Morality, Money and Pool. Where do you stand?
- Thread starter crawfish
- Start date
WIN the money first. Play until he quits. Then give back whatever you feel is appropriate. Maybe if you win $400, you can give him back 50 or a 100. That way, you seem generous and they aren't broke. Trust me, he was trying to beat you out of your money, and wouldn't have given you back a dime, if it had gone his way. Remember, he asked you to play!
This way you may teach him (and her) a valuable lesson about gambling. If you don't, someone else will! One last thing. When you dump off money like that, it only hurts your own game.
This way you may teach him (and her) a valuable lesson about gambling. If you don't, someone else will! One last thing. When you dump off money like that, it only hurts your own game.
Last edited:
Regardless of whether it was a con or not, I would've (and have several times in the past) given the money back as well. I would have beaten the guy out of every penny first, though, and then handed the money directly back to his wife, probably with some parting words about how he should be ashamed of himself. 
There are, I'm sure, some who have employed cons just like this, but the reason such cons work is because it's easy for us to believe that people would get themselves in situations like that. If you don't believe it, just listen to the Dave Ramsey show sometime. 
Most of us have seen true cases like this before, and in many places other than the pool hall. I was in Target just last night with my wife, and she overheard this conversation:
Wife: "Hey, their portable dvd players are only $149"
Husband: "Yeah, but we need to save up for the mortgage"
Wife: "But the kids need this"
This same couple had spent the previous 5 minutes trying to get their small daughter (who's name was one I though was reserved for prostitutes and Chihuahua's) to "shut the hell up" because she was throwing a fit in the shopping cart. I'm not going to tell someone how to raise their kids, but these people obviously have some serious priority issues if they believe that their kids need a DVD player more than they need a roof over their heads.
They're out there, folks; the movie Idiocracy may prove more prophetic than we would like to imagine.
JMHO,
Aaron
There are, I'm sure, some who have employed cons just like this, but the reason such cons work is because it's easy for us to believe that people would get themselves in situations like that. If you don't believe it, just listen to the Dave Ramsey show sometime. Most of us have seen true cases like this before, and in many places other than the pool hall. I was in Target just last night with my wife, and she overheard this conversation:Wife: "Hey, their portable dvd players are only $149"
Husband: "Yeah, but we need to save up for the mortgage"
Wife: "But the kids need this"
This same couple had spent the previous 5 minutes trying to get their small daughter (who's name was one I though was reserved for prostitutes and Chihuahua's) to "shut the hell up" because she was throwing a fit in the shopping cart. I'm not going to tell someone how to raise their kids, but these people obviously have some serious priority issues if they believe that their kids need a DVD player more than they need a roof over their heads.
They're out there, folks; the movie Idiocracy may prove more prophetic than we would like to imagine.
JMHO,
Aaron
crawfish said:
The bottom line isn't what "they" should or shouldn't do or if it was even a con. The bottom line is YOU have to live with your thoughts and feelings. For you this was the right decision. You don't need to guess if you did the right thing - it was the right thing for you -- you can sleep at night and it didn't cost you a dime
I have to tell you one story. When I was a young man in Bakersfield and had my first poolroom, a lot of guys came in and challenged me. One guy in particular loved to play with me and gamble for a few dollars after he got his pay check. I willingly obliged him and won $25 to $50 from him every time.
One Friday afternoon, he comes in and tells me how much better he is playing (I'd heard this line before), and how he was going to beat me today. So off we go for a little $5 9-Ball. Once again I'm winning and in comes his young wife, who is now very pregnant. On this particular day, with her in attendance, he refuses to quit and I win his entire pay check, about $125.
She is now crying and he is trying to console her. I am behind the counter now and going about my business trying to ignore them. I can't help but hear her whimpering about money for food etc. Finally I can't stand it anymore and call him over to the counter. I hand him $60 and tell him that I won't play him anymore. He is elated.
Bottom line, this couple becomes very good friends of mine and begin coming in my poolroom on a regular basis and playing socially. Believe it or not, they ask me to be the Godfather for their baby. True Story!
One Friday afternoon, he comes in and tells me how much better he is playing (I'd heard this line before), and how he was going to beat me today. So off we go for a little $5 9-Ball. Once again I'm winning and in comes his young wife, who is now very pregnant. On this particular day, with her in attendance, he refuses to quit and I win his entire pay check, about $125.
She is now crying and he is trying to console her. I am behind the counter now and going about my business trying to ignore them. I can't help but hear her whimpering about money for food etc. Finally I can't stand it anymore and call him over to the counter. I hand him $60 and tell him that I won't play him anymore. He is elated.
Bottom line, this couple becomes very good friends of mine and begin coming in my poolroom on a regular basis and playing socially. Believe it or not, they ask me to be the Godfather for their baby. True Story!
IMO, there is no ethical issue for you to ponder. You are not gambling with the wife or the child, although it would be easy to think that because it's money they would be spending if the father won.
Why didn't the wife speak up? Why are we quick to feel sorry for her when she was clearly watching what was happening and refused to speak up? You got into a session with a guy who maybe shouldn't have been gambling, but it's not your job to know everything about a guys personal life before you beat him fair and square.
That's brings up another point. You weren't hiding your speed and he still kept coming at you. Perhaps you should feel bad and give the money back if you were setting the guy up, but you clearly weren't. He set himself up. Again, this is not your issue.
The bottom line is, you are responsible for YOUR actions only. It's not your responsibility to keep food on the table at someone elses home.
Ethically, I think these two "parents" should be spaid and neutered.
Why didn't the wife speak up? Why are we quick to feel sorry for her when she was clearly watching what was happening and refused to speak up? You got into a session with a guy who maybe shouldn't have been gambling, but it's not your job to know everything about a guys personal life before you beat him fair and square.
That's brings up another point. You weren't hiding your speed and he still kept coming at you. Perhaps you should feel bad and give the money back if you were setting the guy up, but you clearly weren't. He set himself up. Again, this is not your issue.
The bottom line is, you are responsible for YOUR actions only. It's not your responsibility to keep food on the table at someone elses home.
Ethically, I think these two "parents" should be spaid and neutered.
I think it was nice what you did. Would I have done it that way...no. I would have given the wife some of the money back and told her if she was smart not to bail him out or give him money to gamble with on pool. It might have been a con but who knows. If you feel good about it...then it's right. Johnnyt
I agree with Jay. Play till he quits loser. The walking stick is more for your concience than his benifit.jay helfert said:
Con or no con, myself, I wouldn't take the money from someone I suspect needs it more then me. I have to sleep at night, I simply can't take a person's money in good conscious knowing that they absolutely need the money.
I like what crawfish did, I also like the idea of beating him for everything and then giving it back to them to teach them a lesson.
But, I wouldn't be walking out with the guys $$$ with his pregnant wife/girlfriend and child standing there...
I like what crawfish did, I also like the idea of beating him for everything and then giving it back to them to teach them a lesson.
But, I wouldn't be walking out with the guys $$$ with his pregnant wife/girlfriend and child standing there...
I think you did the right thing. It seems pretty unlikely that this was a con, since their "elaborate ruse" lost them $75. I guess maybe it could have been a contingency con, where they run it only if he gets down.
As for people who gamble with money they can't afford to lose, there's no point in trying to "teach them a lesson", those folks have almost certainly lost needed money before, and they haven't learned. BUT, that doesn't make it right to knowingly participate it their self-destructive behaviour. JMHO, but I think it's wrong. Call it bad karma if you want...
As for people who gamble with money they can't afford to lose, there's no point in trying to "teach them a lesson", those folks have almost certainly lost needed money before, and they haven't learned. BUT, that doesn't make it right to knowingly participate it their self-destructive behaviour. JMHO, but I think it's wrong. Call it bad karma if you want...
There seem to be two schools of thought here. The first view emphasizes that the guy and his "wife" are responsible for their own actions. If they choose to gamble and lose, no moral blame can be placed on Crawfish, especially if he isn't hiding his speed. And, as one poster notes, if these dolts don't lose their money on pool they will likely squander it on some other gambit (lottery tickets?).
The second view acknowledges all these points about rights and responsibilities, but emphasizes that morality is also about character and compassion. One is certainly entitled to be cold and unsympathetic, especially when it comes to gambling, but I think the compassion displayed by Crawfish in this situation is praiseworthy. In my view, the best solution has already been stated by other posters: Play your best, and then give them a significant portion back, along with some brief words of wisdom about not gambling the rent money with strangers.
Interesting topic.
The second view acknowledges all these points about rights and responsibilities, but emphasizes that morality is also about character and compassion. One is certainly entitled to be cold and unsympathetic, especially when it comes to gambling, but I think the compassion displayed by Crawfish in this situation is praiseworthy. In my view, the best solution has already been stated by other posters: Play your best, and then give them a significant portion back, along with some brief words of wisdom about not gambling the rent money with strangers.
Interesting topic.
Nice job.
Con / No Con....who cares. You're the winner here.
The older I get the more it means doing "the right thing". Wasn't always that way.
Winning a few sets = $300
Winning a peaceful night's sleep = priceless
The bigger man/woman will always win my respect...something that you couldn't buy at any price.
Con / No Con....who cares. You're the winner here.
The older I get the more it means doing "the right thing". Wasn't always that way.
Winning a few sets = $300
Winning a peaceful night's sleep = priceless
The bigger man/woman will always win my respect...something that you couldn't buy at any price.
I agree with Jay et al - I would have taken the guy for all he had, and then given some back. I think that would have been a better lesson to the guy than dumping and giving him some sort of false confidence about his ability to play and gamble. Despite his having LOST more than he won, the fact that he WON some may well rank higher in his brain and lead him to lose more to the next guy.
Tap Tap Tap.crawfish said:
I would have just given the money back to the wife, except for what I would think would be a reasonable loss. Take your $75 or whatever amount out you think he owes you and give his wife the rest. By letting him win it back, you may be fueling his competitive fire in thinking he had a chance against you, and he may end up playing someone else and losing because he thought he was on a roll. Nip the problem in the bud - let him know he had no chance, take your fee for the "lesson", and let his wife be the disciplinarian.
20 years ago I beat I guy out of his truck payment money, it got reposessed, he fell off the wagon, and i took his girl home that night(i didnt sleep with her and wasnt aware it was his girl, when he left the pool hall she couldnt get a ride) and I didnt care, i beat another guy same pool hall out af a couple hundred he went out back and punched the wall so hard he broke his hand and arm, problem was it was May and he had a modeling contract for huge $$ all summer, i didnt care.
Now days I would have beat him til he couldnt stand it and gave him the $$$ back, I have done this in Mexico a couple times.
Now days I would have beat him til he couldnt stand it and gave him the $$$ back, I have done this in Mexico a couple times.
Looks like we were on the same brainchannel. Sorry about that - do you smell burnt toast, too?ScottW said:Get OUT of my HEAD...!
You did the right thing. If it was a con it was a bad one. You ended $75 ahead, right? Conmen don't generally want to leave you ahead. You did what you did for your sake not his.crawfish said:
The fact that he didn't learn anything and will just lose it to someone else is irrelevant. That is the old "If I don't do it someone else will" excuse for doing something that is wrong and it doesn't make it right. KT could say the same thing yet I'm sure no-body hear would excuse him on those grounds.
Ed
Last edited: