# Is player A a nit if...

#### ChrisinNC

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.
Regardless of how much \$ the sets are for, player A is being more than fair to go double or nothing on the final set. A number of players wouldn’t even be willing to do that. Many players feel you can win it back the same way you lost it - one set at a time for the same \$ stakes.

I’ve seen a player in here in a similar situation, get three sets up and then tell their opponent they are done, and then ask that same player who is down if they’d like to play some just for fun. I’m not kidding!

#### canwin

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not so fast....

Here is the math:

Player A agrees to play for 20 a set------ no nit here.

Player A does not quit when up 3 sets--------- no nit here

Player A agrees to play another set for 60--------- no nit here

Player A does not agree to up the bet------ no nit here

If Player A got up 60 and then outright quits and refuses to play more---- that IS a nit move.

I have a question for anyone who thinks A is a nit for not wanting to up the bet.

Would you still consider Player A to be a nit if B wanted to play a set for \$800 and
A declined?

Player A got ahead then stopped gambling and wanted to play with no pressure and put all the pressure on player B = nit move IMO. Player B still wanted to gamble by wanting to put a tiny amount of pressure on A..nothing wrong with that

#### PoolBum

##### Ace in the side.
Silver Member
Player A got ahead then stopped gambling...

No, player A agreed to play a set for \$60.

#### Patrick Johnson

##### Fish of the Day
Silver Member
I think the "point" of gambling is taking an exciting chance of winning or losing.

If the only point was to get the cash then it would be robbing or stealing.

giving someone a chance (if they want it) to get back to even is considered good sportsmanship,,,
Maybe I just don't get it because I don't do it ("gamble" at pool).

Carry on...

pj
chgo

#### canwin

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No, player A agreed to play a set for \$60.

Free roll not gambling sorry

#### tucson9ball

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.

Reminds me of years ago....this guy always wanted to play double or nothing once he was down \$50 or so. Eventually he would win a game and then quit....
Why play a guy all night and be up \$100 or even \$200, just to lose it all in 1 game? Makes no sense.
So, I would say Player A is not a NIT

#### 8cree

##### Reverse Engineer
Silver Member
Free roll not gambling sorry
How is money earned, free money?

Oh yea, I vote player A is not a nit, also.

#### PoolBum

##### Ace in the side.
Silver Member
I believe the old-school definition of a nit was anyone not willing to risk going flat broke.

#### Coos Cues

##### Coos Cues
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.

Totally up to player A. You dig a hole with a shovel I'll decide whether to let you attempt to fill it in with heavy equipment or not. Don't like the game pull up loser. It's not like A is quitting winner.

#### jimmyg

##### Mook! What's a Mook?
Silver Member
Player A got ahead then stopped gambling and wanted to play with no pressure and put all the pressure on player B = nit move IMO. Player B still wanted to gamble by wanting to put a tiny amount of pressure on A..nothing wrong with that

Putting it that way, it does seem to make some sense. :smile:

Nothing with that at all...and nothing wrong with player A rejecting and counter-offering either.

Last edited:

#### Johnny Rosato

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Not so fast....

Here is the math:

Player A agrees to play for 20 a set------ no nit here.

Player A does not quit when up 3 sets--------- no nit here

Player A agrees to play another set for 60--------- no nit here

Player A does not agree to up the bet------ no nit here

If Player A got up 60 and then outright quits and refuses to play more---- that IS a nit move.

I have a question for anyone who thinks A is a nit for not wanting to up the bet.

Would you still consider Player A to be a nit if B wanted to play a set for \$800 and
A declined?
I think the nit pickers on here would spell this one with uppercase letters - NIT

#### 8cree

##### Reverse Engineer
Silver Member
I believe the old-school definition of a nit was anyone not willing to risk going flat broke.
Reckon I'm a nit then...
I digress...

#### canwin

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Putting it that way, it does seem to make some sense. :smile:

Nothing with that at all...and nothing wrong with player A rejecting and counter-offering either.

Glad to know someone can make some sense out of it. I think A wanted to quit actually because 20 wasnt all that much more. I dont know what really transpired but let's just agree it was a borderline nit thing

#### Coos Cues

##### Coos Cues
I believe the old-school definition of a nit was anyone not willing to risk going flat broke.

I thought it was the guy who busted you and won't buy you a burger and a beer after or get you a cab.

#### haystj

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
let's just agree it was a borderline nit thing

That's fair.

Holy crap,,, people can actually meet in the middle in AZ land!!!!!!!

I'm going to get a beer.

#### jimmyg

##### Mook! What's a Mook?
Silver Member
Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Putting it that way, it does seem to make some sense.

Nothing wrong with that at all...and nothing wrong with player A rejecting and counter-offering either.

Glad to know someone can make some sense out of it. I think A wanted to quit actually because 20 wasnt all that much more. I dont know what really transpired but let's just agree it was a borderline nit thing

Well, I'm not saying it was a borderline nit move for A....just saying that I understand B's reasoning...but neither one was being a nit or a\$\$hole. Each had a right to do/ask as he pleased and the other had a right to accept or refuse...that's life.

#### ChrisinNC

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.
I think an important factor here that no one has mentioned is whether this matchup is between two regular players in a pool room that could easily resume their session on another day, or is it between 2 players that are not likely to ever have an opportunity to match up again anytime soon? This can make a huge difference in what many here would consider as appropriate gambling etiquette, if there is such a thing.

Last edited:

#### Thecoats

##### AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.

Player A is not a nit for wanting to bet \$60, he is a nit for not offering to bet \$160. He obviously has the nuts on player B.:grin::grin::grin::grin:

#### Banger

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
he wins 3 sets, \$20 a set. Player B wants to play one more set for \$80, but A will only play for \$60. B calls A a nit.

If player A wins 3 out of 4 sets, and ends up a \$20 loser, wouldn't that make him a dumb ass? I mean, isn't that called "getting hustled"?

#### MattPoland

##### AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If one has more gamble than the other, any failure to live up to the highest uncommon numerator will be considered a nit move by the bigger gambler.

It’s all relative.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro