(If you have a more creative way to structure a matchup than the one I’ve outlined below (in the six numbered points), please share it!
Dear Gentle Readers,
Is there any way that I - - or any truly neophyte player - - could engage in a competitive wager with one of the greatest one-pocket players on the planet?
Of course a kind of precedent could be cited … those times when Scott bet it up against Dippy Dave. For, apparently, some serious bank.
I don’t remember the spot - - 16 - 5, maybe 18 - 3, - - something crazy. Perhaps the odds varied from time to time.
(The Dave’s game is far superior to mine. The consensus is that Double D could give me 10 - 3. And, that I would maybe have a shot at 10 - 2. Maybe.)
In any case, I would need about a gazillion to 1, somewhere in that neighborhood, against Scott.
But what about a more innovative set of stipulations?
My absolute lack of talent is a given. (See the four bullet points that follow.) But also factor in my tentative willingness to come up with some cash … say $5,000 on a race to five. Or more than that for a five-ahead contest. If, indeed, it’s a truly competitive venture.
Here’s how I play:
> One pocket: I’ve run two, maybe three balls in a row. Possibly four.
> Nine ball: my high run would be four, perhaps five, balls.
> Eight ball: I’ve never run out from a full table. (Okay, I tend to check into the nervous hospital.)
> Billiards: I do have a Gabriels and - - once! - - made two three-cushion shots in a row. I like to practice the break shot because it’s so much fun. I can make it maybe one in 10 or 12 times.
So … I’m a chump.
But I adore watching one-pocket and I admire Scott’s aggressive game.
After serious deliberation (about 45 seconds), here’s the fantasy game I’ve concocted:
1) I can have the mystery coach of my choice who has already - - somewhat bemusedly - - signed on.
2) Every time Scott doesn’t pocket an object ball in his own pocket, I have ball-in-hand. Including after he breaks.
3) On Coach’s advice, Scott has every break. (Mine is so lousy that it’s often a disadvantage for me to break.) If he makes a ball on the break and runs out, I lose.
4) I can run no more than two balls at a time. (Sadly, not that much of a concession on my part.)
5) Scott can run as many balls as he is able. My Waterloo!
6) The three-foul rule doesn’t apply to me.*
Who would be favored? Well … by how much would Scott be favored?
Temporarily sans beau, fantasy is my life,
Sunny
P. S. In my little consulting business, I now have three tamale stands - - NYC, SF and Hong Kong. The third one is now … well, it’s no longer too much of a disaster. So I’m able to scratch together a few pesos to wager on an equitable contest.
P. P. S. Said wager wouldn't have to be limited to Scott, would it? If I’m dopey enough to play Mr. Frost … well, why set any restrictions on who the opponent is? But I unabashedly reserve the right to chicken out at any time!
P. P. P. S. I totally grok that these quirky ball-in-hand provisos could skew the sanctity of one-pocket as we know and love it. But there’s little merit in judging the process a priori without ex post observation is there?
*Yes, dullard that I am, even I realize that every additional ball I have to pocket disproportionally diminishes my chances to prevail. Hmm … perhaps I have a secret plan involving titty hooks that … well, never mind!
Dear Gentle Readers,
Is there any way that I - - or any truly neophyte player - - could engage in a competitive wager with one of the greatest one-pocket players on the planet?
Of course a kind of precedent could be cited … those times when Scott bet it up against Dippy Dave. For, apparently, some serious bank.
I don’t remember the spot - - 16 - 5, maybe 18 - 3, - - something crazy. Perhaps the odds varied from time to time.
(The Dave’s game is far superior to mine. The consensus is that Double D could give me 10 - 3. And, that I would maybe have a shot at 10 - 2. Maybe.)
In any case, I would need about a gazillion to 1, somewhere in that neighborhood, against Scott.
But what about a more innovative set of stipulations?
My absolute lack of talent is a given. (See the four bullet points that follow.) But also factor in my tentative willingness to come up with some cash … say $5,000 on a race to five. Or more than that for a five-ahead contest. If, indeed, it’s a truly competitive venture.
Here’s how I play:
> One pocket: I’ve run two, maybe three balls in a row. Possibly four.
> Nine ball: my high run would be four, perhaps five, balls.
> Eight ball: I’ve never run out from a full table. (Okay, I tend to check into the nervous hospital.)
> Billiards: I do have a Gabriels and - - once! - - made two three-cushion shots in a row. I like to practice the break shot because it’s so much fun. I can make it maybe one in 10 or 12 times.
So … I’m a chump.
But I adore watching one-pocket and I admire Scott’s aggressive game.
After serious deliberation (about 45 seconds), here’s the fantasy game I’ve concocted:
1) I can have the mystery coach of my choice who has already - - somewhat bemusedly - - signed on.
2) Every time Scott doesn’t pocket an object ball in his own pocket, I have ball-in-hand. Including after he breaks.
3) On Coach’s advice, Scott has every break. (Mine is so lousy that it’s often a disadvantage for me to break.) If he makes a ball on the break and runs out, I lose.
4) I can run no more than two balls at a time. (Sadly, not that much of a concession on my part.)
5) Scott can run as many balls as he is able. My Waterloo!
6) The three-foul rule doesn’t apply to me.*
Who would be favored? Well … by how much would Scott be favored?
Temporarily sans beau, fantasy is my life,
Sunny
P. S. In my little consulting business, I now have three tamale stands - - NYC, SF and Hong Kong. The third one is now … well, it’s no longer too much of a disaster. So I’m able to scratch together a few pesos to wager on an equitable contest.
P. P. S. Said wager wouldn't have to be limited to Scott, would it? If I’m dopey enough to play Mr. Frost … well, why set any restrictions on who the opponent is? But I unabashedly reserve the right to chicken out at any time!
P. P. P. S. I totally grok that these quirky ball-in-hand provisos could skew the sanctity of one-pocket as we know and love it. But there’s little merit in judging the process a priori without ex post observation is there?
*Yes, dullard that I am, even I realize that every additional ball I have to pocket disproportionally diminishes my chances to prevail. Hmm … perhaps I have a secret plan involving titty hooks that … well, never mind!