Pro Players gambling against each other; discussion.

[JoeyA]

I should have added exhibition matches as well but the Title section doesn't make that so easy to do.

We know that American players don't regularly play each other, even for funzies. They don't regularly gamble against each other. They seldom have exhibition matches against each other.

What can be gained by American pro players, playing each other on a regular basis?

1. For one thing, by playing each other on a regular basis, they will better condition themselves for future competition against everyone.
2. Improve table etiquette.
3. Improve their play.
4. Exhibition matches and charity matches build goodwill in the community.
5. Matches between top players, excite and mesmerize the local people, thereby putting more money and interest into the sport.
6. Matches between top players can be live-streamed to share with home bound pool fans.

Please add your "gain" or "loss" item and I will try to update the original post.

And let's make a list of what can be lost by American pro players, playing against each other on a regular basis?

1. If the top players loses against a lesser player, their pride may be hurt.
2. If top players played regularly against each other they would have to give up their lazy ways.

 

[Maniac]

What can be gained by American pro players, playing each other on a regular basis?

If the American pro players spent time playing against Nick Varner, then at least they'd have a glimpse at what proper table etiquette is. Maybe some of it would rub off on them, but I doubt it :frown:.

Maniac

 

[JoeyA]

If the American pro players spent time playing against Nick Varner, then at least they'd have a glimpse at what proper table etiquitte is. Maybe some of it would rub off on them, but I doubt it :frown:.

Maniac

That's a maybe, but I'll add it anyway. It's kind of an unusual "gain".

 

[ENGLISH!]

If the American pro players spent time playing against Nick Varner, then at least they'd have a glimpse at what proper table etiquette is. Maybe some of it would rub off on them, but I doubt it :frown:.

Maniac

Maybe some team tournaments: one over 40 & one under 30 years old. Kind of a mentor program. Golf has it but without the individual competition.

 

[Lock N Load]

I should have added exhibition matches as well but the Title section doesn't make that so easy to do.

We know that American players don't regularly play each other, even for funzies. They don't regularly gamble against each other. They seldom have exhibition matches against each other.

What can be gained by American pro players, playing each other on a regular basis?

And let's make a list of what can be lost by American pro players, playing against each other on a regular basis?

1. For one thing, by playing each other on a regular basis, they will better condition themselves for future competition against everyone.
2. Improve table etiquette.

Please add your "gain" or "loss" item and I will try to update the original post.

The pro players would learn more about what to expect when playing each other. And how to improve their game, the competition and how to play safeties as well as get out of them! They would gain good experience for other matches and tournaments. It would help their momentum as well.
Good thread, JoeyA.
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

 

[miscrewed1989]

Gambling...

If we are speaking of pro players gambling against each other as opposed to just playing against each other, it might give us a better understanding of their skill levels. When playing exhibition matches or in tournaments such as the DCC or the recent Southern Classic, it is not inconceivable that the pro-performances we witness are no real measure of talent or skill. If the players were to put up their own substantial amount of cash, and agree to a set game or games, we might actually see who the better players are. But yet, that opens another can of worms...
Some players have or have access to bigger bankrolls. So now the issue of bankroll intimidation arises. So who is the best player under no duress and who is best under duress? Where is the breaking point? If confidence is measured by the size of the bankroll, would it be safe to say the richest player is the best? Interesting concept...
I think the key is to get these "pros" to put their heart back into the game. That is most likely what got them there, but it seems alot of them get complacent once they get there. So, the trick is incentive. How do we come up with the incentive to get every pro to play his/her very best every time?

 

[JoeyA]

If we are speaking of pro players gambling against each other as opposed to just playing against each other, it might give us a better understanding of their skill levels. When playing exhibition matches or in tournaments such as the DCC or the recent Southern Classic, it is not inconceivable that the pro-performances we witness are no real measure of talent or skill. If the players were to put up their own substantial amount of cash, and agree to a set game or games, we might actually see who the better players are. But yet, that opens another can of worms...
Some players have or have access to bigger bankrolls. So now the issue of bankroll intimidation arises. So who is the best player under no duress and who is best under duress? Where is the breaking point? If confidence is measured by the size of the bankroll, would it be safe to say the richest player is the best? Interesting concept...
I think the key is to get these "pros" to put their heart back into the game. That is most likely what got them there, but it seems alot of them get complacent once they get there. So, the trick is incentive. How do we come up with the incentive to get every pro to play his/her very best every time?

I've found that the higher the bet doesn't necessarily make the player play better. Even small bets help a player keep their focus. No one likes to lose even small bets, no matter who they are playing.

Some players like myself, don't like losing for funzies and will focus even when they are playing for nothing. Not everyone is like that but NO ONE likes to lose even small amounts of cash and most people will focus unless they are trying to "make a score" with a big bet at a later date, in essence, laying down a bit. If the player knows that it isn't going to get them a bigger bet at a later time, they most likely will focus and try not to lose their cash.


Big bets are primarily about "making a score".

 

[Tramp Steamer]

Maybe some exhibition matches for charities, fundraisers, etc. This would no doubt be beneficial for pool in general, both in generating new interest as well as inhancing the public perception of the cue sports.
The biggest stumbling block here would be the organizational infrastructure, in opinion. :smile:

 

[miscrewed1989]

Ok...

Yes, that may be true for you and I. I also hate to lose under any circumstances. I just wonder how many of the pros still feel that way and what would it take to get them to play their absolute heart out? If it were me and I had already proven myself as a pro, I think losing to an up-and-comer, playing even, would hurt worse than losing to another pro. Though some may have lost heart, most still have their egos.
I liken it to football (or any other sport). The college players seem to try so much harder than the pros. But none of the pros want to be bettered by a rookie!

 

[CreeDo]

Well, in the "loss" column, a few players will have to lose a little pride.

It was mentioned that there's a pecking order in most pool halls. I'm sure there are pros who would prefer to keep their position in the national (or world) pecking order kind of ambiguous... vs playing some sets and removing all doubt that they're just of a lower calibre than the top pros.

In the "gain" column, I think there's excitement in our small pool community whenever two high level players shoot. Hell, my local pool halls are excited to see two strong B players gamble for a hundred. You could stream it, sell it, and bring some warm bodies (and hopefully revenue) into whatever lucky pool hall hosts the matchups.

If two pros gambled with each other, weekly, anywhere within 50 miles of me, I'd drop what I'm doing and go watch it. "Sorry guys, can't shoot tonight. I got something I gotta do."

 

[The Saw]

Microwaves, internet, casino's/poker, cable tv, etc... America has everything and the whole society, not just pool players, are complacent and just expect to do as little as possible and think they will still be able to be the best.... Well, that doesn't work anymore. Why does the Philippines, Europe, and Asian players dominate? Because they train/play against each other to strive to be the best and aren't lazy. Americans are just lazy, pretty simple.

 

[1on1pooltournys]

Too many egos...

Most of them were pampered by their local constituents growing up around the game. They are scared to death to put their nuts on the line and have to tell somebody they got beat. Instead of looking at the glass half full they look at it half empty.

Sadly, most of them lack the character that it takes to respectfully "match up" or make a proposition to another player. There is too much disrespectful banter back and forth between some of the players. It's the major problem with this gambling aspect in pool. The problem is the actual process that goes into making a game. They need to learn from people like Jack Cooney. He had no problem getting action and was respectful and had dignity win or lose.

Exhibition matches are a completely different thing in my opinion and it's really tough to compare them to gambling matches.