Higher Stakes = More Improvement or No?

I think high stakes gambling will for sure make you better faster.Any player can take that to the bank-if he could afford to open an account there,which he can't.
 
kollegedave said:
I think a significant portion of the pool playing community has long recognized that, at least for many people, engaging in “action” matches can have a positive impact on the skill level of those competing. This makes sense, as with something at stake, the participants are likely going to “try their hardest” to win, so as to not lose money.

Of course, this practice stands in contrast to playing maybe by yourself practicing or against an opponent with “nothing” on the line.

My question to the forum is this: Does anyone believe there is a benefit to developing skill level in pool where a pool player intentionally pushes him or herself to gamble with stakes higher than they would normally be comfortable with. To me, if a player does this over time, they are likely to become more comfortable with higher stakes, but I am not certain that this increased comfort level with higher stakes translates to an improved player over whatever improvement would have occurred if the player in question simply played the same matches with lower stakes…provided, of course, the lower stakes were sufficient to cause the player to try hard.

What you do all say? Do higher stakes make for quicker or more substantial improvement?

kollegedave
Click to expand...

Getting and staying better at pool or playing at our best on any given day depends on:

Developing a consistent approach, stance, stroke etc.....

Learning pattern and safety play...

And lastly, being able to do it under PRESSURE.

So, yes, gambling is ONE way to develop a taste for pressure.

Keep in mind though, gambling outside your comfort zone is only half the battle. The other half is to not be a bit and step up to a player that plays better than you do.....hummm.....some call that heart etc......

Well, I call it stupidity.

Find someone that can give you 3 balls and play them EVEN ..... trust me, if you are meant to be a player, well, after enough losses the competitive side of you will team up with your consistent pool game and become whatever level player you can.

Gambling and improvement is a fine line between lessons and stupidity. Make sure you know which side of the line your on at all times.

Rake
 
beetle said:
I'm a 550 Fargo. I have rarely gambled and generally prefer tournaments.

Until last month, the highest entry I had ever paid was $200. Last month there was a $1000 entry 550 and under tournament limited to 8 players, single elimination 10 ball, race to 15. Only the top 2 finishers got into the money ($5300 for 1st; $2700 for 2nd).

I am comfortable but not rich. Risking $1000 definitely took me out of my comfort zone, but if I lost it, I would still be fine and I was prepared for that.

However, I felt I had a decent chance and I wanted to see how I handled the pressure and take a shot at the 5 grand. My confidence was pretty high since I had just taken 4th place out of 83 players in a big 600 and under tournament.

My first match was close, but I held the lead the entire way and won 15-12.

All I had to do was win the next match to be guaranteed $2700.

My second match had a horrendous start. My opponent played great (almost perfect) and before I knew it, I was down 5-0. Then 7-1. I won a few games, but we kept trading and then the score was 12-6. I just couldn't get anything going and felt like I was burying myself in a deep hole.

I was going through a mental torture of just wanting to give up at first and then thinking that if my opponent could play so well at the beginning, why couldn't I play that well at the end?

Luckily that other voice prevailed and I started chipping away, 1 game at a time. I was focusing so intensely that I can't really remember much about each game. I had put so much pressure on myself that I had no choice but to think of one shot at a time.

Maybe an hour later, I had somehow won 8 games in a row and I was on the hill, 14-12. I ended up winning 15-13. It was the most surreal and exhausting match I have ever had. But I can't say I was nervous. I was angry to have dug such a deep hole. I went through the emotions of just wanting to lose and be done with it, to wanting just to make it a redeemable showing, to knowing I could come back and win it.

I think that this match was the most important competitive experience of my life and knowing that I could come back from that deficit to win the match has really helped my confidence.

I was ahead the entire time in the third match, but it was close and we decided to chop when the score was 12-11. It had been 12 hours of pool and I was mentally and physically exhausted. We were both very happy to have $4000 after the long day!

I feel like this was the perfect test of nerves: the ideal combination of tournament play and gambling. I gained an incredible amount of experience and knowledge that will go into all my future competitions.

So I encourage everyone to step out of their comfort zone to test yourselves. You might get lucky and have nice ending like I did!
Click to expand...
Figured you guys would split the $$ when the score was tied. I assume it was the player that was winning 12-11 that offered the split. Just curious, was it you or him? After reading your post again, pretty obvious it was you that made the offer - I don't blame you. In the finals of one of our big tournaments early this year in which the difference between 1st and 2nd would have been like $600, even though I was undefeated, playing well, and had already beaten this player earlier, I offered him a split, as it was a single race final, it was getting late and we were the only 2 left in the room, not to mention he's a good friend.
 
Last edited:
My opponent suggested we split before even starting, but I wanted to play. Plus there were a lot of people watching (and presumably betting). I figured if it was lopsided either way then the winner deserved the full amount.

After we played 23 games and were essentially tied, we both revisited the idea, so I think we both knew what each other was thinking about proposing a chop. And we were both relieved to do that.

I know I could have won, and maybe was a favorite, but I didn't want a $3000 swing to come down to a rattled 10 or something and I just had a feeling we were heading to hill-hill territory. A coin flip for $3000? No thank you! I decided that I had gambled enough!

--Steve

ChrisinNC said:
Figured you guys would split the $$ when the score was tied. I assume it was the player that was winning 12-11 that offered the split. Just curious, was it you or him? After reading your post again, pretty obvious it was you that made the offer - I don't blame you. In the finals of one of our big tournaments early this year in which the difference between 1st and 2nd would have been like $600, even though I was undefeated, playing well, and had already beaten this player earlier, I offered him a split, as it was a single race final, it was getting late and we were the only 2 left in the room, not to mention he's a good friend.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with your post Clusterbuster! While you can't measure success via gambling, you most certainly can measure and track success from great instruction. It's being continually proven that strategic lessons to improve your stroke are the quickest path to an accurate and repeatable stroke! In the long run, lessons are much cheaper than gambling. Really, all gambling can do, is make you a better gambler. It really has nothing to do with pocketing skills. Can gambling cure the "yips"? Maybe...maybe not. But having complete and total confidence in your stroke will do wonders for dealing with pressure.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Clusterbuster said:
Kollegedave's reference to the recognition of gambling as a path for improved play frames the issue incorrectly from the outset. It is more of an assumption than recognition of a fact. Improved performance as a consequence of gambling is almost impossible to actually prove. The variables are just too great. The common scenario is some kid starts playing pool and, either through aptitude, dedication or whatever, begins to show promise. Then he starts playing more regularly, hanging in the pool hall more, getting ever more experience, etc. At some point he starts gambling, probably at the point he is on an upward trajectory anyway. Then the question becomes whether his improvement stems from playing more, doing drills, and becoming a part of the pool culture or is it specifically because of his gambling. There is really no way to tell. The same guy who is betting substantially is also probably the same guy who is in the pool hall several nights a week, doing the tournaments, etc. In real life, there is never going to be a control group to compare the gambler against the non-gambler. Every story of someone improving at the point he started gambling becomes simply anecdotal. Many people have been observed to improve significantly after they start gambling. They are the heralded ones. You've got to suspect that there are nonetheless substantial numbers who saw no particular effect either way from gambling or gambling actually slowed their improvement by crushing their confidence, pushing them away from the game, etc. They are the ones you never hear about and their experience doesn't work into the lore. I fully accept that a number of people probably improve by virtue of gambling but it is almost impossible to prove in any given case that gambling is what improved their game as opposed to various other factors. While that experience clearly occurs, it can't even be said that it's typical or more common that gambling having a negative effect. Nor is it enough to say that someone knows a dozen guys who were muddling along at a certain level and all of a sudden their game took off after they started playing for high stakes. Correlation is not causation. Could it be? Yeah. Is it proven? No.
Click to expand...
 
Sure, I get it that no one is going to set up controlled experiment to discern whether players who gamble improve faster and further vs. players who don't.

When I first started playing seriously over 20 years ago (I am 39), everybody at the pool hall told me to gamble. I thought they just wanted me to lose my money to them. I think I might have been at least partly accurate in that suspicion, as on the rare occasion I see those "brave" gamblers now, they are no longer in a rush to play me.

However, in the last few years I have had the opportunity to play some cheaper sets with a very good player. I think it has helped me immensely--the number of ways it helped me could start another thread. It did. There is no doubt. However, I don't need a lot of money at stake to try my hardest.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if I was willing to lose more money to play a player that is of even a higher class, and that is why I started this thread.

I appreciate everyone who responded, especially lfigueroa and SJM, as they always have smart things to say and they are both internet celebrities :)

kollegedave





Clusterbuster said:
Kollegedave's reference to the recognition of gambling as a path for improved play frames the issue incorrectly from the outset. It is more of an assumption than recognition of a fact. Improved performance as a consequence of gambling is almost impossible to actually prove. The variables are just too great. The common scenario is some kid starts playing pool and, either through aptitude, dedication or whatever, begins to show promise. Then he starts playing more regularly, hanging in the pool hall more, getting ever more experience, etc. At some point he starts gambling, probably at the point he is on an upward trajectory anyway. Then the question becomes whether his improvement stems from playing more, doing drills, and becoming a part of the pool culture or is it specifically because of his gambling. There is really no way to tell. The same guy who is betting substantially is also probably the same guy who is in the pool hall several nights a week, doing the tournaments, etc. In real life, there is never going to be a control group to compare the gambler against the non-gambler. Every story of someone improving at the point he started gambling becomes simply anecdotal. Many people have been observed to improve significantly after they start gambling. They are the heralded ones. You've got to suspect that there are nonetheless substantial numbers who saw no particular effect either way from gambling or gambling actually slowed their improvement by crushing their confidence, pushing them away from the game, etc. They are the ones you never hear about and their experience doesn't work into the lore. I fully accept that a number of people probably improve by virtue of gambling but it is almost impossible to prove in any given case that gambling is what improved their game as opposed to various other factors. While that experience clearly occurs, it can't even be said that it's typical or more common that gambling having a negative effect. Nor is it enough to say that someone knows a dozen guys who were muddling along at a certain level and all of a sudden their game took off after they started playing for high stakes. Correlation is not causation. Could it be? Yeah. Is it proven? No.
Click to expand...
 
kollegedave said:
Sure, I get it that no one is going to set up controlled experiment to discern whether players who gamble improve faster and further vs. players who don't.

When I first started playing seriously over 20 years ago (I am 39), everybody at the pool hall told me to gamble. I thought they just wanted me to lose my money to them. I think I might have been at least partly accurate in that suspicion, as on the rare occasion I see those "brave" gamblers now, they are no longer in a rush to play me.

However, in the last few years I have had the opportunity to play some cheaper sets with a very good player. I think it has helped me immensely--the number of ways it helped me could start another thread. It did. There is no doubt. However, I don't need a lot of money at stake to try my hardest.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if I was willing to lose more money to play a player that is of even a higher class, and that is why I started this thread.

I appreciate everyone who responded, especially lfigueroa and SJM, as they always have smart things to say and they are both internet celebrities :)

kollegedave
Click to expand...

The last time I hit a ball was when we played straight pool (or I watched you run out against me...haha). From what I know of you, Dave - I think you are playing great -- and I've seen a big improvement in your game since I moved here in 2015.

You are a very determined, focused, serious person who loves billiards and I think YOUR game would benefit from on-going, serious, action-oriented pool matches against strong players.

The best pool playing gamblers I've known (and I've known a lot) who were great players AND just scary for the money LOVED playing pool, had absolutely no fear of going broke (or losing all of their stake money), (this is key) they weren't scared of being embarrassed by a loss in front of an audience, and they loved big action. They came to find that mixture of pressure pleasurable and it brought out their best game.

I've also known many great players whose game dropped immensely for big action because they were scared of being embarrassed. Their ego couldn't take it and they were so focused on not losing money and not looking bad...they couldn't relax and play their real game. Their mind wouldn't calm and focus. For $20 they might beat Efren...and play with the swag of a champion. Anything above that and they were hopeless (unless they were playing someone more hopeless than them). BUT, I feel like if they fought that fear and kept putting themselves in that situation they would overcome it. But to do that would have required overcoming their ego, which is tough.

I think though, Dave, if you decided to pursue stepping up to a higher level of action and play you could become a force to be reckoned with.
 
beetle said:
My opponent suggested we split before even starting, but I wanted to play. Plus there were a lot of people watching (and presumably betting). I figured if it was lopsided either way then the winner deserved the full amount.

After we played 23 games and were essentially tied, we both revisited the idea, so I think we both knew what each other was thinking about proposing a chop. And we were both relieved to do that.

I know I could have won, and maybe was a favorite, but I didn't want a $3000 swing to come down to a rattled 10 or something and I just had a feeling we were heading to hill-hill territory. A coin flip for $3000? No thank you! I decided that I had gambled enough!

--Steve
Click to expand...

Along these lines...
My buddy I were in a set playing 800. I was on the hill and came to the rable with a fairly difficult 6 ball out. He said I bet you double or nothing that you aren't out....I said bet. Ran out under what I remember was either a lot of pressure or excitement. I got,out,and win $1600.

I go to Super Billiards and play everybody who isn't some champion $100 sets for 14 hours a day. All I gotta do is win over half the games. Somebody beats me then I can quit them and along comes the next game. I have done this for many years. This experience makes me play so much better for money. At events like that you see all the best regional players...and they all have gamble.
 
playing higherdoen't improve your game

but it might motivate you to practice or play more

practice was never good for me
but when the action died down,i played some friendly pool
for the first time in a very long time
i tried some shots that i would never try for money

and i believe my game improved a bit
 
kollegedave said:
I would respectfully disagree. There are not many rich pool players.

kollegedave
Click to expand...

I have on many occasions played sets that I knew for certain that I was dead money before we started.

Why would I do such a thing? Well, after you get to a certain level, finding people that are capable of beating you badly become harder and harder to find UNLESS you are willing to bet enough to make it worth a pro's time, which is usually not real cheap. Which is why anytime there are tournaments that have even one pro that shows up, I go and do my best to get him/her to play. They are ALWAYS willing since I never ask for a spot but, getting them to play cheap enough is another issue. Again, dead money .....but not a dead experience..... most of the time.

Be smart but don't be a NIT.

Rake

Money spent on lessons is better.....sure, but at some point you gotta get out of the shallow water and swim with the sharks.

Doing so 8s bittersweet most of the time.

Ignore all the cheap and rude A55hats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top