watchez said:
I know watchez...don't worry. You and I are friends so I didn't take any of that out of context.
Girls Get The 7 Ball For $10,000 to $50,000
- Thread starter hemicudas
- Start date
- Status
I know watchez...don't worry. You and I are friends so I didn't take any of that out of context.
I agree. Women do not play on the same level, but that doesnt mean they cannot win. With or without a spot.
I think the bottom line is.... anyone can beat anyone. I've seen Efren miss a 9 ball that any D player in the country can make. Sure, doesnt happen often, but even the best fail. Even the best have a bad day. And in a race to 10, I think its anyones game no matter what is on the line.
I think the bottom line is.... anyone can beat anyone. I've seen Efren miss a 9 ball that any D player in the country can make. Sure, doesnt happen often, but even the best fail. Even the best have a bad day. And in a race to 10, I think its anyones game no matter what is on the line.
iba7467 said:
Well, first you cite your opinion as being fact...but then state, much more correctly, that you are expressing an opinion.
And there IS money on the line...sometimes as much as $50-100,000 (all too rarely) but even in $15-25k matches, that is GROCERY money for all but a few pros so saying that they are under no pressure...or less pressure doesn't make much sense to me.
In addition, the pressure of winning a prestigious TITLE such as the U.S. Open...BCA etc. often means as much money in endorsements, advertising fees etc. as the match itself.
In gambling sessions none of the side benefits are present to create pressure and often...not always, but often...the money is put up by a stake horse so the player has NO money of his or her own on the line.
There is no heart rate monitor that is hooked up to pros to see which kind of event places them under the most pressure so there is no FACT to be presented here.
Besides, many players react VERY differently. Some players have become quite well off financially and may care A LOT more about adding a major title to their historic record than they care about the money.
Regards,
Jim
watchez said:
"Wait a second. Wait a second." Does that mean we all should have waited TWO seconds?
And who is dragging Sarah into anything? She posts here voluntarily doesn't she?
And about VASTLY
(just want to be sure you could read that word since you were so helpful along those lines in your post)
I have no idea how old Sarah is and if I knew, I wouldn't post it here but in case you hand't noticed, she is a professional who in her +/- 7 years as an adult has had 2555 days to WATCH and participate in gambling sessions.
If I get OUT to play (instead of practicing at home) once every other week that's a lot. That would be 26 times a year.
As far as gambling sessions...where more than a few hundred bucks is at stake, if I get to watch or bet at 10 per year, that's a lot...so that's 500 sessions in TWENTY YEARS.
Sarah lives in the Southeast (at least I have seen her several times in Nashville/Atlanta) and I have seen her involved in booking gambling matches as well as play in them, so I just assumed that as a pro who is well known to involve herself in gambling or to watch such matches, she had watched or seen a lot more than I have.
After 20 years and 500 sessions...some people are smart enough to get the idea of how it all works...while of course, others are slow learners.
But whatever you think is a joke is your business.
And that gets the illiteracy award of the year. I made no such statement...in fact made the OPPOSITE of that statement. Get some remedial reading help.
WRONG AGAIN. The original post never mentioned the subject of whether gambling or tournament play was the best test of skill. Again...READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
Jim
watchez said:
Well, zero is obviously wrong...but you seem to have little concern about posting incorrect information. Nevertheless, however unwittingly, you made my point for me. There is NO DOUBT that Bartram and Sarah have more experience than I in gambling. But do you think that everyone who has more experience that someone else is NECESSARILY better at what they do?????????
That's the point you seem to be making and it's nonsense.
But why do you have to be so hateful in your posts? The DISCUSSION (in the subthread) was merely about what version of pool matches is best to determine playing SKILL. I and others, think that is an interesting topic of DISCUSSION.
I merely expressed my views on that subject and NEVER held myself out as any world champion gambler so your flame throwing is nonsensical.
If my responses to you have been edgy that is only because yours to me have been TIRADES.
Jim
By the way watchez...you are largely responsible for my interest in the difference in skill testing...gambling vs. tournament play when you wrote...
"Here is the final end all point on this subject that will end any & all discussion by av84fun:
Please list the women that have gambled & won playing any top male player with the 7 ball. When you can put a name on this list & name the game, I will continue to listen to any post that you make as having any kind of intellectual basis.
If ANYONE had the same belief & mentality as you, then surely one of these women champions would be put in the box to take on the men. If you would like to pick a woman to get the 7 & stake her, then I will surely listen to what you have to say."
As you know, in the very last "contest" Allison had against male players, she beat several of them including two top 50 CHAMPIONS without ANY spot.
Knowing that you MUST have been aware of that then logic dictates that you think gambling is a better test than tournament play since you clearly would have lost big time had you been sweating those DCC matches.
I was just curious as to WHY you and SOME others think that gambling is the better test.
FINALLY...speaking of "experience" neither the OP nor anyone else has ever DEFINED THE BET!
There was NO mention of whether it would be races...and if so to what or how many sets...or an ahead set, or how many of them...or winner or alternate breaks.
All the OP did was to woof at women(in spite of the fact that a certain poster here doesn't even know what woofing is)...taunting them with the statement that they would sit there and get run out on.
And oh, by the way...he high rolled them too. Why a MINIMUM of $10,000.00? (Do you know what high rolling is?)
If he wanted to get some action for the gentleman, why not just post an Action Thread to all comers...men included?
But back to the experience issue, AT LEAST I know that there would be a RADICAL difference in the "betting line" depending on the variables I cited above. Are YOU aware of that or do you think that races are the same as ahead sets and winner vs. alternate breaks are the same...or the guaranteed number of sets makes a BIG difference?
Even I...lowly gambling nit that you think I am know THAT much....SIR.
"Here is the final end all point on this subject that will end any & all discussion by av84fun:
Please list the women that have gambled & won playing any top male player with the 7 ball. When you can put a name on this list & name the game, I will continue to listen to any post that you make as having any kind of intellectual basis.
If ANYONE had the same belief & mentality as you, then surely one of these women champions would be put in the box to take on the men. If you would like to pick a woman to get the 7 & stake her, then I will surely listen to what you have to say."
As you know, in the very last "contest" Allison had against male players, she beat several of them including two top 50 CHAMPIONS without ANY spot.
Knowing that you MUST have been aware of that then logic dictates that you think gambling is a better test than tournament play since you clearly would have lost big time had you been sweating those DCC matches.
I was just curious as to WHY you and SOME others think that gambling is the better test.
FINALLY...speaking of "experience" neither the OP nor anyone else has ever DEFINED THE BET!
There was NO mention of whether it would be races...and if so to what or how many sets...or an ahead set, or how many of them...or winner or alternate breaks.
All the OP did was to woof at women(in spite of the fact that a certain poster here doesn't even know what woofing is)...taunting them with the statement that they would sit there and get run out on.
And oh, by the way...he high rolled them too. Why a MINIMUM of $10,000.00? (Do you know what high rolling is?)
If he wanted to get some action for the gentleman, why not just post an Action Thread to all comers...men included?
But back to the experience issue, AT LEAST I know that there would be a RADICAL difference in the "betting line" depending on the variables I cited above. Are YOU aware of that or do you think that races are the same as ahead sets and winner vs. alternate breaks are the same...or the guaranteed number of sets makes a BIG difference?
Even I...lowly gambling nit that you think I am know THAT much....SIR.
Again, Mr. Zero - you missed the boat. My point, for the final time is, you keep saying how the women can play with the men but in fact you admit that you are not so knowledgable as a 25 year old so you have no basis. Obviously, you can't comprehend that but you don't have to as you are not willing to put any of your female championis in the box.
Also, so you can understand - I don't ever recall seeing a gambling match of alternating breaks unless it was one pocket. Stringing racks is part of the game. You don't like that part because you know that women cannot do it as well.
Why $10,000? Because, if I can speak for Bill/Reid/Ronny - Reid has not gambled in quite some time. IF he was to pursue it, it should be worth his while not some exhibition- race to 7, alternate breaks, break from the circle, loser pays the time - match that you would like to see.
Quote watchez:
Yes gambling is the best qualifier on who the better player is. (Also, the original subject of this thread)
Quote mr. zero:
WRONG AGAIN. The original post never mentioned the subject of whether gambling or tournament play was the best test of skill. Again...READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
No hooked on phonics - it mentioned GAMBLING - THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.
Buy a ticket to the next WPBA event, wave to Allison and you will be happy. Don't worry about me.
Also, so you can understand - I don't ever recall seeing a gambling match of alternating breaks unless it was one pocket. Stringing racks is part of the game. You don't like that part because you know that women cannot do it as well.
Why $10,000? Because, if I can speak for Bill/Reid/Ronny - Reid has not gambled in quite some time. IF he was to pursue it, it should be worth his while not some exhibition- race to 7, alternate breaks, break from the circle, loser pays the time - match that you would like to see.
Quote watchez:
Yes gambling is the best qualifier on who the better player is. (Also, the original subject of this thread)
Quote mr. zero:
WRONG AGAIN. The original post never mentioned the subject of whether gambling or tournament play was the best test of skill. Again...READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
No hooked on phonics - it mentioned GAMBLING - THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.
Buy a ticket to the next WPBA event, wave to Allison and you will be happy. Don't worry about me.
Sarah, I'm wondering what you mean by your use of the word "equality"? Are you referring to tournament availability? Exposure? Expertise? Ability?sarahrousey said:
Thanks~ Doc
watchez said:
You are AMAZING. If you would stop foaming at the mouth and READ up to 4th grade level you would see how embarrassing your hystrionics are.
Quote watchez:
Yes gambling is the best qualifier on who the better player is. (Also, the original subject of this thread)
Quote mr. zero:
WRONG AGAIN. The original post never mentioned the subject of whether gambling or tournament play was the best test of skill. Again...READING IS FUNDAMENTAL.
READ your comment. It is in RED. In it you state CLEARLY (but incorrectly) that the original subject of the thread had to do with gambling being the best qualifier of player skill.
Now READ my comment. It is in BLUE. It is also CORRECT. There is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER, in the original post of anything to do with gambling being used as a measure of a player's SKILL.
That is probably the most ignorant post in this entire thread...and there have been some DOOZIES.
Possibly you haven't heard the buzz...but several WORLD CHAMPIONS are playing each other in IPT events for $5,000.00. And many others are traveling all over the United States entering tournaments offering a couple of thousand dollars in prize money.
The notion that your boy won't play for less than double what some of the greatest champions of all time aren't "too busy" to play forl just demonstrates what a fool you are.
No Mr. 3rd Grade Dropout. Here is my EXACT quote.
"You have seen and played in VASTLY more gambling matches than I have but in my experience, I would say that at least half of the ahead sets I've seen were won with packs and not grinding."
Do you understand the difference between KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE?
DO YOU???
Are you aware that Astronauts have ZERO space travel EXPERIENCE when they take their first trip into space? But do you think they have no KNOWLEDGE???
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have PLENTY of both KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE puppy dog.
And why do you use the grade school tactic of asserting your opponent has said something that he never did. I KNOW that Allison and Karen have no chance against top men over an extended series of matches AND NEVER SAID THEY DID!!
But what I also KNOW and what is a matter of FACT is that Allison and Karen CAN AND HAVE beaten top pro IN GIVEN MATCHES!
But the DCC thread where I got bashed by the likes of you was FULL of comments to the extent that they could not even finish in the money let alone top 50 and NO ONE thought they could end up top 20.
But they were WRONG and for some reason that seems to freak you out so badly that you post preposterous mischaracterizations of what I have been talking about.
Chill OUT.
(-:
Flex said:
TOO FUNNY! To the "ladies and gentlement of AZ" you proudly present yourself as blaming women for the Civil War and sympathize with one of the most staunch anti-feminists of the first half of the 20th century.
But ya know...maybe you're right. I mean who the HELL ever started that ridiculous notion that women should have a vote anyway? Bunch a Commie Pinkos I'll bet.
LOL
gulfportdoc said:
Doc, I just meant equality when it comes to skill level. We get plenty of exposure and have an organization. I seem like quite the feminist now that I reread that.
av84fun said:
Actually, I don't blame women for the war; while Lincoln probably deserves his share.
As for Weaver being opposed to feminism, I think his take on much of the attacks on the South, which continue until today, were spot on. The feminist attacks against traditional Southern society continue to this day. And by the way, Weaver's doctoral dissertation which was accepted by the University of Chicago (no conservative bastion, to be sure) that I mentioned earlier was no mere opinion or propaganda piece. It was fully documented and researched.
Regarding the role the Southern ladies played in the conflict, it was his contention, backed up by serious analysis, that Southern ladies in particular were very jealous of their rights, and their social status in society, and with the growing encroachment of "Yankee industrialism" coming from the North, many saw an end to the respect due them, and were strongly opposed to it.
So if you wish to indict Weaver, why not indict Southern ladies of that time as well?
It's unfortunate, in my view, that Weaver never became Roman Catholic...
Flex
av84fun said:
I certainly don't want to take anyone's side in the little tit-for-tat thing you guys have going on, but I figured I'd comment on this.
For a professional pool player, with no other source of income but pool, $5000, or even "a couple thousand dollars" is much more significant than it is to someone who is making a decent living outside of pool with a constant stream of income. What is worthwhile to one person might not be to another. As we all know, pool is a tough racket and, if you're trying to do it for a living, you have to do what you have to do to earn an income. I don't know what Reed's financial status is at the moment, but perhaps he is not in the same situation as the world champions who are traveling all over the U.S. for a shot at a couple thousand dollars.
- Status