NEW NATIONAL RATING SYTEM - SVB vs. You

[kvinbrwr]

The way to have anyone try to get to 30+ games is to have SVB get to 100 and not be "fantasy" but actual reality is...give him $2000 per game for every game he holds his AZB amateur opponent to under 30..he gives up only 20 games he gets 20k...gives up 10 games he get 40k..that's when you find out how many games you can get to against SVB when he's basically playing the $ ghost..not too many bangers will come close to 30...most wont come close to 20 if SVB smells that amount of cash.

And the safeties he will play against a banger will give him ball in hand all day..try beating Shane when he has ball in hand..the defense he can play against a banger at fulll speed is more impressive then his offense which is obscene..

That is the way to get SVB's full attention and playing like he did last weekend. Now he isn't playing for fun..and will bear down in a long set which I just saw is deadly. $2000 for every game under 30, get a comfortable chair..

You are right of course.

Playing Shane is not playing the Ghost. Its not playing the best guy in your area. Its playing a guy who has gears of speed on the best guy you ever played. You have to be Efren to get hits of his safes, and start giving SVB ball in hand and you are gonna have your butt go to sleep from sitting in that chair.

Plus, sitting and getting buried and watching a guy with more skill that you have even played run, say 5 racks on your ass, and then when you finally get up to the table you are two rail kicking sideways because he's got you locked against a ball.

No 30 for you JB.

Kevin

 

[Pidge]

its somewhat similar to playing the ghost. Since when you miss Shane is going to run out. Say you can beat the ghost 30 out of 100, then take into account you won't be breaking every game you can cut that down to 20. Then take into account that if Shane can't run out he's going to have you locked in a safe. If by some miracle you get safe 50% of the time from an svb safe the you can knock 5-10 off the 20. I think that 10 is a fair result against someone who beats the ghost 30% of the time. That's my logic behind it anyway.

I'd play Shane for 20k with a 50 start, but I honestly think I'd stand more chance spending 20k on lotto tickets and winning 40k back. How the hell do you get that good?

 

[JB Cases]

its somewhat similar to playing the ghost. Since when you miss Shane is going to run out. Say you can beat the ghost 30 out of 100, then take into account you won't be breaking every game you can cut that down to 20. Then take into account that if Shane can't run out he's going to have you locked in a safe. If by some miracle you get safe 50% of the time from an svb safe the you can knock 5-10 off the 20. I think that 10 is a fair result against someone who beats the ghost 30% of the time. That's my logic behind it anyway.

I'd play Shane for 20k with a 50 start, but I honestly think I'd stand more chance spending 20k on lotto tickets and winning 40k back. How the hell do you get that good?

there you go folks. pidge only wants 50 games for 20k.

get it set up.

meanwhile, i would be willing to bet 5k on myself getting to 30.

 

[JB Cases]

Alright - let's hear it....on the TAR table, playing 10 Ball, how many racks would you win against Shane in a race to 100? This is assuming Shane would be interested the entire match.

I'm wondering if I could get to 30? Probably wouldn't bet on it. That's a pretty humbling thought.



***Update Alert***

I'm adding the list. If you don't want your name on here just let me know and I'll remove it.

70 realkingcobra
30 JB Cases
25 BasementDweller
21 SloMoHolic
20 nine_ball6970
19 Cory in DC
16 the420trooper
15 Icon of Sin
15 AlexandruM
13 thepavlos
10 Money Box
10 Samiel
10 FordSVTCobra
10 Nostroke
10 CreeDo
8 iba7467
2 iusedtoberich
1 bdorman


Cleary didn't make the list because everybody already knows he's the favorite to get to 100.

So how would this list translate to the familiar ABC system? I generally used to be a A player wherever I lived. Now I would say I am a B.

 

[Jaden]

It would be 3 out of 13...

Again...it's not 3 out of every 10 games. It's 3 out of every 12 or 13 right?

As the mayor of Fantasyville it's my job to keep the facts straight.

It WOULD be 3 out 13 games, because it's getting to 3 games by the time your opponent gets to 10....

Jaden

 

[JB Cases]

It WOULD be 3 out 13 games, because it's getting to 3 games by the time your opponent gets to 10....

Jaden

technically 129 games but close enough. so it is even better odds for Shane's opponent if he only needs to win 3 out of every 13 games.

i raise my bet to 7000 on myself with those odds.

 

[RunoutJJ]

I traded rack with Shane at the TS during warm-up. Out of 20 games I won about 8 or 9. I guess thats not too bad but he wasnt playing too many safes either :groucho:

 

[TATE]

Tate,

I came to a similar conclusion, using Shane's stats from his match vs Orcullo. I used these stats:
http://www.pool-trax.net/Events/EventDetails.aspx?Sid=308

Based on the Pool Trax stats, Shane played 181 games, took 950 shots(offense only?) and missed 116 balls. Let's assume that of the 116 misses, you get left with a simple (five balls or less) runout, say, 1/3rd of the time. That equates to about 38 simple chances to runout. Then, let's assume that we only convert 2 out of 3 of our chances. Taht means you would end up with around 25 games, give or take.

This is assuming you will run out from the 5 ball(or less), 66% of the time AND assuming that SVB wins every other game he doesn't miss in. There is the chance that someone can have a few break & runs, but I didn't factor that in. Let's face it, for most amateurs, that isn't a huge factor.

**EDIT- I feel that anyone that doesn't play slightly under Open/Shortstop speed is smoking crack, if they think they are getting more than 25


Eric

Hi Eric,

Thanks for that website - pretty amazing stats on a match!

Chris

 

[BasementDweller]

So how would this list translate to the familiar ABC system? I generally used to be a A player wherever I lived. Now I would say I am a B.

Sorry for the late response I've been pretty busy.



Anyway, forget the ABC system stuff. That has outlived its usefulness, don't you think?

Wait a second, I guess we could come up with a general idea of how the A-B-C thing would work.

Maybe:
50+ = Pro
40-49 = Open
30-39 = A
20-29 = B
10-19 = C
0-9 = D


This new rating system is based on Shane being the 100. Everybody else falls below him somewhere. There may be fellow pros that qualify as 100's.

Now we just need to get a couple of guys to play him a race to 100 to get our baseline numbers and then we can go from there. I do think you could get Shane to play his best against just about anybody using Palmerfan's idea, or something similar.

Once a couple guys play him then they could use their number to match up. Having a number based off of 100 would really make it nice for matching up purposes.

 

[Spimp13]

Without even looking at the list and amount of games the people said they can win (for those saying 30+ for ex), it comes down to how much incentive does SVB have to beat you. If there is cash on the line thank you come again. If there is a good chunk of cash on the line, at least try to get his telephone # after the @ss pounding you are going to receive from him. Let's see how you play when the lights are on, the pressure is on, and SVB smiles at you knowing that it is over before it even started. That is all.

 

[JB Cases]

Without even looking at the list and amount of games the people said they can win (for those saying 30+ for ex), it comes down to how much incentive does SVB have to beat you. If there is cash on the line thank you come again. If there is a good chunk of cash on the line, at least try to get his telephone # after the @ss pounding you are going to receive from him. Let's see how you play when the lights are on, the pressure is on, and SVB smiles at you knowing that it is over before it even started. That is all.

I would absolutely hate to be the type of person/player who goes into matches thinking I am beat before it starts.

My thinking is that some of you have a way over-inflated idea of how good the pros are and a sad and depressing idea of how good you are. Pros like Shane are TOUGH no doubt about it. And Shane IS brimming with confidence and self-assurance in his abilities. But if you go into it with a defeated attitude then you certainly will lose even if you had a chance to win.

But if you consider yourself any kind of player and you don't at least have full confidence that you can get to 30 before Shane gets to 100 you should immediately quit and never gamble another nickel on your own ability to beat anyone.

IMO of course, you might be happy where you are and never seek to get better. Me, I would LOVE the opportunity to play Shane, Ko Pin Yi or any breathing human being with a 70 game spot.

If, after 30 years of playing and gambling on pool I couldn't win then it really would be time to accept that pool is not my game and go find a new hobby. So right or wrong I have to go through life with the confidence that I would win that game with the ability I have managed to acquire to this point.

 

[BeiberLvr]

IMO of course, you might be happy where you are and never seek to get better. Me, I would LOVE the opportunity to play Shane, Ko Pin Yi or any breathing human being with a 70 game spot.

If, after 30 years of playing and gambling on pool I couldn't win then it really would be time to accept that pool is not my game and go find a new hobby. So right or wrong I have to go through life with the confidence that I would win that game with the ability I have managed to acquire to this point.

If you lost to Shane getting a 70 game spot, it doesn't mean pool is not your game.
It just means you overestimated your own abilities, and underestimated his.

 

[JB Cases]

If you lost to Shane getting a 70 game spot, it doesn't mean pool is not your game.
It just means you overestimated your own abilities, and underestimated his.

No, for me it means pool is NOT my game. All the players of my generation who grew up in the pool room understand exactly what I mean.

 

[kvinbrwr]

No, for me it means pool is NOT my game. All the players of my generation who grew up in the pool room understand exactly what I mean.

JB

It would only mean one thing. It would mean that you don't play well enough to get 30 on SVB before he gets 100. Any other interpretation or tea-leaf reading is gambling with the wrong part of your brain.

I spent year watching Cornbread convince guys it was about something besides who get out out within the bet. He never believed it was about anything other than winning the bet, but he sure could turn it into all sorts of other contests for his opponents (read suckers) to compete in. I wonder why he did that?

Kevin

 

[JB Cases]

JB

It would only mean one thing. It would mean that you don't play well enough to get 30 on SVB before he gets 100. Any other interpretation or tea-leaf reading is gambling with the wrong part of your brain.

Kevin

Well, without knowing how you came up in pool I would say that anyone I came up with would laugh at me if I didn't take a 70 game spot and not win after all the time spent matching up and playing.

I can't speak to your experience but no one in the pool room when I was younger would have hesitated for a second to take this weight from any pro. Now with much more experience they would flat out laugh and ridicule any of us who wouldn't take it and win.

That's what it means to me. OF course the FACTS would be that I didn't play well enough to win if I didn't win. That's obvious. But the psychological effect of simply not being able to get to 30 for a player of my caliber (in my mind) would be devastating. If I had only ever been a league player then I probably wouldn't think much of it since leagues are predicated on slotting people into levels.

As somewhat of a money player I simply cannot refuse this weight and think I have the mortal nuts against any player living.

 

[kvinbrwr]

Well, without knowing how you came up in pool I would say that anyone I came up with would laugh at me if I didn't take a 70 game spot and not win after all the time spent matching up and playing.

I can't speak to your experience but no one in the pool room when I was younger would have hesitated for a second to take this weight from any pro. Now with much more experience they would flat out laugh and ridicule any of us who wouldn't take it and win.

That's what it means to me. OF course the FACTS would be that I didn't play well enough to win if I didn't win. That's obvious. But the psychological effect of simply not being able to get to 30 for a player of my caliber (in my mind) would be devastating. If I had only ever been a league player then I probably wouldn't think much of it since leagues are predicated on slotting people into levels.

As somewhat of a money player I simply cannot refuse this weight and think I have the mortal nuts against any player living.

Seems like the perfect old style TAR grudge match. You are willing to put up 7K and your ego and sense of self-worth as a pool player. I think the money is enough, but it sounds like a match to me. If TAR's viewership is made up in majority from AZ members, the match seems like a natural, but what do I know? For all I know, TAR draws huge outside of AZ and wouldn't be interested in a match with appeal limited to AZ. I for one would bet some and I'd for sure subscribe and pay them to stream it. I think it would be popular. I think the threads leading up to the match would be epic and I think plenty of guys from AZ would watch the stream. I don't know how many guys would take your end of the action, but maybe Shane would show for the 7K gamble and maybe TAR would pay him some appearance $$ based on the subscription level?


Kevin

 

[JB Cases]

I spent year watching Cornbread convince guys it was about something besides who get out out within the bet. He never believed it was about anything other than winning the bet, but he sure could turn it into all sorts of other contests for his opponents (read suckers) to compete in. I wonder why he did that?

Kevin

Because he was a carny and knew how to manipulate people. The whole point for him was to trap suckers into bets they COULD NOT win.

This proposal is simply a shootout. The pro gives up a 70 game head start. Do you know why a lot of people aren't responding in this thread? Because they know full well that they would take less weight and rob Shane, and Shane wouldn't give it up.

I am totally 100% confident that I am a 30 on the Shane index even in my weak state. In fact I doubt highly that Shane would give up this weight for a significant amount of money. But, then again he did just destroy Orcullo winning by more than 20 games......

 

[JB Cases]

Seems like the perfect old style TAR grudge match. You are willing to put up 7K and your ego and sense of self-worth as a pool player. I think the money is enough, but it sounds like a match to me. If TAR's viewership is made up in majority from AZ members, the match seems like a natural, but what do I know? For all I know, TAR draws huge outside of AZ and wouldn't be interested in a match with appeal limited to AZ. I for one would bet some and I'd for sure subscribe and pay them to stream it. I think it would be popular. I think the threads leading up to the match would be epic and I think plenty of guys from AZ would watch the stream. I don't know how many guys would take your end of the action, but maybe Shane would show for the 7K gamble and maybe TAR would pay him some appearance $$ based on the subscription level?


Kevin

I'd have to have part of the gate, an appearance fee, round the clock catering and of course a full stocked limo at my disposal if I am expected to out my game on TAR. I have spent so much time cultivating this idea that I am a C player with a bad stroke it would have to really worth a lot to come off the lifelong stall on the big stage ;-)

 

[BasementDweller]

I love your enthusiasm JB. I actually kind of feel like you do too. I mean if I couldn't get to 30 that would really suck. It just seems like the numbers don't work out.

Crunch the numbers for us. How do you get to 30?

 

[Celtic]

Dennis Orcullo got to 81, there were bets before the final day that he would not get to 70, and while he did not shoot as good as he normally does he still shot one hell of alot better then anyone posting here.

First off if you are going to gamble on this SVB is going to know the number you are going to, if Marsman is backing him for $10,000 and SVB is giving someone 70 on the wire going to 100 then SVB is not going to "give" away too many games.

Another thing you have to realize is that if/when Shane misses he normally does so early, it is a break with bad shape on the 1 where he has to push, or early in a rack trying to deal with a tied up 3 ball. Against a guy like Dennis O missing those balls early tended to end up with SVB losing those games because Dennis can run out from an open look at the 1 or the 3 ball with extreme regularity. Most amature players cannot, even WITH an open shot on the 1-ball they cannot run out a rack of 10 ball with any sort of regularity. Shane is going to get back to ALOT more tables then he did with Dennis if he is playing a amature, and Shane will almost never miss deep into a rack.

Also, when it comes to the safety game SVB is going to completely dominate any amature player in the world. If he needs to play safe deep in a rack the chances are he will get back to that rack with a good shot after the amature played some absurd flyer.

Also, Dennis broke bad in his match with SVB, but his break with STILL alot better then almost all amatures out there. The 10-ball break is NOT easy to both make a ball AND get shape on the 1 ball in, most amatures have no chance of stringing racks, so while SVB will put packages on whoever he is playing, on the rare time the amature manages to win a game they are likely giving back control of the table in the very next game.

30 games? There is no chance. Look at the TRUE amatures who play in pro events when they run into elite level players, they get beat 11-0, 11-1. Reasonable players who are known but not top pros tend to get evicerated in their matches against top pros, guys like Lee Van Corteza completely blow low level shortstop players out of the water in your average large event match, 11-0, 11-2. against guys who are actually relatively decent BCA master level players. Every top pro in these events is the same, they only start seeing closer matches when they start playing each other.

No offence JB but there is no chance you get to 30, $1000 is not enough to get SVB to bother to do it, I would play him for $1000 getting a 70 game spot in a race to 100 as well and it has nothing to do with my thinking I can win, that is simply worth the $1000 to play him in a set like that, money well spent. You add a 0 to that and make it $10,000 and I am pretty sure you can get played getting 70 games going to 100, and you will realize getting to 85 games is tough enough, 100 is a pipe dream.

At my absolute best in a long set like that playing 10-ball I think I would have maybe got in the 15-20 range, and at that time I was playing good enough to win a 9-ball match against a pro player getting 2 on the wire in a race to 9 9-3 for $100. The thing is that was 9-ball and I was breaking well and keeping control of the table, 10-ball against SVB is a whole different beast.