Gambling Scenario - Opinions?

[Kid Dynomite]

That is much different than saying “we’ll play one more set”.

For the record, I always tell my opponent how many sets I’m willing to play before we start. I feel no obligation to ever let someone have a chance to win back and losses, but if I enjoyed their company I will play with them again sometime. Believe it or not, many people will find a way to be upset with you even if you told them exactly how long you’re willing to play. People suck.

Also, I’m the type of guy that would rather play one long set for everything rather than a lot of short ones. At the end, someone wins and someone loses.

Yes people suck!

But, I am very selective about whom I play!

Most people know one another and are friends that spar and play for the adrenaline rush of victory!

At a certain level of play, you encounter people that play for a living.

What you encounter with each of these type of personalities is. Very different!

Because people suck! Those people get little to no action! Ask the bad boys of pro pool . I can name names, but why? We know who the problem people are.

Kd

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[SBC]

I guess I come from the old school that you don't quit a winner unless you have a reason, like you need to leave. To stick around, and then have the gall to ask the guy you just quit on if he wants to continue shooting for fun, is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I think I'll choose to stay out of it, based on what many of you here recommend. Personally, I've enjoyed playing sessions with this player. However, after this incident, I have no interest in playing with him anymore, knowing he thought this was OK to do this to another regular here.

All he had to do was say he had to go. To quit a guy and stick around is bad business.

Botrom line if a guy is in a bad game and you are winning it is your job to get what you can. If I guy wants to go off you let him.

I quit playing a guy who I lost 600 to one day...next day we play 3 sets and he won 2, up 100. He quits me and then stays in the room for hours. Not acceptable. Unless you have a legitimate place to be you gotta give a guy a shot at his money. If you don't you are going to kill your own action.

 

[btown]

IMO, they are only playing $20 sets for fun mostly and better practice.

To win 4 sets took a couple hours. I'd think quitting should be acceptable.

Otherwise does he have to play til they are even?

If they were playing for more then I'd say you can't quit.

But when people are only playing for a small amount it shouldn't be that big of a issue.

 

[RiverCity]

My question is, who paid the time? :duck:

 

[buckshotshoey]

Here's how I see it. Player B was informed before hand that if he lost the 4th set, that was it. He should have dug in and won that set.

Player B may have been known to have a bad gambling problem. So maybe player A quitting was the right thing to do.

Some of you act like since player A quit, he should have given player B his money back.

This is why I won't gamble. It brings out the worst in people. Player B should just accept his defeat and play another day.

Here's another way to look at it.... both of them were losers. They gambled their money on the tournament fee and Calcutta, and lost. Should the other tournament players let them keep playing for the chance of winning their money back? That's what some are proposing by these childish, made up gambling rules. Yes, its the same thing. Entering a tournament IS gambling. Just a different format.

 

[babyboy70363]

Two of our top players got knocked out of our weekly 9-ball tourney early last night, so they decided to match up and play some $20 sets. Both players, in their 30s, have played in our room as well as other poolrooms and tournaments for 20+ years and are among our top players. Player B has far more gambling experience than player A, but player A still has been around long enough that he should know what is acceptable in terms of gambling protocols. Neither of them are big gamblers, but they enjoy placing something $$ on their sets.

Player A got 3 sets ($60) up on player B, then player A informed player B his limit was $80 and he was planning to quit if he got to $80. The next set went hill-hill and player A won, and then quit. Player B still wanted to play more sets, but player A refused.

Then player A informed player B they could keep playing, just for fun, and player B refused, saying that was out of the question, and that he would never be playing him again. Player A then sat and observed tournament matches for another hour or more, before leaving. If he had made it to the finals of the tourney, which he often does, he would have been there up to 2 more hours.

I am the tournament director, as well as the proprietor and owner of the poolroom.
Both of these players are regular customers, and I consider both of them as friends of mine for many years. When player B told me what transpired, I was very angry.

I understand that what transpires between 2 players gambling is their business, so I am contemplating whether I should choose to stay completely out of it, or when I get the chance, to have a private conversation with player A, explaining to him that what he did was not acceptable, that player B had valid reason to be very angry, and explain to him exactly why, in hopes that he would learn from his mistake and not think he could do this again.

Just curious what others here think about this situation and as to what I, as Proprietor, as well as being a friend of both players should do, if anything?

I see one issue here, the details were not discussed prior to the start of session. The right time for someone to say hey I'm playing to 80.00 is before the start of the session not three sets up.

Unfortunately, for player b, if he wanted to cry it should have been prior to the fourth set, not after losing. At the point that he started the fourth set after being told by player a that he was quiting after he got to 80.00, he accepted the challenge.......

I personally have never quit ahead without offering my opponent to play for his money back, whether it was all in on one set or a finite number of sets. But I also don't gamble for a living, I gamble for fun. I can see where a guy who depends on his gambling money would think it's ok to quit while he's ahead, AND be perfectly fine with hanging around afterwards......he just won't get my action......more than once!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[easy-e]

IMO, they are only playing $20 sets for fun mostly and better practice.

To win 4 sets took a couple hours. I'd think quitting should be acceptable.

Otherwise does he have to play til they are even?

If they were playing for more then I'd say you can't quit.

But when people are only playing for a small amount it shouldn't be that big of a issue.

That’s a point I forgot to mention! It’s only $20 sets. No one should care either way.

 

[marek]

Player A informed player B after the 3rd set that given he wins the forth set he is finished gambling for the night and player B agreed on that. So I dont see whats this fuss about, there was no obligation for player A to leave premises after the fourth set, player B is just a bad loser plain and simple..

 

[Nostroke]

Anyone is entitled to quit anytime-Player B should be happy he quit. As with everything on earth-the most likely thing to happen is a continuation of that which has been happening.

If someone told me before a match "you can't quit a winner now!" who on earth would play? Not me.

 

[realkingcobra]

Look, you guys are blowing this quitting ahead on the money way out of proportion. Any player has the right to quit ahead on the money, or behind as well. On one hand, you're bashing a guy for quitting ahead on the money, yet on the other hand, if player B had pockets full of cash....and you ONLY got $80 of it so far, everyone of you would be calling him a NIT for not losing more of it to you....because he decided to call it quits on you...then decided to go gamble with someone else....and lose more. Yeah, that's right, you'd be pissed, not so much at the guy that just quit playing you, you'd be pissed an the guy that's NOW taking money off the guy that just QUIT playing you....because you only got $80 off him....and he's still qilling to lose more....just not to YOU! But don't get me wrong now, there are things that happen if a player has a tendency to quit while ahead, such as building a rep for quitting ahead, which might change the minds of some people wanting to play him, as they don't want to get stuck and not have a chance to get their money back....but that thought process only goes through the mind of a player that might just lose. But it NEVER even gets considered by a player that CAN beat the quitting ahead player, his plans are to win to begin with, then see how much more he'll lose chasing the money he's already lost....and THAT'S how he gets lead to slaughter.

 

[realkingcobra]

If you're going to play for money, understand this....there are NO written or Unwritten rules that you play by when it comes to who wins and who loses....it just is what it is....gambling, period. Has nothing to do with ethics morals or anything else. You can save all that shit for another day, AFTER you leave.

RULE number 1 in gambling, DON'T let your opponent win the first game, then you have him playing to get that first LOSS back....and keep him chasing the rabbit as long as you can!

 

[Pushout]

Stay out of it. They have both been around long enough to know how to act. Player A behavior is odd but the situation won't get better if you get involved.

 

[Johnny Rosato]

Best you stay out of it.
"A" should have told "B" BEFORE they started that the limit was $80, meaning win $80 I quit. Also if I lose $80 I quit.
Similar to saying I'll play a set for $80, then win, lose, draw, or the building cave in, I'm done. He waited till the 3rd game to call the terms, I don't agree with that.

 

[alstl]

Your pool hall but my advice would be to stay out of it.

You don't know exactly why the guy didn't want to continue to gamble. Most likely to walk into a road player's trap - player B.

 

[ChrisinNC]

I see one issue here, the details were not discussed prior to the start of session. The right time for someone to say hey I'm playing to 80.00 is before the start of the session not three sets up.

Unfortunately, for player b, if he wanted to cry it should have been prior to the fourth set, not after losing. At the point that he started the fourth set after being told by player a that he was quiting after he got to 80.00, he accepted the challenge.......

I personally have never quit ahead without offering my opponent to play for his money back, whether it was all in on one set or a finite number of sets. But I also don't gamble for a living, I gamble for fun. I can see where a guy who depends on his gambling money would think it's ok to quit while he's ahead, AND be perfectly fine with hanging around afterwards......he just won't get my action......more than once!

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I think most of us will agree that when one of the player states that $80 is his limit, the assumption is he means $80 loser, not $80 winner. Anyway, I've decided not to discuss this issue with the player involved. He will however, eventually come to understand the consequences of his actions.

Next time he bids high on me or on Player B in the tournament auction, which will happen, ideally in the same tournament, we'll let him have us, then we'll not even bother buying half ourselves back so he has the whole thing. We'll then go two-and-out rather obviously. He will hopefully then learn the lesson of what it means to quit on someone!

 

[WoodyMPW]

Next time he bids high on me or on Player B in the tournament auction, which will happen, ideally in the same tournament, we'll let him have us, then we'll not even bother buying half ourselves back so he has the whole thing. We'll then go two-and-out rather obviously. He will hopefully then learn the lesson of what it means to quit on someone!

Yeah, that certainty will help the tournaments image and integrity. Stop playing the police when you aren't needed.

 

[ChrisinNC]

Yeah, that certainty will help the tournaments image and integrity. Stop playing the police when you aren't needed.

You;re missing the point - integrity (or lack of) on the part of this nit is the very reason he needs to learn a lesson where it hurts, in his wallet. These things have a way of working themselves out in a pool room.

 

[buckshotshoey]

I think most of us will agree that when one of the player states that $80 is his limit, the assumption is he means $80 loser, not $80 winner. Anyway, I've decided not to discuss this issue with the player involved. He will however, eventually come to understand the consequences of his actions.

Next time he bids high on me or on Player B in the tournament auction, which will happen, ideally in the same tournament, we'll let him have us, then we'll not even bother buying half ourselves back so he has the whole thing. We'll then go two-and-out rather obviously. He will hopefully then learn the lesson of what it means to quit on someone!

That's the problem.... most of us DONT agree with you. And acting like a 10 year old, by pourpously throwing a match isn't going to prove anything to anyone, except who has a lack of character.

 

[Kid Dynomite]

Best you stay out of it.
"A" should have told "B" BEFORE they started that the limit was $80, meaning win $80 I quit. Also if I lose $80 I quit.
Similar to saying I'll play a set for $80, then win, lose, draw, or the building cave in, I'm done. He waited till the 3rd game to call the terms, I don't agree with that.

This is not right!


You tell him 4 ahead for $80???

Obviously not!

That is the problem. Communication and respect.

Kd

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[jrhendy]

Maybe player A thinks he is stealing and being a good guy, wants to limit player B’s losses to $80.