Hustling
- Thread starter Rickw
- Start date
Well everyone here says the kid is gambling, and he surely is not. When you gamble there must be some sort of odds that you can get your money back. This is like me and Barry Bonds (in disguise) in a fast ball hitting contest. Do I have a chance, no. But would I play the game if I knew the opponent was better than me? Of course I wouldn't. This is the chance, or choice, that this kid doesn't have because of the deception. It is stealing. Plus you have to throw in the fact the kid is probably blind to pool and its low life sector.
What would you all say if this hustler walked outside and the kid and his friends jumped him after figuring out he was robbed? Beat the snot out of him and left him...
Joe
What would you all say if this hustler walked outside and the kid and his friends jumped him after figuring out he was robbed? Beat the snot out of him and left him...
Joe
T-dog said:
I'm not sticking up for the guy that gets 15 million a year for doing a job. Look at the atheletes in sports today, they make 15 million and more. Are they worth it? I doubt it. All I'm saying is that this doesn't seem to relate to my original post.
If you walk into a house, say your selling insurance, give a fake paper certificate and take money from the owner.. does the law say, well they should have known better, its a "gamble", or do they prosecute for a scam?
Joe
Joe
O
onepocketchump
Guest
satman said:
It's not a justification. It's just life. The guy who can't play should not be betting anything on his pool game. His only reason for doing that is because his ego is telling him to do so. Of course it's "stealing" when one guy has NO CHANCE but every hustle works only because the mark is greedy and thinks he has a fish on the line. If a hustler just walks up to a guy and asks to play for money and the guy says yes then he is fair game. If the hustler sets up the mark by telling him a concocted story, or enlists other people to trap the mark then it's a con, which might be prosecutable. Where there is no legal obligation for full disclosure the transaction becomes one of trust and ethics alone. When there is a legal obligation of full disclosure it becomes a crime to misrepresent oneself.
To me, hustling is more of an ethical thing than a criminal one. When I walk into a place I just want to play. Most other players want the dead nuts though so it's always double tough action instead of fair action. I prefer it when they think they are hustling me and end up finding out that I am not the easy mark.
I have NO QUALMS about hustling the hustler. I have no problems with lying to them about my speed, the speed of my friends or anything else that traps them into playing. They would do it to me without thinking twice about it. No one who plays me for signifigant money is my friend and they are just looking to beat me out of whatever they can. So, whenever the chance is there to turn it around I laugh all the way to the bank.
I won't pick on the helpless though. If I get into a game with someone who is far below me then I will offer to adjust or just give them the money back and some advice.
Other than just not gambling on pool at all, I feel that this is the fairest way to approach it and keep my dignity. If someone gets arrogant with me and can't win I will make it a point to win as flamboyantly as possible since I am not above satisfying my ego either.
John
T-dog said:
What do you do for a living to make a blanket assumption like that?
Take this for what it's worth but with that attitude I can promise you that you will never have to worry about stealing from the "little people".
Only a "little person" would have that type of mentality.
I know this is probably going to piss you off but the truth does sting like a b!tch sometimes.
Good luck in whatever you do. Hopefully you'll see my point someday and understand I'm not trying to be a complete assh*le.
onepocketchump said:
Playing under one's speed to set the trap would also be a "con" would it not?
Joe
O
onepocketchump
Guest
classiccues said:
If he isn't gambling then what is he doing? He is playing a game with a well defined criteria - whoever gets the winning ball in the hole first wins the cheese. Obviously he feels he has a chance to win or he would not play, assuming that he isn't retarded. I would say that it's the kid who is gambling while it's the hustler who is not.
Of course the kid would not play if he knew the hustler was out of his league. Because then he would not be gambling, he would be donating. BUt, because the kid thinks he has a chance, whether he actually knows he has any realistic chance or not,to himself he is gambling.
If the hustler got beat up I would say that the kid and his friends were wrong to do so because the kid would certainly have taken the money had he won.
The whole point is that you can only take the willing. The hustler did not glue the cue to the kid's arm and hold a gun to his girlfriend's head to make him play pool for money. He simply asked if the kid wanted to play and the kid sized him up and decided he could win. Did the kid ask him how good he is? We don't know. Did the kid ask anyone else? We don't know. Assuming he did neither of these things then the hustler did not "lie" about his ability to entice the kid to play. Perhaps he "lied" about his ability through the stall but that is the fact of life when playing a physical game for money. If you are going to play for money then you had better be aware of all the angles. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse and neither is ignorance of your opponent's abilities.
John
satman said:
hay sam i jus love the last remark.."Drunk Women who got mouthy and wanted to play for a $100" . And didn't the guy play her a take her money? There Was a post here some time ago about that???
lmao
O
onepocketchump
Guest
classiccues said:
In a sense, yes it is. The difference is however that the other player is making assumptions totally based on what he sees at that moment. To use the insurance company example, if I believe the "salesman" and hand him money right away then I have been conned but I have been complicit because I should know better than to take such things at face value. Were I not gullible and greedy then I would ask him back and do my homework first.
In the case of the pool, the mark is led to believe that he is the shark who is going to fleece the sucker. If the mark did not have some form of larceny in himself then he would not be betting anything.
If I buy a cue for $1500 and it's got a fair market value of $2500 but another person offers me $3500 for it, am I going to turn it down because they didn't do their homework? That's just a lucky situation and a windfall. Now, if the guy asks me if it's worth $3500 and I tell him an outright lie then I have defrauded him because he asked for the truth. Otherwise he just overpaid. Now, the ethical thing to do would be to tell him that the cue is only worth $2500 right now but it's expected to appreciate and sell it to him for $3000. that way it's a win/win.
Anytime two people match up - be it in pool or business, someone is trying to get the edge. That's life. How they go about it determines what kind of legacy they leave behind.
John
satman said:
i feel ya ..
onepocketchump said:
But in the pool instance.. the kid is being conned. There is no way to say he is not. The hustler is being dishonest.
onepocketchump said:
Fair enough.. but the only larceny he has in himself is a false larceny put their by the con.
onepocketchump said:
But you aren't misrepresenting the cue. If you tell him its worth 4500 and take the 3500 then your a crook. No better than the hustler. It maybe a natural windfall but there is no deception in your example.
Joe
onepocketchump said:
In order for it to be a gamble, he has to have some sort of chance to win. In the first post, this kid obviously has no chance. So its no gamble.
onepocketchump said:
But the kid thinks he has a chance why? Because the hustler made him think falsly (conned) that he had the chance. Now if the kid walks up to the hustler and doesn't see him play, and says hey you want to play me? Then its his fault.
onepocketchump said:
But he had no chance of winning. But this is the chance the hustler would also be taking. You steal from somebody, you might find justice, and you might not like it.
onepocketchump said:
Ok I agree with some of your ideas, except if the hustler shot his speed and the kid continued to play, then he would be willing. You have deception, which by definition is a lie, or con, and which would be illegal.
Joe
Well I would love to but I dont like to start trouble with anyone. Plus he is a well known bookie type guy. I always say karma is a b*t*h though. Anyways I heard he lost a big sum of money about a couple hours away. That put a small grin on my face.Rickw said:
onepocketchump said:That's a good way to look at it. I wouldn't try to play a retarded person and a drunk could be somewhat retarded. But, there are those times when a drunk is just a plain obnoxious ass and then it's good to bust them out of their drinking money so they don't get drunker and more obnoxious.
John
Maybe I'm on a downer today, but my initial reaction to this was that many people don't need to be drunk in order to be retarded, obnoxious asses!
LOL!
Seriously - I agree that it's morally questionable to take advantage of anyone's unclear thinking, whether their thinking is unclear because of alcohol, handicap, ego, psychological hangups, or whatever.
OTOH, it's not my responsibility to protect them from their own stupidity.
I think the key point for me is this: the hustler wasn't simply minding his own business and passively accepting a windfall that fell in his lap due to the kid's unclear thinking. Rather, he was proactively attempting to muddle the kid's thinking in the first place in order so that he could benefit.
Considered in that perspective, I actually think it's worse to take advantage of the kid than the drunk. The drunk screwed up his own head, so it's his own problem. The kid was baited.
Guess I'm a hardass after all.