Gambler vs non gambler

ignomirello

ignomirello

Tony IGGY
Silver Member
Gambler vs non gambler

lets say they are pretty even in play.

But # 1 is a tournament player who just enjoys playing.

# 2 is a gambler

Who has the advantage & by how many games?

Lets say they race to 15.

Who would win & by what score?

Yes the gambler would be playing for money Probably trying to high roll him.
 
Last edited:
way to abstract to answer imo. Ralph Soquet does not gamble ever, but I will take him over quite a few top pros.
 
IMO,
Usually a gambler can;

picks his opponent
picks the game
picks the rules
picks the time to play
demand to play on a certain table.
agrees to the money wager
agrees to a format
can quit anytime he wants
can use distractions to his advantage, its part of the game right? (sharking)
can demand an 'adjustment' when he is down in the score.

If the match is to be played with a referee and with tournament rules, I would say the tournament player has the advantage and the gambler wouldn't agree to the match.

Why would he? no money involved.
 
The tourney player should give the gambler 5 on 15. He's a three time champion on a hotly contested tour.
 
tournament player v. gambler is a difference without a meaningful distinction ... I mean you are paying money to enter a tournament, you are trying to win money right? There's pressure associated with both. If you can't get past that psychologically and can't handle the pressure of wagering more than a tourney entry fee, the answer is pretty simple ... don't "gamble"
 
oh and congratulations on creating a new thread to give that poor dead horse some CPR
 
If the gambler/tourney player play about even, in a race to 15 --- it's about a coin toss.

Anything can really happen in a few sets between two equally adept players, regardless of tourney or gambling prowess.

If you remove "the money pressure" from the match, all things are really equal. Every so often, you can also have a non-gambler rise to the occasion under money pressure as well.

So, you never know.
 
Tournaments are harder than gambling. You can only lose twice in a tournament then its time to go home. Gambling, you can play as many sets as your wallet will let you.

Gambler or not, if you're even... you're even.
 
champ2107 said:
if i was cleary i would no longer play you, even if you give the nuts! your just too much unneeded stress!
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not worth my time. He could have played anyone in the Wizard of Oz.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2012-01-13 at 12.56.40 PM.jpg
    Screen shot 2012-01-13 at 12.56.40 PM.jpg
    109.6 KB · Views: 793
Depends on whether or not the "non-gambler" has any heart or not.

I don't gamble much myself but if I was to play someone that played at my same skill level I don't think I would expect to get any weight just because I don't gamble much. Instead, I would tell myself I can beat this guy - I would then step up to the table and give it my best shot.

There's definitely something to be said for playing outside of your gambling comfort zone. I guess if a player that was my equal wanted to play for an amount of money that I wasn't comfortable playing for then I would just decline the game. I can't see asking for a spot in those situations just because you aren't as experienced of a gambler. I guess it doesn't hurt to try but that's just not my style.

If you really think about it - it's a horrible frame of mind to enter into a matchup with. What you are ultimately telling yourself is - "yes I am as skilled of a player as him, but once something is on the line I'm going to really suck!" Okay, so now you get a small spot. How does that change your mindset? It really doesn't. Your mindset will still be negative. Now you tell yourself - "well, I'm still going to suck really bad because we are betting something, but maybe I will get lucky and he will give me the match." That's about your only chance in that situation.

This is really the only time I agree with the idea that you really just have to step up and take your lumps. I don't agree with the idea that you need to constantly gamble with better players (giving them your money) to get better. But when it comes to playing players near your speed you just need to go for it.

Now, if you are just a nit lock artist that just gambles when you have the best of it then this post is not for you. Instead, just keep hanging around the pool hall until you can make your 40 dollar score. The rest of us guys are busy trying to get better.
 
Poorly disguised attempt at playing "mom vs dad" IMO

It sounds like you play even... The cost of finding out doesn't seem that excessive, prior to the 5 pages of retardation I'd venture a guess that there would be room for adjustment as necessary. Now I feel like the gambler owes it to the tournament player to torture and bankrupt him, for himself as well as the AZ readers subjected to the soap opera.

Surely I'm in the minority, though.
 
cleary said:
Tournaments are harder than gambling. You can only lose twice in a tournament then its time to go home. Gambling, you can play as many sets as your wallet will let you.

Gambler or not, if you're even... you're even.
Click to expand...


right on cleary - skill level is skill level. The only thing that would swing the advantage to the gambler is if the money were high enough to make the non-gambler uneasy. If it's a couple of hundred that the non-gambler could chalk up the same as not cashing in an out of town tourney....no biggee.

Good thing about gambling is you can lose the first two sets....raise the bet and play a few more. Can't do that in a tourney. :cool:
 
ignomirello said:
Gambler vs non gambler

lets say they are pretty even in play.

But # 1 is a tournament player who just enjoys playing.

# 2 is a gambler

Who has the advantage & by how many games?

Lets say they race to 15.

Who would win & by what score?
Click to expand...

i did not read all of the other thread but i read enough.

man you just need to give it a rest , your statement above that you play just for fun says it all. SO QUIT CALLING A GAMBLER OUT.

i compared both of yours records in the same tournaments. you avg 40 points and he avgd 32.5.

that tells me you are a slight favorite but you dont have enough confidence in yourself when money is on the line.

cleary has confidence, thats why he agreed to spot you 2 on 13.

if you cant run with the big dogs stay on the porch and quit barking.
 
You said it all

You have stated these two hypotehtical players are pretty even in play.

What else is there? Gambling experience does not provide a magic edge, lead, or charm. Playing experience does that.... and these players are pretty even... right?

Gambling experience may help confidence - maybe the ability to fade some bad rolls - but it can't make one single ball. The only exception I can think of is when one of the players is out of thier comfort zone (high rolled) and the other is not. Don't bet outside your comfort zone ever - or you will be thinking about your wallet instead of your stroke.


If the two players are even in play - I would give the edge to the guy who wants the win more for whatever reason.

Generally gamblers have an ability to match up a bit better - but your thoeretical guys are pretty even right? The match is made. Now it's time to shoot. I truly enjoy those "even" kind of matches or sets. Nobody has the nuts - and you have to really play to win.

For some reason - those matches used to be a lot easier to find. If you can get one now - jump on it. An even game - wow -
 
Last edited:
The Saw said:
The tourney player should give the gambler 5 on 15. He's a three time champion on a hotly contested tour.
Click to expand...

What The Saw is trying to say is that with the derby coming up..Chris Bartram would like to play some of the top pros with 5 or 6 on the wire to 15..Let the offers ring..The phone lines are open..Please contact The Saw with any further offers...Thank you


This message had been brought to you and funded by the organization known as The Leaders of the Underworld...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top