If there was a rating system for gambling.

Cuedup said:
I'll beat you're ass for free all day long.
Click to expand...
I have buddies who can play even with me for hours -for free.
When there is money on it, my level of play goes up while theirs goes down.
If there is no penalty for missing, I don't care if I miss. It's like playing my wife.
When we shoot a few games while we are out, I don't run racks on her because the score doesn't matter.
If the score is determined by $, then it matters to most everyone.
 
Simply won to loss ratio. $$$ pocketed vs $$$ paid out. Then factor in (some how) opponents pocketed $$$ to paid out $$$ ratio
 
JolietJames said:
I have buddies who can play even with me for hours -for free.
When there is money on it, my level of play goes up while theirs goes down.
If there is no penalty for missing, I don't care if I miss. It's like playing my wife.
When we shoot a few games while we are out, I don't run racks on her because the score doesn't matter.
If the score is determined by $, then it matters to most everyone.
Click to expand...
That's the exact reason right there. When playing for fun, I love to try new things even if they are lower percentage. I'll play shots that I know I need work on when I'm not gambling. It blows my mind to hear that other people don't do this.
 
JolietJames said:
I have buddies who can play even with me for hours -for free.
When there is money on it, my level of play goes up while theirs goes down.
If there is no penalty for missing, I don't care if I miss. It's like playing my wife.
When we shoot a few games while we are out, I don't run racks on her because the score doesn't matter.
If the score is determined by $, then it matters to most everyone.
Click to expand...
I've noticed there are pool players that will measure how good they are by how much money they've won.
There's a guy that plays in my league that likes to bet on the match up. Strong player, like me. We'll usually stay late playing cheap one pocket racks.
I quit betting with him during league play because he apparently needs that edge to keep focusing. I'm there for the score,not the money and I own him in league play.
Pool 1st.
Gambling way down the list.
 
Out of shape guys will def have a higher 'rating' in gambling matches than tournament play. Tourneys are a grind and it is difficult to maintain a high level of play for so long. In cash games, you can play for however long you want and quit as soon as you aren't feeling good.

Compared to league play, I think most players step their game up when playing for $ and would be higher rated in terms of their overall level of play. $ on the line has a way of sharpening you up the way playing a soccer mom SL2 just can't.

Regarding the $ won vs sets won, I'm firmly in the games/sets won camp in terms of actual rating bc sometimes a player can be a very good player, but a bad gambler. To use a simple gambling example of either sportsbetting or poker games, someone who has bad $management and bets too large a portion of their roll at a time can have a mathematical 'risk of ruin' of 100%, meaning that even with a significant skill edge that will have them win significantly more than they will lose, they are mathematically guaranteed to go broke due to standard variance.
 
u12armresl said:
A lot of us play better if there is even .25 on the line.
If you have to reach into your pocket, it hurts and you want to win even more.

That being said, if there was a Fargo type rating for gambling, do you think your rating would be higher?
In addition, do you think that the current Fargo ratings would be correct for gambling, say the top 100.
Click to expand...
I once bet $5 on a horse to show and it did.

I went to the window to cash my winner and got back $5.25.

What rating is that?

Lol.
 
u12armresl said:
...if there was a Fargo type rating for gambling, do you think your rating would be higher?
In addition, do you think that the current Fargo ratings would be correct for gambling, say the top 100.
Click to expand...
In theory-
The mathematical model will require a cosmological degeneracy constant.
A counterbalance to the physical effect of nit or a short gamblin roll. Mathematical equations predict the gambling roll must always be either growing or shrinking.
It cannot remain unchanged.
So far, all physical experimentation supports this theory.
 
Isn't that a bet of 4/5 to 1 and the horse placed 3rd for a 5.25 return on a $5.00 bet?
One thing I do during the season for contemplating my odds of good play was measuring how well I was center splitting wood.
Fargo has the good, ok, bad odds/race outputs for matchups.
 
My dad played Otto Graham (his college/frat roommate) $1 hole golf their entire life.

Yah gotta have some grease in the game or a great reason not to miss to improve. IMHO

Last month, I played my best friend some backgammon 5 cents a point and jacked it to 15 cents.
at the end of it all I, won 45 cents :).

Bragging rights are needed with great relationships.
 
JolietJames said:
I don't spend hours on my table doing drills so I can enter that no-entry fee, no payout tourney.
Some people don't like to compete. Some don't like to test themselves.
For those, pool is fun and not a competition, and there is nothing wrong with that.

A few years ago I decided to pick up tennis to improve my fitness.
I had not played tennis since college. Within two months of hitting balls I entered my first tournament.
It started with wanting to get in shape but ended with wanting to compete -and there is nothing wrong with that.
No need to feel sorry for someone who does not think like, or look at things, like you do.
Click to expand...
Did you have to gamble on tennis to enjoy competing?
 
KissedOut said:
Did you have to gamble on tennis to enjoy competing?
Click to expand...
No. I was waiting for someone to ask that.
My point was I needed to compete. I did not do it "for the love of the game" alone.
If tennis was a little less of a gentleman's sport, I would love to play that for money as well.
It would drive me to improve more rapidly as well.

Shoot, when my buddies and I used to go golfing, I don't believe a single round was played without a wager.
 
It sounds like most of the posters here either strongly favor gambling or don't like playing for stakes much at all. I'm different in that I enjoy playing pool about equally either way, although I will say when I gamble it usually is for small amounts. About $5 per game (8-ball) or $20-$30 for races to 4 is my norm, and the most I ever wagered on a single game was $100.

I do get a different kind of enjoyment from playing depending on whether it is for free or for money, though, and it depends on who I am playing with. There are guys I know that I won't gamble with even though I usually have the better of it with them. They take it (and themselves) way too seriously when gambling, and their foul mood ruins the experience for me. There are also guys who I will only gamble with because without something on the line they don't care enough to give me their A game.

When I'm not playing for money the games are usually more social, with more conversation and teaching/learning opportunities. I don't include playing for a beer/drink as gambling in these scenarios as we would most likely be buying each other drinks anyway. Sometimes these free sessions can be quite competitive, too, and I find that I can focus just as well in these as when I am gambling. Bragging rights can be just as big a motivator as money as far as I am concerned.
 
Bragging rights, pride, holding the table, getting the break, stacking BnRs , upping the ratings , having a good time and generally establishing table dominance are my motivating factors at the table.
I'll wager small stakes,it's ingrained in the culture and can hardly get away from it but since I'm never wagering more than I'm willing to lose its not a factor in the game. It's not on my mind when I'm down on the shot and it doesnt get in my head when down a few games.
 
VarmintKong said:
What is liability?
Click to expand...
it’s best played on a 12’ golf table or super tough snooker table.

It’s a a 4-6 handed ring game of snooker played with 3 reds(sometimes more) and the colors with the values 2-7 like normal snooker. Played with normal snooker rules( American snooker rules-not UK rules)

It’s a pay by the point game to the player who shoots after you miss-hence the name “liability” you only pay for the points you sell out to the incoming player. If you play safe, chances are you don’t have to pay off. You only owe who shoots and scorers after your inning. Which is why a tight table is best for this game. It wouldn’t work if guys are running out all the time.

The order of the players is usually changed every 5 games +/- to keep it more balanced. If the worst player shoots before the best player-the worst player really has it bad, and the best player is stealing. So by changing the order every so often it kinda levels it out a bit.

The strongest player still usually wins the most and the weakest loses the most, but changing the order of the players the variance is mitigated.

It’s best on a super tight golf table like Hardtimes had. $5/point was normal. I’ve seen higher and lower stakes.

It’s a great ring game when you have the right table and groups of players. I’m not sure where that exists now.

But that’s “Liability” on the snooker box.

I used to play it at Hardtimes in the early 90’s. And I wasn’t a winning player in that game over all. Still was great fun and plenty of action to go win what ever I’d lose playing liability. If the draw was good in spots I’d win $. And then when the redraw for the order of players wouldn’t go my way, I’d lose. It’s the worst when the strongest player is next.

Fatboy 😃
 
Last edited:
ChrisSjoblom said:
It sounds like most of the posters here either strongly favor gambling or don't like playing for stakes much at all. I'm different in that I enjoy playing pool about equally either way, although I will say when I gamble it usually is for small amounts. About $5 per game (8-ball) or $20-$30 for races to 4 is my norm, and the most I ever wagered on a single game was $100.

I do get a different kind of enjoyment from playing depending on whether it is for free or for money, though, and it depends on who I am playing with. There are guys I know that I won't gamble with even though I usually have the better of it with them. They take it (and themselves) way too seriously when gambling, and their foul mood ruins the experience for me. There are also guys who I will only gamble with because without something on the line they don't care enough to give me their A game.

When I'm not playing for money the games are usually more social, with more conversation and teaching/learning opportunities. I don't include playing for a beer/drink as gambling in these scenarios as we would most likely be buying each other drinks anyway. Sometimes these free sessions can be quite competitive, too, and I find that I can focus just as well in these as when I am gambling. Bragging rights can be just as big a motivator as money as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Foul mood gamblers are usually one of 3 things.

Fragile ego people, in most cases

Lack of gambling experience

Or dead broke

I don’t give any of those people action.

I pick my spots better. Except when I needed action to make $. Then I’d fade it to just win and leave. But that was a LONG time ago.

Fatboy <——-doesn’t miss that action
 
Has anyone ever ran into a graduate from the Harriman Academy? if so how did they play? were they hardcore gamblers? Lmao
 
Last edited:
Island Drive said:
Yep, every room back then had it's pecking order....
Click to expand...
I was probably still in the red from climbing the ladder in my first pool room until a few years ago.
When I first started going in there I was playing the worst player there, who happened to work behind the counter, races to 5 for $5.
After a month or so I passed him and began donating to the next guy until I beat him, etc.
You couldn't climb the ladder for free.
I was a couple rungs from the top of the ladder when the place closed.
I took some time off and now everything is Fargo.
No more striving to be better in order to win.
Times sure have changed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top