Earl Shane II

Hierovision said:
Move on, but don't forget who has honor and who doesn't.
Click to expand...

Money on the wood makes the betting good.

I believe in honor. When I make a game myself, I try to honor it.

Let's remember that Earl was 10,000 loser going into that, and he was trying to figure out any way possible how to beat Shane. I do see it a little funny, but I'm not surprised that Earl hasn't bounced back up and played Shane on the regulation table.
 
I believe that rematch will be honored. Just my opinion.
Also you never know who's gonna win in a race to 100 over 3 days.
 
Keith McCready said:
I've been following this thread a little bit, watching some of these posts about the match with Earl and Shane. People are complaining about Earl not playing a second set. The bottom line is this. I dreamed I could fly in my dreams, but it doesn't happen in real life.

The real scenario is most thought Shane Van Boening was stealing on any table. If you were worried about Earl playing a second set, you should have put up for two sets, somebody has to win two sets, and flip a coin and see which set is played first. Does that make any sense?

The reality is Shane Van Boening was a 3-to-4-to-1 favorite still, with a 20-game spot going to 100 with the other railbirds. I was on the phone with my friend when they were playing. We both would have bet on Earl with those odds, but we found out about it too late to make a wager. Believe me, I would never, ever bet on Earl playing Shane on any other table but that one. Shane didn't know the strength of going from a 4-1/2-by-9 to a snooker table, more or less. It's not like going from a big table to a bar table and vice versa.

I remember when I was playing on a 5-by-10 and a 6-by-12, I could take a champion that never missed a ball on a regulation table and put them on those two tables right there and just totally steal their money. What I'm trying to say is it's an entirely different game.

There's no doubt in my mind that Shane Van Boening would beat Earl on a regulation table. Earl can think what he wants. He can't win. Why do you think the game hasn't been played?

As far as Mike putting up the money and saying that he would play maybe a week later, he could be a little bit wrong in that spot, but the way you get that done is you put up for both sets. When you give a person time to think about playing Shane Van Boening even and putting up 10,000, I would think about it, too, once you've already won the first 10.

Shane and Earl are both great players, and I have a lot of respect for both of them. As far as the gambling goes, if another match was scheduled, the money should have been posted ahead of time. Since it wasn't, people do funny things when it comes to gambling. Been there, done it, seen it. All I can say is just move on. Shane Van Boening will bust many and many more people down the road. Good luck to all.
Click to expand...

Money talks bullshit walks,you r rite keith nothing is guarenteed when it comes to talk,now when it comes to money,well now u can count on it!
 
Keith McCready said:
Money on the wood makes the betting good.

I believe in honor. When I make a game myself, I try to honor it.

Let's remember that Earl was 10,000 loser going into that, and he was trying to figure out any way possible how to beat Shane. I do see it a little funny, but I'm not surprised that Earl hasn't bounced back up and played Shane on the regulation table.
Click to expand...

You are 100% right buddy...It's not just the not honoring the 2nd set agreement that has John so bitter bout the whole deal IMO...It was how Earl acted the 1st night..trying every move in the book & totally disrespecting Shane with his comments...so 1st you gotta cater to all their demands...fade Earl the lunatic....then fade their side back peddling & crawfishing on the original agreement....Been there before & it is like suckiing all the enjoyment out of the situation...I can understand Mike not wanting to put his money in a bad spot on the 2nd set...He said what he had to say to get the game that favored his player..so in that regards he did a good hustle...But I can totally get where John is coming from...I'd be disgusted to....Nobody likes to losee...We all get off on that lil high of being in action but to have the fun part of it zapped from you too is alot to swallow...That's all I'm saying is that I would be a lil twisted bout it myself if I would have staked it & have to fade it all...It is what it is...Holla at me if ya'll ever make it back down this way..We'll go eat some seafood & drink a few beers :thumbup:


I was just informed that you don't drink anymore....we can switch that to non alcoholic beer then ...Good for you...I still have a few from time to time.
 
Last edited:
I know this has been said before but this 1st match was a lot closer than Earl, Mike or many others are giving it credit for.

Think about it. Day one was when Earl went just crazy and behaved in a bad way that sharked Shane, I think everyone can agree on that. At the end of the day Earl was up by 10. From that point on Earl stopped most of his sharking and it was nip and tuck the rest of the way staying around a 10 game lead and less at some points.

So if we took out Earl doing his crazy thing the first day this would have been maybe a different result.
 
You keep tellin yourself that

jesters said:
i know this has been said before but this 1st match was a lot closer than earl, mike or many others are giving it credit for.

Think about it. Day one was when earl went just crazy and behaved in a bad way that sharked shane, i think everyone can agree on that. At the end of the day earl was up by 10. From that point on earl stopped most of his sharking and it was nip and tuck the rest of the way staying around a 10 game lead and less at some points.

So if we took out earl doing his crazy thing the first day this would have been maybe a different result.
Click to expand...

it was not earls antics that bothered him.
It wasn’t so much the table that bothered him.
He just shot like $hit.
He's going to lose once in a while.
Get over it & let it go.
Hopefully we will get to se them match up again.

SLIM
 
Roadking said:
Also you never know who's gonna win in a race to 100 over 3 days.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with the premise of this statement. This is what we say about tournament races to 3 and 5. The point of the race to 100 over 3 days is to see who the better player is because alot of times you have to overcome slumps and opponents hot streaks. I get the point that you can never truly know, but most of the time you've got a pretty damn good idea.
 
beav99_4life said:
i don't necessarily agree with the premise of this statement. This is what we say about tournament races to 3 and 5. The point of the race to 100 over 3 days is to see who the better player is because alot of times you have to overcome slumps and opponents hot streaks. I get the point that you can never truly know, but most of the time you've got a pretty damn good idea.
Click to expand...

Unless the wrong player ends up on the winning side.

SLIM
 
beav99_4life said:
I don't necessarily agree with the premise of this statement. This is what we say about tournament races to 3 and 5. The point of the race to 100 over 3 days is to see who the better player is because alot of times you have to overcome slumps and opponents hot streaks. I get the point that you can never truly know, but most of the time you've got a pretty damn good idea.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying but let's say Everyone thinks player A is better than player B
And at the end of day 2 it's all tied up. 75-75
So the 3rd day comes an player A doesn't feel so good and player B destroys player A.
Final score 100- 85
Does that make player B better then player A?
Question; Did TAR 20 turnout the way most people thought? Is player B really a better player A ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top