too. It's not until you play a big race, and ideally have one player quit, that you truly see who a better player is. That is the only way to tell. In essence, those players have never really beaten anybody... they have only shown us they can win in a race to 11.

Anyway, it is just a difference of opinion. I have mine, you have yours. But ask all the best players that come on here what they say about it. Also, why is there this underlying assumption that gambling is "shady" anyway. There is no real reason for that. And the truth is, if you don't test yourself under these circumstances, you aren't under the highest form of pressure in the sport. To me there are so many analogies: white water rafting pro never going into the highest class rapids, rock climber never risking death by doing extremest mountains etc. YOU CANT GET THERE TO THESE HIGHEST LEVELS WITHOUT THIS. You can play that high and be a tournament player. And if you think tournament races to 11 with a 20k first prize is like matching up for 100k 25 ahead nine ball i just am not sure what to say.

You don't need to gamble for this either, if a promoter put up 50k a race to 120 for the best 2 players (like the hong kong format), that would be a great test, and i'd love to see the players you listed do that.

And the words you use indicate we are talking about different things. Long races are actually more about being able to make a mistake, yet really find the best player. You are talking about who can concentrate better for 2 hours (and thus proving my point), while i'm talking about who can actually play better and how you go about deciding that. Those pros you list don't want that decision made, as the tournament forum suits them fine I guess.

If these guys you list play so well, why not get backed and make some free money? I have my answers, and I guess you have yours, and it is really all ok

 

[The Renfro]

Chinch...

It's kind of like building a race car.... I can build a car and take it to the local 1/8th mile track and win cash for very little investment if I have a bit of talent(race to 7).... Or I could build one to go hit the 1/4mile tracks and compete against the big boys for World Titles but I will need more talent and more cash(race to 11-13)... Or last I can build one to go hit the salt flats... I won't be a world champion but I might be the fastest in the world(race to 100)......

It's about specialization.... to discount ANY of the non-gamblers because they went the other way is a skewed and biased outlook..... They do what they do for a reason... For any of us not in their shoes to try and make judgment is plain silly.......

 

[The Chinchilla]

Chinch...

It's kind of like building a race car.... I can build a car and take it to the local 1/8th mile track and win cash for very little investment if I have a bit of talent(race to 7).... Or I could build one to go hit the 1/4mile tracks and compete against the big boys for World Titles but I will need more talent and more cash(race to 11-13)... Or last I can build one to go hit the salt flats... I won't be a world champion but I might be the fastest in the world(race to 100)......

It's about specialization.... to discount ANY of the non-gamblers because they went the other way is a skewed and biased outlook..... They do what they do for a reason... For any of us not in their shoes to try and make judgment is plain silly.......

I discount them because they haven't truly beaten any one player. I guess like I said, it's just a difference of opinion. You have to ask yourself, if they are so capable, why not just go out there and win the big bucks? And if they can't or aren't willing to do that, what have they really done? They have proven they can beat the best players in a race to 11, that's the answer. BUT their peers have proven that as well, AND they are willing to prove it for 50 or 100k. See the BIG difference? You don't, but I do.

 

[The Renfro]

Ok I think I follow............. Usain Bolt is not the best in the world because he hasn't beaten Geoffrey Mutai in a marathon..........

 

[The Chinchilla]

Ok I think I follow............. Usain Bolt is not the best in the world because he hasn't beaten Geoffrey Mutai in a marathon..........

I dont know who they are but keeping my last post in mind and in the context of our argument, the best guy would be capable of winning both the marathon and the short race, as that is what the best players do in pool (efren was a great example). I know you will say that doesn't exist in running, but that tells you your analogy is no good, right. Because players who win tournaments AND win for big money do exist in pool. In essence, you analogy was too far reaching.

I think a much better analogy would be mountain climbers. Climbers that conquer the most difficult mountains and risk their lives in the most perilous situations who are also highly skilled are probably considered the best, i'm not sure but would guess. Those guys you listed climb second rate mountains.... we all love them, so it is hard to hear, but it's true, and they are fine with that, so be it. It' not to say they are second rate players, just that they can never be at the top unless pool changes its format or they gamble -- they have to somehow beat the best players in a good test is the point.

 

[The Renfro]

I dont know who they are but keeping my last post in mind and in the context of our argument, the best guy would be capable of winning both the marathon and the short race, as that is what the best players do in pool (efren was a great example). I know you will say that doesn't exist in running, but that tells you your analogy is no good, right. Because players who win tournaments AND win for big money do exist in pool. In essence, you analogy was too far reaching.

I think a much better analogy would be mountain climbers. Climbers that conquer the most difficult mountains and risk their lives in the most perilous situations who are also highly skilled are probably considered the best, i'm not sure but would guess. Those guys you listed climb second rate mountains.... we all love them, so it is hard to hear, but it's true, and they are fine with that, so be it. It' not to say they are second rate players, just that they can never be at the top unless pool changes its format or they gamble -- they have to somehow beat the best players in a good test is the point.

The bolded part I will give you... I would like to see round robins in all disciplines.... I will say this before I crash for the night... If you take the players I mentioned and look at their total win loss records vs the cream of the crop mountain climbers I am betting the mountain climbers don't fair so well............

 

[richiebalto]

I had heard a story once that the line on Thorsten was something like 50:1 at the World Championships (when he first came on the scene) & that he placed a $2-3k wager on himself & WON. Something like a $150,000 pay day or thereabouts.

Could someone corraborate or add details?

WEATHER THE MAN GAMBLES ARE NOT does not stop him from being in the top 10 or 15 players in the world,if this story is true,then THORSTEN has plenty of gamble,because that is avery big bet for a pool player to bet on himself,oh and a very smart one at that!talk about pressure,(if this is true)how much was on THOR in those finals!with all that money on the line.

 

[freedomfry]

I discount them because they haven't truly beaten any one player. I guess like I said, it's just a difference of opinion. You have to ask yourself, if they are so capable, why not just go out there and win the big bucks? And if they can't or aren't willing to do that, what have they really done? They have proven they can beat the best players in a race to 11, that's the answer. BUT their peers have proven that as well, AND they are willing to prove it for 50 or 100k. See the BIG difference? You don't, but I do.

Dear Mr Hohmann,

The discussion started out with the question if you gamble or not. As many threads do in the forum world, the course has changed. About 50%
of the posts state that you haven't proven yourself in the pool world. Public perception is neither influenced by the sane to insane ratio of the
acclaimed billiards journalists on AzBilliards nor by the fact that one journalist argues his/her point over and over again. The post number
agreeing and disagreeing is the ultimate matter.

While still being a big fan of yours I have to agree that all you did in your career so far, is to win these race to 11 tournaments, like the World
Championship and the IPT. I think your pool legacy can be saved if you take a sharp turn for the better. I'm confident that you can find people
who have enough trust in your abilities to wager money on you beating champions like Dennis Hatch, Chris Bartrum and Dippy. I know you might
be thinking, well, I beat them in a tournament before but hey, even I can beat you or them in a measly race to 11, after all it's just a coinflip anyway.
I believe in you Thorsten, you are a great player. I hope you take my advice to heart and one day we will also talk about you when referring to
the great champions of our beloved sport.

sincerely,

a true fan

 

[dardusm]

Just as a few have said - gambling is for people who like to gamble. To question Hohmann's heart is ridiculous...let's see: two time world 14.1 champion, u.s. open 9 ball champion, world 9 ball champion and who knows how many German and European titles. The guy's already a lock for the HOF and he's only 32 years old. Besides who would really want to gamble with him even if he did gamble? A couple of filipino and taiwanese players who specialize in 9 ball and even then I'm not sure who the favorite is. Hohmann's best game is 14.1 and I'm sure no one in the world besides maybe Ortmann would want to play him in a long match (500-1000 points).

I don't believe Thorsten has won the US Open 9 ball yet.

I discount them because they haven't truly beaten any one player. I guess like I said, it's just a difference of opinion. You have to ask yourself, if they are so capable, why not just go out there and win the big bucks? And if they can't or aren't willing to do that, what have they really done? They have proven they can beat the best players in a race to 11, that's the answer. BUT their peers have proven that as well, AND they are willing to prove it for 50 or 100k. See the BIG difference? You don't, but I do.

Right now, there are very few big money matches between top players. It might have to do with the economy, skittish stake horses, or other reasons but players don't match up like they used to. I remember watching top players at Shooters in Olathe battling for the dough all the time. Now, it seems that everyone is looking for the nuts before playing.