Is player A a nit if...

[Texas Carom Club]

I liked the response Shannon Daulton gave back when he 13 and playing a 45
year old some $100 9-ball in Richmond Ky at the Maverick Club. Shannon had gotten well ahead and the older guy wanted to bump the bet to $400 a game and Shannon told 'Hell no, I won it at a $100 a game and if want to win it back you'll have to win it at $100 a game. And if you don't like it, you can f'ing quit.'

i can dig it.

 

[canwin]

You might be right but here is why I think he asked for $80 instead of the $60 which would have got him dead even. I think he was planning to quit after that set whether it is was $60 or $80, and indeed in the original post it says that B wanted to play "one more set" so apparently that was intended to be the agreed final set regardless of outcome. As said in my previous post I think he just wanted out of what he knew was a bad game and was taking a long shot on finally winning a set and getting out of that game without it costing him ("surely I can't lose four out of four, surely he can't win every single set forever, surely I am due to finally win one"). Maybe he had no intention of paying off either way so in essence he could win an extra $20 but couldn't lose any more if he wasn't going to pay anyway.

That said, whether he intended to pay if he lost that set or not, the biggest factor I see in making it an $80 set instead of $60 is that it lets him quit financial winner if he pulled off the win that set. It was a way to save his pride, give him some bragging rights, and humiliate his opponent at the same time. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. If he lost that set too, what did it matter? From a pride and humiliation/bragging standpoint there isn't much difference between losing 3 out of 3 sets or losing 4 out of 4 sets. You clearly got rolled either way and there isn't any way to sugar coat that to yourself or to anyone else. But if he managed to win that last set and quit $20 up, he was the winner. His pride is intact. He gets to rub it in his opponents face that he beat him. He gets to brag to others that he beat A gambling, and he did. There is no way to argue against the fact that he won, because the money is what counted.

He wouldn't have had any of that if he played for $60 and managed to win that final set. The only way it could have been perceived or argued in that case is that he was in a bad game getting rolled, managed to win a single double or nothing set to get even, and had already arranged to quit after that set because he knew how out matched he was and wanted out and got lucky to be getting out without having lost any money. But for a measly extra $20, it gave him the opportunity to instead have the ego, bragging, and humiliation for the opponent rights that come with being winner. If he had lost it wouldn't have looked any worse at an additional $80 instead of $60, so he had nothing to lose and lots to gain by tacking on that additional $20 so he had a chance of coming out winner instead of things being so humiliating and looking so bad if he had lost or come out even.

Interesting to hear what goes through the minds of some players..I'm out of stroke just from listening. If your going to call someone a nit, or anything derogatory, best wait til after you're done and not before because youre liable to get the other guy mad and quit which seems like what happened. Player B should have just played to get even and kept things to himself and focus on getting even. Small time nit action strikes again!

 

[sonny burnett]

If you are playing sets for $20, that isn't gambling to begin with.

It sure is gambling when you're on the air barrel, here in the south.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

 

[worktheknight]

I have shot in situations like this and when I opponent wants to up the bet, I say sure,
Just first, pay me amount difference for the first three sets. If I won three sets at $ 20.00
and know he wants to go for $ 80.00, 3 x $ 60.00 is $ 180.00. If he does not want to do
that or just keep playing for $ 20.00 a set, well the fun is over. Goodbye.

 

[lfigueroa]

If it's a random banger I agree. It it's his mark he could quit winner to get the guy pissed off and the next day trap him in a game for thousands.

Most likely a random banger.

TF was an excellent player with a very pretty stroke. But when it came to tough action there were at least a dozen guys you could expect to be playing before his name would come up. Tom's preference was to club baby seals.

Lou Figueroa

 

[alstl]

A good rule of thumb. If you are calling someone a nit, then you are probably the nit.

If you are calling someone a nit you probably lost money and might be setting yourself up to lose a lot more.

 

[alstl]

Most likely a random banger.

TF was an excellent player with a very pretty stroke. But when it came to tough action there were at least a dozen guys you could expect to be playing before his name would come up. Tom's preference was to club baby seals.

Lou Figueroa

I never had a lot of contact with him but I'm familiar with who he was. A lot of people in St Louis knew him and Phil Spudich here in CoMO also knew him well.

Interesting story - I pretty much quit playing pool until I retired in 2004 and I lived near a pool hall in Baden run by Harold Johnson. I sent Tom a private message on this website asking him about the place to see if it was safe to play there because Baden was a rough area at that time. In fact Harold eventually closed that place and moved to a somewhat better area in Florissant. Tom misunderstood and thought I was asking him to give me the speed of the regulars in the place and he refused to do so because they were his friends. Even for a long time hustler he had some standards.

He won Phil's state 9 ball tournament in Springfield with a terminal illness. In his prime I don't doubt he was a high level player.