Is player A a nit if...

[lfigueroa]

I think that gambling at pool has its own code.

I decline to use the term "code of ethics" because when it comes to pool that would be a reach So IMO, and in my experience, I see nothing wrong with a Player B wanting to up the bet and take a shot at recouping their loses in one swell poop. Now as to the status of Player A, I think that yes, it's a bit nitty to not take the shot, regardless of how you do the math. (And I think most pool players realize this in their heart-of-hearts.)

But nowadays, the money does not flow in the pool room economy as it did back in the day when every table had action going. The available action is limited and maybe it's just not the same anymore. And maybe in this situation there are mitigating circumstances. Player A might be tired, have to get up early in the morning, is worried about an air barrel, or sumthin' else

But old school, of course you take the bet.

Lou Figueroa
or you're a nit

 

[7stud]

What most people do not understand is that the laws of probability apply to independent random events, not a series of skill-based games.

Ridiculous. One pool game has no influence on the outcome of the next pool game, hence the two pool games are independent events in statistics.

 

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by KissedOut View Post
What most people do not understand is that the laws of probability apply to independent random events, not a series of skill-based games.

Ridiculous. One pool game has no influence on the outcome of the next pool game, hence the two pool games are independent events in statistics.

Not to speak for KissedOut, but...I read what he's saying to be that since skill level is the most influential factor determining the outcome of a pool game rather than complete randomness, it is unlikely that I will beat Earl Strickland regardless of how many matches I play against him. :smile:

 

[jalapus logan]

I love pool player logic. Thanks for the laughs. Personally, I like the etiquette of the tellers at the track. They don't care if I bet 1 buck or 10,000.

 

[bbb]

Making the person win it Back the way they lost it is not being a nit ...imo
On the other hand if you are stealing let him bet what he wants

 

[The_JV]

Fun thread.... never heard the term "nit" before.

Speaking from my own experience. When someone is trying to tighten me up by increasing the bet, I usually respond with "you sure..?"

I used to get nickle and dimmed by a local for $20's back in the day. I was the stronger player but he knew I'd play loose, and go for shots with sub par odds, because hell, it's only $20. Well a few sets in, and he'd be up 10 more than the $50 bet I wanted when we first started. Whenever I would ask to increase the bet during the session, he would refuse. I didn't call him anything other than smart... He had the right tactic and it worked.

One day I had enough and refused the $20 set. Told him it was $50 or nothing. I won the first 2 sets, and we haven't gambled since. Been about 12yrs now...lol. Still see him, and still give him credit.

If Player A is a "nit", then he should take the compliment, and never play Player B again... Hell, I'd sooner tip the waitress the $60.

 

[7stud]

Not to speak for KissedOut, but...I read what he's saying to be that since skill level is the most influential factor determining the outcome of a pool game rather than complete randomness, it is unlikely that I will beat Earl Strickland regardless of how many matches I play against him. :smile:

Games of skill, a coin flip, whatever; you can still assign a probability to any outcome, e.g. you beating Earl Strickland at pool.

If you have 1 chance in 100,000 of beating Earl, and Earl beats you 99,999 straight games, do you think Earl will duck you the next game for a $10 bet because you have a 100% chance of winning that game? HawaiianEye seems to want to bet on you. He may even give me odds! I'll take that bet.

 

[jimmyg]

Originally Posted by jimmyg View Post
Not to speak for KissedOut, but...I read what he's saying to be that since skill level is the most influential factor determining the outcome of a pool game rather than complete randomness, it is unlikely that I will beat Earl Strickland regardless of how many matches I play against him.

Games of skill, a coin flip, whatever; you can still assign a probability to any outcome, e.g. you beating Earl Strickland at pool.

If you have 1 chance in 100,000 of beating Earl, and Earl beats you 99,999 straight games, do you think Earl will duck you the next game for a $10 bet because you have a 100% chance of winning that game? HawaiianEye seems to want to bet on you. He may even give me odds! I'll take that bet.

Exactly my point...a coin flip is even money, my beating Earl is 1:100,000.

If Earl is putting up $1,000,000.00 to my $10.00 he might duck...I'd play, there's always a Black Swan in the wings. :wink:

 

[alstl]

A lot of addicted gamblers call people who know how to leave with the cash a nit.

I liked Tom Ferry's rules which were establish the rules ahead of time and anybody can quit whenever they want - reduces the whining when they have agreed to it already.

 

[Jimmy_Betmore]

There's too much information left out of the initial post to make a legitimate decision about it.

I very rarely post responses or anything. But, based on the very limited amount of information we have, this sounds like a move. I mean, seriously, if you had just beat a guy 3 out of 3 sets (NOT games) and then he wants to jack the bet to a point where if you lose you're down wouldn't you be suspicious?

Also, let's add a zero... What if the sets were for $200? He's down $600 and suddenly wants to play this set for $800. Feels a little different, doesn't it? And now you're playing for WAY more than you'd initially agreed to. That's how you get robbed out of $160. (No way he can beat me again)

Those guys were playing $20 sets. In the pool world, both are nits. In my world Player A did the right thing.

 

[lfigueroa]

Ridiculous. One pool game has no influence on the outcome of the next pool game, hence the two pool games are independent events in statistics.

This is not so, it's not like cards or coin flips because there's the need to physically execute.

Things happen during a match and one game or even just a few shots can put a hitch in a player's stroke. A guy can be smokin' them in and suddenly go off the air.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

A lot of addicted gamblers call people who know how to leave with the cash a nit.

I liked Tom Ferry's rules which were establish the rules ahead of time and anybody can quit whenever they want - reduces the whining when they have agreed to it already.

In the scenario described, Tom definitely takes the bet and a shot at getting all the cash.

Lou Figueroa

 

[alphadog]

I didn't read all the drivel but you guys all seem to assume player A had 20.00 to start with

 

[Poolplaya9]

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 know player B. I see him everywhere.

He is the guy that if you give him that $80 set and he happens to win it, he is going to quit you. Guaranteed. There is zero chance he is going to play you another $80 set after that. He probably isn’t even going to be willing to play you anymore $20 sets after that either for that matter. He is done and just wanted to find a way to escape a bad situation without it costing him. One of two things was probably going on. Either he had figured out that he was a serious dog in a bad game that day and is trying to luck into a set that gets him even (slightly better in this case) and lets him escape without penalty, or he is broke and can’t afford to lose the amount that he was already down and therefore was trying anything he could to luck out of having to owe that debt. Or both.

He is the guy that if you give him that $80 set, and he loses that one too, pretty good chance he wants to “double or nothing” or otherwise raise the stakes again even if that isn’t the terminology he uses. And if he loses that one, he will probably ask to do it again ad nauseam. He knows he is going to finally win one of these sets, and when he does he quits and gets to get out of the bad game even and without penalty.

He is the guy that if you give him that $80 set and he loses and does decide he needs to quit after that one or even if it goes a few more sets, there is a strong chance he isn’t going to be able to pay you. He already couldn’t really afford to lose the amount (or the pride) he was down to begin with, hence the reason he probably wanted to risk jacking the bet to begin with for a long shot chance at getting even or better.

Is there some chance he was just slow getting started and now feels he is in stroke and favored and that is why he wants to raise it to $80, a slightly more than a double or nothing amount? Or that he was intentionally losing the first few sets to set you up for a bigger score? Or thinks that he handles pressure better than you and that you will fold when the stakes are raised? Etc? Yes, but these are far less likely, especially if he is a local player you are already at least somewhat familiar with. He was just trying to luck into getting out of a bad game he couldn’t win or a debt he couldn’t afford without it costing him.

Could also be that he is just an idiot that overrates his game or lets pride get in the way and can’t accept reality and wants to go off, but it isn’t like you weren’t already willing to triple the bet to take advantage of it if that is the case. If there is an argument to be made on somebody being a nit here, it would be player B. Why isn’t he willing to win it back under the same terms that you had to win it? Why does he expect you to make it easier for him to win it back than it was for you to win it from him? Why does he expect you to risk coming out lopsided winner on sets but loser on money? And if he was really wanting to play $80 sets (and he wasn’t until he felt the need to have to shoot for a miracle), why didn’t he insist on $80 sets to begin with?

Screw him. Player A has every right to tell him he has to win it back the exact same way he won it from him, $20 at a time, but he isn’t even doing that. He is offering him a triple the bet/double or nothing shot. That isn’t being nitty. That is going way above and beyond and being generous.

 

[ShootingArts]

I like this

I know player B. I see him everywhere.

...

Screw him. Player A has every right to tell him he has to win it back the exact same way he won it from him, $20 at a time, but he isn’t even doing that. He is offering him a triple the bet/double or nothing shot. That isn’t being nitty. That is going way above and beyond and being generous.

I like the way you worked through this. $80 puts player B even on everything including table time and perhaps a beer or two. The only reason I can think of for that odd number.

Not going to even is a slight possibility but only very slight. In my gambling days I always tried to massage the bet so a loser never got even. Even if it wasn't the plan to begin with, getting even seems to be a strong incentive to quit.

Being able to look things over at a distance and at my leisure, I think player A should have came back with "Lets make it a hundred, even." Now we find out who the nit is. Time to post or show money too if the bet hadn't been settled after every set.

Hu

 

[Poolplaya9]

$80 puts player B even on everything including table time and perhaps a beer or two. The only reason I can think of for that odd number.

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.

 

[alstl]

In the scenario described, Tom definitely takes the bet and a shot at getting all the cash.

Lou Figueroa

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.

 

[spktur]

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.'

 

[KissedOut]

Not to speak for KissedOut, but...I read what he's saying to be that since skill level is the most influential factor determining the outcome of a pool game rather than complete randomness, it is unlikely that I will beat Earl Strickland regardless of how many matches I play against him. :smile:

Yes. And 10 wins in a row example I used (not the one game result the math nit tried to use) creates a strong presumption that the skill levels are not equal. Hence not random. Unlike the famous coin flip example.

 

[KissedOut]

A lot of addicted gamblers call people who know how to leave with the cash a nit.

I liked Tom Ferry's rules which were establish the rules ahead of time and anybody can quit whenever they want - reduces the whining when they have agreed to it already.

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