That makes perfect sense. I assumed that each had a backer for the set amount. It definitely was a treat to get to watch.
Frost vs Alex - 1 Pocket Match on Monday for $40,000
- Thread starter Fast Lenny
- Start date
That makes perfect sense. I assumed that each had a backer for the set amount. It definitely was a treat to get to watch.
Honestly Lenny - I would contradict several of your points.
I never thought a player who is getting staked and gets back into the box as showing heart to simply get back up there. Now if he gets back in the box and wins his stakehorse his money back, then yes - he showed some heart.
Also, I have seen Scott play for a long time - I wouldn't say that he was born with the abundance of natural talent as say a Justin Bergman, John Morra, Mike Dechaine -- he was no where near that caliber player at their young ages. Scott had to pay his dues and over time became at one time the best one pocket player in the world.
I never thought a player who is getting staked and gets back into the box as showing heart to simply get back up there. Now if he gets back in the box and wins his stakehorse his money back, then yes - he showed some heart.
Also, I have seen Scott play for a long time - I wouldn't say that he was born with the abundance of natural talent as say a Justin Bergman, John Morra, Mike Dechaine -- he was no where near that caliber player at their young ages. Scott had to pay his dues and over time became at one time the best one pocket player in the world.
That is what I am saying, he has the heart to get in there and play along with getting the money or trying to, many times he has a good chunk of his own money in there also. There are plenty of people who have no heart and think getting in the box is easy if you are being staked, how many people would crumble playing for $20,000 on Billy I and others money? (that includes some pro players too)
Scott never practices, just gets up and plays (gambles), he has natural ability and was beat on coming up I am sure quite a bit. He might not have as much as the players you mentioned but certainly more then other players who practice 10 hours a day to be where they are at. He told me over the years he lost several hundred thousand dollars playing pool so you are right, he paid his dues. It is strange to hear the spots he was given by Efren and Cliff and each year the spot would become less and less until finally he was winning even, that is heart.
Are you saying scott bet some of his own on this?
If scott is still scott he's plotting on the rematch. Gotta play good players to really stay at top of your game.
As far as I know Scott always has some of his own money bet when he plays which I think is good and more players should do just that. I respect that he is willing to bet all he has at times too, tough not to give props for that. I think in the next year you will see Scott rise up again but it could be wishful thinking on my part. Scott is the definition of a true gambler who gets the cash more times than not.
I hear that...truth be told there's probably way more money to win giving 13-6
That one time in band camp...........
I saw the little lion betting his own on the 12 ball ghost where all the balls made on a scratch break spot up. He loses and loses and it's getting later and later and you can see his arm getting weaker and weaker. He was all-in 7 ahead for $1500ish. Last set of the night he quickly goes to -5 - two more games and he is done.
From there he runs 13 racks to take the cheese. Thought he was all-in but reaches into another pocket and pulls out 1500 and says if I had known it was there I would have put that in too.
takes a break for a day then comes back and beats the game - gets all the money back and more.
Alex might lose but he will never ever give up whether it's his money or yours on the line.
P.S. From now on all my personal gambling stories should be regarded as "in the middle" amounts. So my personal high for one pocket is now $1200 per game and not $600 as previously reported. ;-)
I saw the little lion betting his own on the 12 ball ghost where all the balls made on a scratch break spot up. He loses and loses and it's getting later and later and you can see his arm getting weaker and weaker. He was all-in 7 ahead for $1500ish. Last set of the night he quickly goes to -5 - two more games and he is done.
From there he runs 13 racks to take the cheese. Thought he was all-in but reaches into another pocket and pulls out 1500 and says if I had known it was there I would have put that in too.
takes a break for a day then comes back and beats the game - gets all the money back and more.
Alex might lose but he will never ever give up whether it's his money or yours on the line.
P.S. From now on all my personal gambling stories should be regarded as "in the middle" amounts. So my personal high for one pocket is now $1200 per game and not $600 as previously reported. ;-)
Last edited:
I agree about the way they add the bets. The bet was 20 dimes not 40. If I'm playing for 50 a game and someone ask whats the bet ? why would I say 100? I guess it started with streams just to hype the bet to make it sound like more. I know in the 70's and 80's, I never heard this type of adding.
Sigh... yes, the bet per man was 20 dimes. The match was 40 total
Can we separate different gambling games please? Paying by the game, it's 50 a game. In the end when you take it off the lamp, you better be taking off 100 or else you got shafted.
It didn't start with streams. And maybe you just didn't hear it.
Freddie <~~~ it's not about hype. it just is about clarification of the pot
Damn I hate to disagree with you Freddie. I think it DID start with the TAR matchups to say that the players were playing for the in-the-middle amount.
I guess we could go back to pre-TAR days on AZ and look at threads about big action and see how it was described but I am fairly sure that no one said so-and-so matched up for xxx$ and was talking about the pot size.
I think that all this started with calling these matches two-man tournaments with x-entry fee and a winner-take-all prize fund. I mean I started gambling on pool when I was 12 and up until a few years ago on this forum I have never heard anyone in the pool room talk about a pool bet in terms of anything other than what the bet is per side. As in Bobby is playing Billy for 20 dimes 8 ahead. I have NEVER heard it in person that Bobby is playing Billy for 40 in the middle.
But, I am open to change. So my last big win was 3600. (do I have to mention it was RMB?)
I guess we could go back to pre-TAR days on AZ and look at threads about big action and see how it was described but I am fairly sure that no one said so-and-so matched up for xxx$ and was talking about the pot size.
I think that all this started with calling these matches two-man tournaments with x-entry fee and a winner-take-all prize fund. I mean I started gambling on pool when I was 12 and up until a few years ago on this forum I have never heard anyone in the pool room talk about a pool bet in terms of anything other than what the bet is per side. As in Bobby is playing Billy for 20 dimes 8 ahead. I have NEVER heard it in person that Bobby is playing Billy for 40 in the middle.
But, I am open to change. So my last big win was 3600. (do I have to mention it was RMB?)
It sure is funny that the proclaimed best one pocket player in the world somehow couldn't play very well. Or was it that Alex is so much better than Scott? Seemed like Alex was a superior one pocket player. IMO, I think that if Scott was the superior player, he could have come back and made it very even and the match, perhaps, would still be going on.
Of course we all know how great a one pocket player Scott is. Seems like more was going on than meets the eye. Maybe not. Maybe just an off night.
Alex "The Lion"!
--Jeff
Of course we all know how great a one pocket player Scott is. Seems like more was going on than meets the eye. Maybe not. Maybe just an off night.
Alex "The Lion"!
--Jeff
Yeah but in ahead set unless agreed by both players of a prorate or any other special agreement(s) once the money is put in the middle that money no longer belongs to you. The money belongs to the winner of the ahead set.
So say you play for 20-25 hrs. and you're tired...etc....tough sh*t.
Once the money is locked up you can't quit, if you do it is forfeit and you lose anyway. So if it is $1000 per man you are actually playing for $2000 because once the money is in the middle the money is no longer yours. Until you win to get it back.
Damn I hate to disagree with you Freddie. I think it DID start with the TAR matchups to say that the players were playing for the in-the-middle amount.
That's not what the poster I responded to was saying. He said he never heard people adding the amounts before and that it's just a hype thing. That certainly didn't start with TAR. People were calling out the total amount at DCC for ahead sets (the total freeze up amount) long before TAR was around. And I think that was gambling Mecca other than Hard Times.
What TAR did was to CLARIFY what the amount was by saying "in the middle." People were saying the total bet for a long time before that. And people were confused back then.
Surely you can recall hearing about matchups a decade or more ago and asking "was that total or each?" and nobody could give a straight answer. And legends/fantasies would grow. (Walden vs Cooney... what was the amount?)
TAR (especially Nasty) did the great job IMO by simply clarifying it and hammering out the "in the middle" description. That way for sure we would know how much each side was in for. It certainly isn't about hype.
Freddie
Last edited:
didn't hear of the Internet back then either, yet here you are... :grin: