Hey guys I'm just starting to play some of the better people in my area for some cash. I got to figure out where I am in the totem pole I suppose. My question is in regards to the set lengths. If we're playing cheap, like say $10 or $20, what is the usual race? I figure a race to 4 or 5 is probably the appropriate amount right? Seems the sessions would go kind of long if we went beyond that. However, I always thought the better players would want to go for a long race like to 7 or 8 for the cheap to take out any luck the lesser skilled player would have. Then again I guess I don't really know what a long race is for the cash so I suppose I'm in the learning stages. If anyone could give me a set range for what they would play for $5, $10, $20, or $50 I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Gambling Set Lengths
- Thread starter LHP5
- Start date
Oh yea I meant 9-ball. Hmm...never would of thought of doing single games for cash but I guess I just haven't run into that yet. Thanks for the info.
Ask yourself, what's more important to you??? Does your interest in improving outweigh making money or vice versa??? That should help you decide...
Why play lesser players cheap, long sets at all? Table time will eat up whatever money you expect to profit and you most likely will show little improvement...
Save the cheap, long sets for players you can learn from....
More importantly though, try to enjoy yourself... Seems like the more you improve, the more of a grind it becomes....
Why play lesser players cheap, long sets at all? Table time will eat up whatever money you expect to profit and you most likely will show little improvement...
Save the cheap, long sets for players you can learn from....
More importantly though, try to enjoy yourself... Seems like the more you improve, the more of a grind it becomes....
Good points. Never thought of it that way in that why would you play a lesser player for a long set cheap when the profit is probably not there. I'm just trying to get used to the added pressure the money brings I guess. Not sure I truly understand your point though as in my scenarios I am definitely the lesser player lol. But I do agree with your last statement, I think I have improved a good bit this past year and definitely notice how the game is not as "fun" as it used to be lol.
i like playing cheap 5 for 10 or 7 for 20, it is so funny because the amount of money you play for is not an indication of your speed. i not looking to hurt know one and not looking to get hurt. if i am out gunned i may fire 2 barrels and pull up but if i got the nutts you never know what a guy will do. i read a lot of poker books to learn to gamble and my style is play my cards not yours. i would say translated to pool i got big slick every time i come to the table. i play the odds that i can beat 85% of players that approach me. also the cool thing about playing cheap the big time players don't bother with you and you remain under radar.
Go by the hour, $10.00 an hour of play if you like minimum wage! (about race to 3 or 5), $20 for race to 7 ..
If you get close to winning on three attempts and did not win, quit, it is not your night.
I agree that the amount you play for, especially when it's for anything under the hundreds, is not a real indication of your speed. Personally, I just want a better players realish game to gauge where I am and I've found that money tends to bring that out. I don't mind losing to a better player but I will give it my all.
After playing poker full time for a few years, I've change a lot of my ideas about gambling at pool. I was forced to treat gambling as a business, something I never really did much in pool.
I personally prefer having a set amount of money to be locked up and/or a time limit in place. I used to hate when I'd play someone for X amount of dollars per set, only to find out they would only loose 2 or 3 sets max when I was willing to lose much more. I had one instance where I lost 800 to someone one week and the next week they quit when they lost 300 and wouldn't play me with a fair game again. Obviously this was smart on their part, but I had no idea going into the first session this would be the case. After playing poker and knowing what kind of X dollars per hour I needed to make a living and having to choose only games where I could make this amount or more, I do the same thing in pool.
If someone wants to play 50 a set, I'd play races to 7(5 is ok, but I hate short races like that, too much variance) and have the stipulation we play until someone is ahead X amount and then decide whether or not to keep playing or play for X amount of hours. The reason I insist on locking up a certain amount is to make sure its worth my while before I start playing. In poker, if I see a table I know I can't make my hourly rate at, I don't play. In pool if I want the potential to make 200 in 8 hours or less and someone is unwilling to lock up 200, its not worth my time and I don't play.
The reason I always give someone a time limit on my playing is to avoid the stupid age old "don't quit while you're ahead" attitude of pool players.
For amounts around 1000$ or more, I prefer to play ahead sets as I feel that is the best test for proving the better player that day.
I personally prefer having a set amount of money to be locked up and/or a time limit in place. I used to hate when I'd play someone for X amount of dollars per set, only to find out they would only loose 2 or 3 sets max when I was willing to lose much more. I had one instance where I lost 800 to someone one week and the next week they quit when they lost 300 and wouldn't play me with a fair game again. Obviously this was smart on their part, but I had no idea going into the first session this would be the case. After playing poker and knowing what kind of X dollars per hour I needed to make a living and having to choose only games where I could make this amount or more, I do the same thing in pool.
If someone wants to play 50 a set, I'd play races to 7(5 is ok, but I hate short races like that, too much variance) and have the stipulation we play until someone is ahead X amount and then decide whether or not to keep playing or play for X amount of hours. The reason I insist on locking up a certain amount is to make sure its worth my while before I start playing. In poker, if I see a table I know I can't make my hourly rate at, I don't play. In pool if I want the potential to make 200 in 8 hours or less and someone is unwilling to lock up 200, its not worth my time and I don't play.
The reason I always give someone a time limit on my playing is to avoid the stupid age old "don't quit while you're ahead" attitude of pool players.
For amounts around 1000$ or more, I prefer to play ahead sets as I feel that is the best test for proving the better player that day.
Last edited:
i know what u mean about the cant quit a winner mentality, i have to work and limited on time. At The poker table I can leave anytime I want to. I cannot count how many times I get a guy's money back because I got tired
In terms of gambling, the "winner can't quit" stigma of pool is horrible strategy. Quitting a winner is how you make a living gambling.
For me it depends on what I am trying to accomplish. If I am playing a much better player even and donating, the longer the set the better. If I am playing a weaker player and they are donating (and they are nice), I will play longer sets even for 10 or 20$ like races to 7 or 9 if I am not doing anything better. If I am trying to make money and trying to outrun the table time or for whatever reason don't feel like spending any more time at the table with that opponent then races to 4 or 5 are it. I don't really get concerned with trying to take away the luck factor from a weaker player in a short race because the shorter race can make you stay focused and put more of a value on execution where a long set against a weaker player can encourage you to become a little sloppy. In addition, even if the weaker player wins a set or two in shorter races, you are better able to recover or outrun those setbacks than you would be if you happened to lose one of the longer races.
Race to 7 is the minimal for me. I don't like short races, because I warm up in the game a bit slowly.
I gambled for the pressure, not for the money.
I gambled for the pressure, not for the money.
That's a great post.... Thanks for your insight on gambling. Gonna keep those things in mind.
You need to take into consideration the amount of weight being given or received, if any. A friend and I play every week for $5 a game race to 7 even for practice and enjoyment. It really boils down too what you both are tiring to accomplish. Playing to get better is a like pyramid, start out with someone that's at least 2 balls better and play even. Don't jump on a player that runs over you, yes you can learn by watching but you need to be able to shoot a little to get the feel of pressure. Years ago A friend and I played a race to 20 every week for $20 a set (2 sets). I was the better player giving the call 7 wild 8. It was a good match for both of us and good practice.
Good luck!
Good luck!
Gamble for the pressure
If you gamble for the pressure than put the heat on em instead of a set for 50 play 50 a game and payoff after every game nothing puts heat on sum like winnin 3 or 4 games and them payin off the hip every time
If you gamble for the pressure than put the heat on em instead of a set for 50 play 50 a game and payoff after every game nothing puts heat on sum like winnin 3 or 4 games and them payin off the hip every time
I agree and posted this on prior threads about sets. Nothing like getting beat for the set by a couple of lucky rolls. This has happens to me more than the sun set in the horizon and is why will not play set for large amount. I would rather play $50 a game than $500 sets.
This happens to me a lot. I'm talking your 6 to 5 in a race too 7 and break dry. Your opponent run to the 6, misses the 7, gets lucky and hooks you. You can kick and hit the 7 but no real safes after with three balls left. He runs out, hill/hill, he breaks and makes the 9 on the snap.
Just part of the game, but still a little hard to take.
I would rather play the $500 sets, and their are no lucky rolls in Pool, you get exactly what you shot. For every action, there is a reaction. The only time a lucky roll happens is if the equipment is defective, i.e., the table is not level.
By that definition the table not being level is not "luck" either, as the ball rolls off, its directly related to the table conditions, and a reaction to the action is still present.
Don't argue semantics if you're going to contradict yourself.