Quitters vs. Deadbeats.

[Sore_Aintya]

Player A had a pocket full of cash, despite the fact that he owes 2 AZers here around $2k for non completed transactions.

Does DonKarmon remind you of anybody? Kinda has a "Zen" like quality to him doesn't he?

 

[sweatinNbettin]

Player A had a pocket full of cash, despite the fact that he owes 2 AZers here around $2k for non completed transactions.

Does DonKarmon remind you of anybody? Kinda has a "Zen" like quality to him doesn't he?

Sore,
I think that number is more then 2 Azers. Plus a cue or 2. but I won't go there.
Yes I agree Don does have a certain Zen like quality to him.

SnB

 

[Pinocchio]

IN total agreement!

Cheesemouse hit the nail on the head. The old saying goes like this "when the money is on the line the gambling is fine". The really bad thing that can happen is somebody can run a empty wagon over you an that is always bad news. Live an learn I'm sure someone got smarter out of this transaction.

Pinocchio

 

[rackem]

It's hill hill for another user ID

Sore,
I think that number is more then 2 Azers. Plus a cue or 2. but I won't go there.
Yes I agree Don does have a certain Zen like quality to him.

SnB

It's looking that way Sore. Join date 10/11/06. Moderater staff, Attention Please.

 

[DonKarmon]

Sore,
I think that number is more then 2 Azers. Plus a cue or 2. but I won't go there.
Yes I agree Don does have a certain Zen like quality to him.

SnB

When people fall back on inside jokes to ridicule the new kid, it's a sure sign they're at their wit's end.

I quit this debate. Don't tell me I can't quit it while I'm ahead.

 

[rackem]

Bye!

When people fall back on inside jokes to ridicule the new kid, it's a sure sign they're at their wit's end.

I quit this debate. Don't tell me I can't quit it while I'm ahead.

Watch he won't quit he always has to have the last word. Hey new kid how do you know what we are talking about?

 

[TATE]

A few comments as I have been in these situations many times:

Around here we call starting a set over and raising the stakes "back up double up". What it does is take some luck out of the outcome of that particular set. At hill-hill, the outcome of the set is determined by one game. But if you start over, you have an entire set to determine the outcome. And the bet is usually doubled so in affect its like winning two sets. I ask my opponents to back up double up frequently. But, I will do it when I feel I am the favorite, and the only reason it became hill-hill is because my opponent got lucky or I got unlucky for a few games. If the situation is reversed, and I feel it is hill-hill because I got lucky during the set, I will NOT back up double up, and just finish the set out.

This is in no way quitting, or forfeiting a set, as some of you are implying.

The former rich man is quite right. This is common among seasoned players everywhere. I would say most of the time it's just a replay, same bet, and ocassionally double. It just takes the one game of chance out of it. I do not do this or accept this if proposed because I like to play hill/hill matches as I find them exciting. I found players dog more hill/hill than any other time except maybe the first game of the set.

Another interesting scenario is the early cash out. I've had players get 9 ahead going to 10 and cash out for half the bet. I don't know why they would want to, but it happens.

Chris

 

[Ruthless]

And I have a friend with whom I have played several times a week since 1989, for a buck a game. I'm up $889 as of today, but no money has ever changed hands. I doubt that any ever will, and I don't care. The longer the match runs, the more fun we have.

The match under discussion, however, was business.



You seem to be a gambler - someone who plays for the thrill of risk. A money player who is up plays until he no longer thinks he can win more often than he will lose, then stops with his profits maximized.

dhakala is that you?

 

[Ruthless]

Player A had a pocket full of cash, despite the fact that he owes 2 AZers here around $2k for non completed transactions.

Does DonKarmon remind you of anybody? Kinda has a "Zen" like quality to him doesn't he?

I didn't even make it to the 2nd page before that stench hit me Didn't get to the other posts until after I posted the one above ...........

Player A must be a slime to prey on the trusting good will of the honest az forums crowd, I guess I'm very lucky so far because all my deals have been great and I have a couple more in the works now. But If he owed me that much I would spend twice as much if that's what it took to teach him a few facts about life........(what's that SW Airlines # again?)

Ruth-man,
Seems unlikely to me. The quitter has money - he'll get played. The deadbeat on the other hand is a LOT less likely to get played in the rooms I've frequented (I guess we play different places).

Hustler's don't want you to quit while you're ahead of them.
Loser's don't want you to quit while you're ahead of them.

OHB travelled the road for a long time, and I think his opinion is certainly representative of the vast majority of players - you are only obligated to play for what you post, and what you agree on ahead of time. I would NEVER want to play with someone who thought otherwise. RIP OHB I miss you buddy.

The deadbeat would pay either way....but I've allways locked up the $ in advance since I was a kid 30 yrs ago. That's why I said neither one of them sounded like much of a player (not even doorstops..let alone shortstops.).

 

[RogerSLC-LV]

It seems simple to me......."Player A" should pay the money without whining and get on with his life. It's my preference to be ahead when either myself or my opponent feels that it's time to quit. Having said that....I try to give as much warning as possible of my intentions to quit the match whether ahead or behind although I certainly don't feel that it's mandatory for everyone to do the same.
Regards, Roger

 

[Williebetmore]

Player A must be a slime

The deadbeat would pay either way....but I've allways locked up the $ in advance

Les,
We are in agreement. I won't ask how you assure payment from the deadbeat; we will use our imaginations.

What I don't understand is why no one will tell us the identity of Player A.

If I knew him, I would broadcast it for all to know. Welcome to the 21st century - it's not all bad. The limitations on communications in the 1920's and 1930's allowed gangsters, thugs, and thieves to ply their trade across the country. No such limitations exist currently.

If people like Player A knew they would be held widely accountable for their actions, perhaps such behavior would occur less often. Just a thought.

 

[iusedtoberich]

How many times do you have to start over to take all of the luck out the set and have it end the way you want?



The player who accepts that bet is as dumb as the one who doubles the bet when he's way ahead, allowing his opponent a chance to win it all back by working half as hard.

I think you misunderstand. When this happens, both players agree to it, because neither player wants the outcome of a race to 10 for example to go to one game. If one player does not agree, the set MUST be finished on the original terms. Another alternative to sets with someone is to play a "win by 2 games" scenario, just like in tennis. Then it can't go to the final game. For example, in a race to 10, 10-8 is a win, but if the score is 9-9, it must to to 11-9, etc. to be a win.

If you quit gambling, what's all this gambling you're discussing in the present tense?

That is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Since I brought it up, however, I will answer your question. I still play, but it is with such infrequency, it is relatively non-existent compared to when I was playing and betting every day a few years ago.

You'll only run out of weasels and welshers to play. Big deal.

That is not completely true. When I was playing, if I lost, I often went off for a lot. But not to a player I had no chance to win from (because of how they managed their money). So if a quitter asked me to play, I would decline. I was not unique in this case. Many of the ohter players I knew who would go off would also not play early quitters. So in my opinion, you would also lose a player that can easily go off. That is a huge loss, IF your goal is to make money at this game. If you just care about social games, making friends, and having a good time, then you are correct, it is no big deal at all.

 

[Williebetmore]

When I was playing, if I lost, I often went off for a lot. But not to a player I had no chance to win from..........

So if a quitter asked me to play, I would decline. I was not unique in this case.....So in my opinion, you would also lose a player that can easily go off.

Richie,
So if you thought you were better than this quitter, and he came in the next day, and wanted to play for a couple of hundred; you wouldn't try him even once??? How do you know he would quit every time? Maybe he WOULD go off if he had more time to spend (you know, maybe he had a wife or job or parole officer he had to visit yesterday).

Are you SURE a lot of "go off" players would avoid what appears to be a good match up? Is the psychology of such people that they refuse to win small amounts, and only want to lose large amounts?? I'm not being snide, I just don't understand the logic/psychology - we don't have anyone here like that to my knowledge. Thanks for the info.

P.S. - Does that also mean that you would greatly prefer to play some guy that failed to pay his debt yesterday over such an "honorable" principle??

 

[Tokyo-dave]

Because I'm a family man, and also have a demanding job that requires me to leave the house at 6:30 every morning, I often find myself in situations where I can't play into the wee hours, so I have to either leave before making a good run to get my money back...............or leave without the other guy getting a chance to make his money back. I'm not much of a gambler, so those true blooded folks will always dawg me for running out early. Call me a pool room poser or whatever, but I've always felt that the game has to end eventually, and generally with somebody down and somebody up. If a guy (or myself) is down, and the other needs to leave the place without some more swings at the money, that's just the way it works. Up until that point in time, the player in question has had plently of opportunity to get their money.
I've always thought that in order to avoid trouble like this, before two players ever start to play for money, both players should agree on an amount to be lost I.E. "games over when somebody is XXXXX down" and a general time frame to end it. Some players just don't know when to quit, and will play til they lose everything. Those are the players that tend to get the respect for being 'good' players to gamble with, but I have to disagree.
Dave

 

[iusedtoberich]

Richie,
So if you thought you were better than this quitter, and he came in the next day, and wanted to play for a couple of hundred; you wouldn't try him even once??? How do you know he would quit every time? Maybe he WOULD go off if he had more time to spend (you know, maybe he had a wife or job or parole officer he had to visit yesterday).

Are you SURE a lot of "go off" players would avoid what appears to be a good match up? Is the psychology of such people that they refuse to win small amounts, and only want to lose large amounts?? I'm not being snide, I just don't understand the logic/psychology - we don't have anyone here like that to my knowledge. Thanks for the info.

P.S. - Does that also mean that you would greatly prefer to play some guy that failed to pay his debt yesterday over such an "honorable" principle??

Good question. 1st question: I might still play them, but I would be more specific about the rules. One guy who had a lot of money wanted to play me a few hundred a rack of one pocket. We had played a few times before and I was up quite a lot on him. But this time involved a much larger spot. Now, I had a good hunch that he wanted to just get up 2 games on me and quit. I saw him do this to another player. So I told him before we started, only the loser can quit (or if we're even), otherwise I won't play. He agreed to the terms. Incidentally, it was a good thing I made that stipulation with him. He got up 3 games on me, and I knew he wanted out. I fought my way back, and he immediately quit at even when it looked like I would continue to win. I figured he was worth this risk because he had a lot of cash and the potential to go off. I wouldn't even consider this type of risk of being quit ahead on with someone who is known to be broke.

On a smaller scale, I had a regular game with a guy for 50/set. We would probably play once every other week or so. After a while, I realized that I couldn't get into his pocket. If he lost the first set, he would quit. If he won the first set, and I won the second, he would quit. If I lost the first set, and the second, he would then say "last set" to ensure he would end up the winner. This pattern of his took some time to determine, because of all the possible scenarios. But what I saw was that unless I won the first set, I wasn't getting into his pocket. And if I was down, the best I could do was get even, if that. So I made the decision to stop playing him. It wasn't worth the hassle. There was no future with him, because he was only a 50/set player and the effort to get into his pocket was not worth the small reward. Now, some of you might say "well if you keep winning the first set, what is the problem". But this particular case was a close game, where it truly was an even proposition as to who would win the first set. But because of his quitting habits, it was just too tough to beat him.

I didn't quite understand your last two questions in their entirety.

I am no expert by any means. I have both lost and won my fair of small and big bets. So keep that in mind...

Speaking of types of players, some players are in it for the long haul. They just expect when they match up it will be all night long, or till someone is broke. I was one of these players, and many others around me were too. Knowing that, it often took me a while to warm up, because I knew I would be playing all night. It also brings stamina, and decision making into the game much more than playing just one or two sets. I often felt I had the edge in a long session. That is another reason for not wanting to play just a one or two set player. Now, this type of player rarely exists anymore. The action in our room is all but dead compared to 10 years ago, and even 5 years ago. And any action that does take place is very small, and just one or two sets. And from what I read here, I take it it is similar in other places.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Dave,

Being a player myself who wants to play a long time, I would have no problem playing a player like you who wants to leave at a certain time in order to go to work, or whatever reason. The important point you made is that the finish time is agreed on beforehand. That way there are no incorrect assumptions made by either player, as to how long the session will last.

I would also like to add, that when I was playing all night, I was in college, and not in work yet. And my opponents were in similar situations with regard to time management. THey could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, without the risk of getting fired or divorced. (or they were true degenerates and didn't care if they got fired or divorced)

Now that I am part of the work force, a big game has to be arranged beforehand, and during the weekend. I can't just show up and expect something to happen like when I was still in college.

 

[Williebetmore]

Good question. 1st question: I might still play them, but I would be more specific about the rules. One guy who had a lot of money wanted to play me a few hundred a rack of one pocket. We had played a few times before and I was up quite a lot on him. But this time involved a much larger spot. Now, I had a good hunch that he wanted to just get up 2 games on me and quit. I saw him do this to another player. So I told him before we started, only the loser can quit (or if we're even), otherwise I won't play. He agreed to the terms. Incidentally, it was a good thing I made that stipulation with him. He got up 3 games on me, and I knew he wanted out. I fought my way back, and he immediately quit at even when it looked like I would continue to win. I figured he was worth this risk because he had a lot of cash and the potential to go off. I wouldn't even consider this type of risk of being quit ahead on with someone who is known to be broke.

On a smaller scale, I had a regular game with a guy for 50/set. We would probably play once every other week or so. After a while, I realized that I couldn't get into his pocket. If he lost the first set, he would quit. If he won the first set, and I won the second, he would quit. If I lost the first set, and the second, he would then say "last set" to ensure he would end up the winner. This pattern of his took some time to determine, because of all the possible scenarios. But what I saw was that unless I won the first set, I wasn't getting into his pocket. And if I was down, the best I could do was get even, if that. So I made the decision to stop playing him. It wasn't worth the hassle. There was no future with him, because he was only a 50/set player and the effort to get into his pocket was not worth the small reward. Now, some of you might say "well if you keep winning the first set, what is the problem". But this particular case was a close game, where it truly was an even proposition as to who would win the first set. But because of his quitting habits, it was just too tough to beat him.

I didn't quite understand your last two questions in their entirety.

I am no expert by any means. I have both lost and won my fair of small and big bets. So keep that in mind...

Speaking of types of players, some players are in it for the long haul. They just expect when they match up it will be all night long, or till someone is broke. I was one of these players, and many others around me were too. Knowing that, it often took me a while to warm up, because I knew I would be playing all night. It also brings stamina, and decision making into the game much more than playing just one or two sets. I often felt I had the edge in a long session. That is another reason for not wanting to play just a one or two set player. Now, this type of player rarely exists anymore. The action in our room is all but dead compared to 10 years ago, and even 5 years ago. And any action that does take place is very small, and just one or two sets. And from what I read here, I take it it is similar in other places.

FormerlyRich,
Thanks for the insight. Unfortunately, I think I must be the guy in your second paragraph. I rarely have time for more than a couple of sets; and I don't discuss my schedule with opponents usually - maybe I should start.

 

[cubswin]

just tell me who they are when I see you next so I know not to play player A

Unless I'm playing someone I know well, and we have a mutual agreement that loser quits, I've always played where you quit when you want. Of course I tend to pay up after each set and not run a tab. Only time that is different is if I know the person, have played them before, and have no worries.