Quitting Winner

I don't get it. By now I'm sure it's obvious that I'm a loser yet am willing to donate. Why quit before you break me?
If you honestly feel that way, it probably shows in your speech and demeanor at the table. I wouldnt continue to play someone with that attitude. Couple of reasons why...... if the person Im playing is that far below me skill wise, that I feel like Im robbing them....... Im not interested in that anymore, leads to guilty feelings later. If the person is acting the martyr and wanting sympathy, or they are pouting in any way shape or form because of poor play on their part...... that kills the mood too.
Chuck
 
If no number of sets are agreed to in advance then eventually someone has to quit, right? Are you suppose to wait for the loser to just give up?
 
Let me tell you a little story.

I had 2 friends playing each other one night. They started playing about 8pm and around 3am the 1 guy says i am tired and gotta get up in the morning. The other guy says to him..."you can't just quit like that", I am down 600 bananas". The guy winning all the bananas says. I can quit any time i want. especially since we have been playing for about 7 hours. The other guy says. I don't care how long we have been playing you can't just quit like that. To end the arguement the guy working the desk comes over and tells them both to not start another set. "I'M CLOSING". it is already an hour past closing time and i was nice enough to stay this long... So the guy who quit a winner drops 100 bananas on the desk man and now the guy who lost thinks there is a conspiracy against him, and that they were partners. The guy who won just tried to explain that he was just giving him a tip for staying longer. But the other guy still to this day don't buy it and is still bitter over it....

Anyway, we have a couple of guys in our local room that will play set's for 100 bananaswith only 100 bananas on them and hope they get lucky and win the 1st set. then if they win the 1st set, 9 out of 10 times they quit and run out the door. And they wonder why nobody wants to plthem or atleast get them to post 2 sets. My moral is this...if you are going to gamble, then this is the risk you take.....mike
 
Last edited:
I don't mind playing and even losing a healthy chunk of cash as long as the game is good and fun. But, because I'm in no position to go at it for hours at a time, and I don't gamble to break somebody or to get broke....................I always agree to a quitting time. That quitting time could be a certain number of hours, a certain number of sets, or most likely when one of us is $XXX down. That way nobody loses or wins any more than a previously agreed upon amount, and nobody walks until that amount has been reached.
If I find myself in a situation where somebody is talking crap, and especially things like "f--you", I would assume that it's a situation where things have the potential to go beyond verbal exchanges, so I would usually walk....................................especially if I were up.
dave
 
AHHHHHHHHHHH the lovely Winner Quits subject.

Well one thing i have learned is that everyone if they are gambling should FREEZE up the cash. That is the best way, to go about gambling. Agree on the amount of money you willing to lose, say if you playing 100$ a set. And you figure at worst you are able to lose 500$

Post up the 500$ and play till someone wins it all, I've also played that if you feel you have no chance of winning when playing, you can op'd out and pay a extra 100$ or what ever your playing per set. So if you get blown out your first 2 or 3 sets you can pay a extra 100$ and bow out.

But freezing up the cash is the best way to go about gambling because then someone cant quit winner after 2 or 3 sets.

dave
 
Drater said:
---
stuff deleted
---

I don't get it. By now I'm sure it's obvious that I'm a loser yet am willing to donate. Why quit before you break me?

Drater,

I understand where you're coming from. I've been there myself.

I have to say though, this protocol is why I almost never gamble any more. I have to get up early. I have a wife at home and I don't like to stay out late anymore. It's hard to gamble with people when they know they can outlast me and if I'm up, they can badger me into a bad bet so that I don't quit winners. It's like I can never win. At best I come out even. I find myself thinking "it's 9:30, I need to go soon, I'll lose this set and then we'll be even and I can quit." I've even had guys hassle me after I've lost intentionally to get even so I could quit.

I liked one of my friend's replies when we were chasing action around Denver one time. He had been playing a guy all night. The guy was outclassed, but kept trying to outlast him. They played after leagues, then when that bar closed they went to a pool hall. Finally at about 3:30 a.m. my buddy says he's had enough, up about $600 the hard way ($50 & $100 sets). They guy says "Hey, you gotta give me a chance to win my money back." and my buddy replied "What?!? Now I gotta wait around for you to learn how to play pool?" It was a classic.

Cheers,
RC
 
A lot of players do not see pool as a means to make money, playing for money is just to make things more interesting, and they do not want to feel obligated to be there all night. It is a form of entertainment just like dropping a bit of change in the casino, when the person should feel free to come and go as one wishes.

So, say if I play someone $200 a set and am up $1000, I am really tired, so I tell the guy last set, the guy said "let's play this set for $1000," I said "no, I am tired, I actually do not even want to play this set, let's keep it at $200," let's say I lost $200, go home with $800, am I a "quitting winner?"

What exactly does "you have to give me a chance to win my money back" mean anyway?

Why should I give my opponent any chance to win? Didn't he already have his chances anyway?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
X Breaker said:
A lot of players do not see pool as a means to make money, playing for money is just to make things more interesting, and they do not want to feel obligated to be there all night. It is a form of entertainment just like dropping a bit of change in the casino, when the person should feel free to come and go as one wishes.

Of course. I don't play pool to make money either. I have a job to do that. It's entertainment and gambling adds a bit of extra excitement.

X Breaker said:
So, say if I play someone $200 a set and am up $1000, I am really tired, so I tell the guy last set, the guy said "let's play this set for $1000," I said "no, I am tired, I actually do not even want to play this set, let's keep it at $200," let's say I lost $200, go home with $800, am I a "quitting winner?"

Presumably, your opponent begrudgingly said something like "fine, whatever, we'll play this last one for $200". That means he agreed and as such, *no* you are *not* "quitting winner". However, if you just up and say, "okay, I'm done. Pay me the $1k, I'm going home", yes you are quitting winner. In my situation, that's what happened. Again, I could care less about $200.

I don't see any problems with trying to adjust the "rules" as the session progresses, assuming no rules were set up-front.

X Breaker said:
What exactly does "you have to give me a chance to win my money back" mean anyway?

It's subjective. If you and I are playing and you want to quit because it's late and you just want to go home, I'm likely to feel the same way and will be happy to cut my losses. Note that this was not the case in my second scenario -- which is what makes it subjective. Maybe he was tired/drunk, maybe he wasn't. I dunno. I wasn't and wanted to continue playing.

If you "quit winner", w/o notice, because you're pissed off or because all of a sudden I'm playing better, then yeah, in my book, you are quitting winner.

In my first scenario, I've been convinced by y'all that "the kid" was justified because my buddy (and by extension, me) contributed to the situation, but nonetheless, he quit winner.

X Breaker said:
Why should I give my opponent any chance to win? Didn't he already have his chances anyway?

If gambling is "a form of entertainment" why should it matter to you if you win or break even? If you're in the position of power and you're playing purely for fun why wouldn't you give your opponent at least one last chance? Either way, you were still entertained.
 
I don't understand how you figure the first guy quit winner.
You changed the game so whatever happerned before that was null and void.
The guy was a $400 winner when you played even. You change the game and he's $200 loser. The guy didn't like the new game, so he quit.
What's the guy suppose to do? Let you keep changing the game with your buddy running his jaws until you bust him?
Got one guy asking for weight (no jump cues, etc.) and his friend sharking by flapping his jaws. Sounds to me like the Tag Team from Nitsville. Why bother? I'd quit too.
If you want your money back, play him even again and tell your friend, who wasn't involved in the game in the first place, to keep his mouth shut or go out and sit in the parking lot.
 
Last edited:
Having read all of this thread, I must say that I think that when you changed the game, you quit as a loser and started again at even with new rules.

The notion that a winner can't quit means that he is obligated to keep playing forever unless the loser quits. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Not being there makes it hard to judge, but it seems that the real problem occurred when you buddy ran his mouth. Doesn't matter whether during a set or between. Your opponent thought to himself, " Screw this. I don't like these guys anyway, so I'll just take the $200 and go home." I think he had every right to do it and I probably would have done the same thing.
 
the simple answer is............

Drater said:
Despite having been playing pool for about 15 years, I'm probably a "B" player at best. I have enough "pool knowledge" to generally know what to shot to take, what pattern to run, etc, but sometimes fail in execution due to lack of regular table-time. RealLife tends to get in the way.

That said, I've played a lot of pool in my time, in a lot of different places, against a lot of different people. Never have I encountered someone that quit winner on me, until this past weekend. In fact, two different individuals, in two different bars, in two different towns.

A buddy and I drove to a neighboring town to gamble with a kid we had come across before. We started out racing to nine for $100 (9 ball, even). I was down two sets (9-4, 9-7), so I double the bet. I lose again 9-3. So I'm down $400 and he asks me to pay up I stopped reading here. You should have posted the money...period-- I do.

In my mind, we play about even. We might as well just flip coins all night, but at this point he's beating me pretty bad so I ask for a spot. He won't give anything up, so just to get something happening in my court I stipulate 1) no jump cues, and 2) call the 9-ball. He agrees and we get ready to play another set for $200.

At this point my buddy realizes I'm in a losing situation and starts trash talking in an effort to goad my opponent into playing him. After 5 or so minutes of back-n-forth "I'll give you the 7 & 8 for $500/set" and "f-you!" we start what would become our final set for $200, for a potential loss of $600.

I win 9-1. He was obviously rattled, but I had finally settled into the unfamiliar environment and table. My opponent pays up the $200 and quits. Keeping the other $200 for himself. He then suggests that he "lost money too". He goes on to complain that my buddy "got in his head" by talking smack between sets and that he was too rattled to continue playing. I suggested he take 10 minutes, get some fresh air, and come back to finish playing, but he didn't want any part of it.

I admit that my buddy probably took things too far w/ the trash talk, but I just don't see that as an excuse to quit winner. *I* had nothing to do with it and my opponent *let* the trash talk get to him. Pool is a mental game and this kid needs to learn to deal with it. I wasn't playing my best when we started yet I stuck it out despite a $400 deficit.

By no means do I want to come across like a crybaby. I could give a rats ass about $200 and I most definitely had $200 worth of entertainment, but I just don't understand the mentality that quitting winner is a good thing. This kid lost a customer for life.

Two days later I'm at my regular hangout playing races to 7 for $50. Other than the normal activities at the pool hall there were no outside influences. After a few hours, my opponent, who is up 3 sets ($150), decides he's too drunk/tired to continue. He does forfeit the last set (I was up 4-3), but he keeps the hundred bucks.

I don't get it. By now I'm sure it's obvious that I'm a loser yet am willing to donate. Why quit before you break me?

.................minimum required characters.....:)
 
Drater said:
Of course. I don't play pool to make money either. I have a job to do that. It's entertainment and gambling adds a bit of extra excitement.



Presumably, your opponent begrudgingly said something like "fine, whatever, we'll play this last one for $200". That means he agreed and as such, *no* you are *not* "quitting winner". However, if you just up and say, "okay, I'm done. Pay me the $1k, I'm going home", yes you are quitting winner. In my situation, that's what happened. Again, I could care less about $200.

I don't see any problems with trying to adjust the "rules" as the session progresses, assuming no rules were set up-front.



It's subjective. If you and I are playing and you want to quit because it's late and you just want to go home, I'm likely to feel the same way and will be happy to cut my losses. Note that this was not the case in my second scenario -- which is what makes it subjective. Maybe he was tired/drunk, maybe he wasn't. I dunno. I wasn't and wanted to continue playing.

If you "quit winner", w/o notice, because you're pissed off or because all of a sudden I'm playing better, then yeah, in my book, you are quitting winner.

In my first scenario, I've been convinced by y'all that "the kid" was justified because my buddy (and by extension, me) contributed to the situation, but nonetheless, he quit winner.



If gambling is "a form of entertainment" why should it matter to you if you win or break even? If you're in the position of power and you're playing purely for fun why wouldn't you give your opponent at least one last chance? Either way, you were still entertained.

Didn't both players already have all the same chances?

Cheers,
RC
 
In my thinking, this thread really addresses two separate but interrelated questions. First, one whether quitting ahead adheres to the "code", the answer, in my opinion, is absolutely not.

The differences in opinion on this stem from the fact that there are apparently two different definitions of what consitutes a "session" between two players. The traditional view, which I subscribe to, is that a session is analagous to a boxing match, in which two contestants fight it out to a pre-arranged number of rounds (or a time, in the pool context) or until one contestant is unwilling or unable to continue. Thus, it has historically been considered unethical, not to mention financially unprofitable, to quit a player before he goes broke or quit. In recent years, I notice that many of the younger players seem to liken a session not to a match, but to a poker or dice game or a trip to the casino. To them, it seems ludicrous to say that a man can't do what he wants to with his money, and that the whole point of gambling is to get ahead and to do whatever is required to make sure that you leave ahead once you do.

I respectfully submit that pool is not cards or dice and that quitting a man ahead, without having previously established some time limit or a number of sets, is the equivalent of a boxer quitting a match after having won 3 of the first 5 rounds.

Certainly then, I don't believe in quitting ahead. At the same time however, no one can or should be forced to play under unfavorable or hostile conditions. When you changed the game by eliminating the jump cue and requiring a called 9-ball, you basically got a spot, and certainly nobody can be considered obligated to play a game that they consider unfavorable. Most of all, however, when your friend started woofing at your opponent, you gave him good and sensible reason to quit right then and there. Experienced gamblers know that problems will more often arise from a player's "entourage" than from the player himself, and your opponent was absolutely correct in ending the session.
 
Watchez once posted three lessons from pool he learned from Whitey Walker:
1. Get the Nuts
2. Make em post
3. The sucker is always right

You would seem to have issues with all three rules, but imo you need to look at #3 a little closer. Having your partner woofing at him from the sidelines had little chance of succeeding and a much better chance of just queering your action. Ya live ya learn...
 
Here's how I see it.

Many people feel that while they're stuck cash, the match should continue until they say so - that its wrong for the guy who is up money to quit while he's in his opponent's pocket. The idea being that the player who is stuck money should be given a chance to win it back. Well, in this situation, it seems like you were given several chances to win the money back and it just resulted in losing even more.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with changing games if you find yourself in a match up that yields the same result over and over again. Changing a game is only fair and since your opponant agreed to the game, you did nothing wrong there.

Now, in your defense, this story would look like your opponent was quitting once the new game did not favor him any longer. HOWEVER, once your buddy began egging him on (be it to help you out or not), I would have walked too. If the game was between you and your opponent, your friend should never have opened his mouth at all.
 
So ....

Drater said:
Despite having been playing pool for about 15 years, I'm probably a "B" player at best. I have enough "pool knowledge" to generally know what to shot to take, what pattern to run, etc, but sometimes fail in execution due to lack of regular table-time. RealLife tends to get in the way.

That said, I've played a lot of pool in my time, in a lot of different places, against a lot of different people. Never have I encountered someone that quit winner on me, until this past weekend. In fact, two different individuals, in two different bars, in two different towns.

A buddy and I drove to a neighboring town to gamble with a kid we had come across before. We started out racing to nine for $100 (9 ball, even). I was down two sets (9-4, 9-7), so I double the bet. I lose again 9-3. So I'm down $400 and he asks me to pay up -- I do.

In my mind, we play about even. We might as well just flip coins all night, but at this point he's beating me pretty bad so I ask for a spot. He won't give anything up, so just to get something happening in my court I stipulate 1) no jump cues, and 2) call the 9-ball. He agrees and we get ready to play another set for $200.

At this point my buddy realizes I'm in a losing situation and starts trash talking in an effort to goad my opponent into playing him. After 5 or so minutes of back-n-forth "I'll give you the 7 & 8 for $500/set" and "f-you!" we start what would become our final set for $200, for a potential loss of $600.

I win 9-1. He was obviously rattled, but I had finally settled into the unfamiliar environment and table. My opponent pays up the $200 and quits. Keeping the other $200 for himself. He then suggests that he "lost money too". He goes on to complain that my buddy "got in his head" by talking smack between sets and that he was too rattled to continue playing. I suggested he take 10 minutes, get some fresh air, and come back to finish playing, but he didn't want any part of it.

I admit that my buddy probably took things too far w/ the trash talk, but I just don't see that as an excuse to quit winner. *I* had nothing to do with it and my opponent *let* the trash talk get to him. Pool is a mental game and this kid needs to learn to deal with it. I wasn't playing my best when we started yet I stuck it out despite a $400 deficit.

By no means do I want to come across like a crybaby. I could give a rats ass about $200 and I most definitely had $200 worth of entertainment, but I just don't understand the mentality that quitting winner is a good thing. This kid lost a customer for life.

Two days later I'm at my regular hangout playing races to 7 for $50. Other than the normal activities at the pool hall there were no outside influences. After a few hours, my opponent, who is up 3 sets ($150), decides he's too drunk/tired to continue. He does forfeit the last set (I was up 4-3), but he keeps the hundred bucks.

I don't get it. By now I'm sure it's obvious that I'm a loser yet am willing to donate. Why quit before you break me?


1) You have been 'around the table' a few times with many players and a B player playing $200 sets .... LOL Sorry, that doesn't ring true to me, especially since you DROVE to a neighboring town to play a kid, as you stated.

2) Your whole post reeks of you trying to feed your 'ego', and nothing more. If you were truly a player, you would not have let your fiend trash/talk the kid to 'shark him out'. You were just mad because you didn't get the kid 'hooked'. Such is life ....:eek: :eek:

3) Have you ever heard the term, 'Let the buyer beware?' And I can not, for the life of me, understand when playing someone in a different town, that you did not know, would not post the money BEFORE THE GAME.

4) No one is obigated to anything, unless they agree to it beforehand.
Which, is why, when I match up 'hard time', I get a guarantee of 3 sets put up, especially playing a stranger.

Sorry, I don't think you are as smart as you think you are, nor as good a player as you think you are...
 
Scottster said:
Ten years ago quitting winner with no advanced warning was a big No-No.

It would get you labeled as bad action and a nit.

The only times I have ever known to be acceptable to quit winner are...

When both players agree before the contest starts that at such & such time one of the players has to leave.

When both players agree to only play a certain amount of sets for that day.


The alternative is to quit as the loser. As a road player - I was out there to win. Once I got the money in my pocket, I wanted it to stay there. I have NO OBLIGATION to keep playing until you start to win your money back. Sorry, but back then I could have cared less. That's the ruthless nature of the game when money is involved. Proper protocol is to at least give a warning that you are planning to leave - I would usually do that at the beginning of the last set that I intended to play.
 
Cameron Smith said:
I honestly don't understand this mentality. I seen a few of these threads come up and it never makes a whole lot of sense to me. Are you supposed to only quit when you are even or broke?

As far as this kid in the story is concerned, he was up $200, he had just lost a set 9-1 and his opponents friend was sharking him. It sounds like a perfect time to quit.

I agree, who the heck ever said the only time you can quit is when someone is broke. That kind of mentality is bizarre. I'll quit someone when I feel like it, win or lose.

Especially when it's not fun anymore, it's not fun when I'm getting smoked and it's not fun when I'm way up on someone either. To me it's no fun taking someones last dime.
 
Drater said:
After 5 or so minutes of back-n-forth "I'll give you the 7 & 8 for $500/set" and "f-you!" we start what would become our final set for $200, for a potential loss of $600.

I win 9-1. He was obviously rattled, but I had finally settled into the unfamiliar environment and table. My opponent pays up the $200 and quits. Keeping the other $200 for himself.

So, you agreed that it was the last set before playing the last one, right? If so, that makes this perfectly fine in my opinion; you should have kept negotiating. If he just up and quit with no notice, that sucks.
 
I'd have quit the minute your buddy started running his mouth
so there wouldn't even have been a 9-1 set. Who can concentrate
under those circumstances?
 
Back
Top