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
Absolutely agreed there
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
Ridiculous. Do you also believe that if you flip a fair coin five times and it happens to come up heads five times in a row then on the next flip of the coin the probability of tails coming up is, say, 90%?Why should the winner have to submit to the whims of the loser?
If the sets were close, the law of averages will eventually kick in and the odds will favor the player who hasn't won a set yet.
I don't gamble on pool, so I'm curious about this.
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"?
A nit is somebody that won't give me the game I want. On the other hand when I won't give them the game they want, I am a smart negotiator!
Hu[/
This gave me quite the chuckle.
Ridiculous. Do you also believe that if you flip a fair coin five times and it happens to come up heads five times in a row then on the next flip of the coin the probability of tails coming up is, say, 90%?
most people do not understand how probability works. the law of averages does work. but it doesn't change each individual event it just means as the amount of trials increases the percent will gravitate towards the original chances of the outcome.
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.
most people do not understand how probability works. the law of averages does work. but it doesnt change each individual event it just means as the amount of trials increases the percent will gravitate towards the original chances of the outcome.
There’s something to be said about going in for the kill when you have someone on the ropes. The offer by your opponent for the chance to win $140 when you are only risking losing $20 is a temptation that most gamblers and pool players playing with confidence would not let slip away. Most would be willing to accept the risk for the possible bigger $ payoff despite the chance that they could win three out of four sets and still come out on the short end if they lose the final big $ set.It's also different for random events vs something skilled like pool that only has a smaller luck factor (say a nice break layout or someone crapping in a 9 ball on a miss). If I knew the player was close to my level and I happened to beat them 3 sets in a row, I would feel that the chances of me continue to beat them is lower. If we are even in skill, there is an even chance of them winning 3 of 6 or me winning 3 of 6. Since I won my 3 already why tempt fate? The ability to choose when to stop is a big factor also, if we were forced to sit through 10 attempts that is one thing, but since we can quit at any time or adjust the money bet, that is a factor there as well. If you gave me $10 a roll, but if I lost I loose everything, after 3 wins I would feel my chances are not so good for the future to keep that money and I may quit, it does not matter if the next chance is the same 50/50 chance as the other 3, the more you play the more chance you have of eventually losing your money.
The offer by your opponent for the chance to win $140 when you are only risking losing $20 is a temptation that most gamblers and pool players playing with confidence would not let slip away.
I think most money players are looking at the W/L as it pertains to the overall entire session, not how much $ they are risking in one particular set. I’m not saying it’s the smart way to look at it, but I would say it is how the majority of them would look at it. They are looking at how much they could win in relation to how much they could lose, and a 7 to 1 odds $ payout in the final set is pretty darn tempting!You're risking losing $20 only relative to what you started with, but you're risking losing $80 given what you have now. So, in fact, you're risking losing $80 at even money, not winning $140 at 7-1 odds. And if the odds are in fact against your winning, then it's a sucker's bet.
I think most money players are looking at the W/L as it pertains to the overall entire session, not how much $ they are risking in one particular set. I’m not saying it’s the smart way to look at it, but I would say it is how the majority of them would look at it. They are looking at how much they could win in relation to how much they could lose, and a 7 to 1 odds $ payout in the final set is pretty darn tempting!
most people do not understand how probability works. the law of averages does work. but it doesnt change each individual event it just means as the amount of trials increases the percent will gravitate towards the original chances of the outcome.
I agree that most money players (and indeed, most gamblers in general probably) think of it in terms of the session, but if your goal is to make money that's a mistake. It's also arbitrary in terms of the bottom line. Why not think of each set as a new session? Why not include the last session you played with this person as well? If the money is what matters then each bet is a new session.
The idea that you're getting 7 to 1 odds is a fallacy. You're getting even money on an $80 bet. If you win, you win $80. If you lose, you lose $80. And as I mentioned, if the other player is actually better than you, so that you're the dog playing for the $80, it's a sucker bet. Las Vegas was built on that.
A nit is somebody that won't give me the game I want. On the other hand when I won't give them the game they want, I am a smart negotiator!
Hu
A nit is somebody that won't give me the game I want. On the other hand when I won't give them the game they want, I am a smart negotiator!
Hu