SEASONED GAMBLING • ADJUSTMENTS • Where should it end?

JoeyA

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
The title might be a little misleading so let me clear it up a bit. I'm talking about matching up with someone and adjusting the spot.

Should you adjust the spot after beating another player?
Ok, you say, you should adjust until you have an even game? What constitutes an even game? Most of the time I have seen one player coasting for small money but when the big money gets on the line, that player catches a gear and wins convicingly.

If you are winning, does how long and how frequent you gamble with an opponent have anything to do with it being a "fair game"? In other words, if you win 2 games per hour net, is that considered a fair game or is that out of line for being a fair game?

Should gambling be a "fair game"?

Should you give a person a chance to get their money back?

Should you help them to get their money back by adjusting the spot so that they have a better chance to win?

If you adjust a spot and you still win, should you make additional spot adjustments until you can no longer win?

I'm just wondering when you draw the line.

I've been gambling a long time. When I was first learning how to gamble, I had to learn by trial and error. People were even reluctant to tell a newbie if he had a bad game as it was called, "knocking".

Now adays, everyone has access to the Internet, cell phones and more so data is available from a wide variety of sources.

I'm more interested in knowing "Where do you draw the line?" Should you let an intelligent gambler win his money back? If yes, how much of it should you let them win back. I'm not talking about Bambi here. I'm talking about seasoned gamblers. Should you allow "circumstances" to be a part of the adjustment decision? For example, a gambler may not have been doing a lot of playing recently but still thinks he can win but doesn't.....Should you adjust the spot because he hasn't caught a gear? Of maybe he had a fight with his significant other and he played poorly. When do you draw the line and say no adjustments?

Just curious a to your thoughts, especially if you gamble but non -gambler thoughts are also appreciated. If you would identify yourself as a gambler or non-gambler, it would be appreciated so that we can have your thoughts in context.


Thanks,

JoeyA
 
From a NON gambler...............

WOW.............is this a huge can of worms.......:grin:

I only gambled a little bit, a LONG time ago.... and IMO
it all depends on how badly you want/need that other
players cash in your pocket.... and all rules/decisions
follow that.

td
 
Last edited:
an odd concept, try to get the cheese!

JoeyA said:
The title might be a little misleading so let me clear it up a bit. I'm talking about matching up with someone and adjusting the spot.

Should you adjust the spot after beating another player?
Ok, you say, you should adjust until you have an even game? What constitutes an even game? Most of the time I have seen one player coasting for small money but when the big money gets on the line, that player catches a gear and wins convicingly.

If you are winning, does how long and how frequent you gamble with an opponent have anything to do with it being a "fair game"? In other words, if you win 2 games per hour net, is that considered a fair game or is that out of line for being a fair game?

Should gambling be a "fair game"?

Should you give a person a chance to get their money back?

Should you help them to get their money back by adjusting the spot so that they have a better chance to win?

If you adjust a spot and you still win, should you make additional spot adjustments until you can no longer win?

I'm just wondering when you draw the line.

I've been gambling a long time. When I was first learning how to gamble, I had to learn by trial and error. People were even reluctant to tell a newbie if he had a bad game as it was called, "knocking".

Now adays, everyone has access to the Internet, cell phones and more so data is available from a wide variety of sources.

I'm more interested in knowing "Where do you draw the line?" Should you let an intelligent gambler win his money back? If yes, how much of it should you let them win back. I'm not talking about Bambi here. I'm talking about seasoned gamblers. Should you allow "circumstances" to be a part of the adjustment decision? For example, a gambler may not have been doing a lot of playing recently but still thinks he can win but doesn't.....Should you adjust the spot because he hasn't caught a gear? Of maybe he had a fight with his significant other and he played poorly. When do you draw the line and say no adjustments?

Just curious a to your thoughts, especially if you gamble but non -gambler thoughts are also appreciated. If you would identify yourself as a gambler or non-gambler, it would be appreciated so that we can have your thoughts in context.


Thanks,

JoeyA
Click to expand...


Joey,

As you already know, I once gambled every night the sun went down, I no longer gamble at pool. The whole concept of trying to adjust to a net zero game is ridiculous. First off, there isn't any such thing as net zero pool. You paid a lot for a pool cue, case, other supplies, lessons, videos, books, the daily cost of going to the pool hall, whatever you spend there. If you don't win money gambling or in tourney play then pool is a negative sum activity. It is always going to be a negative sum activity for either you or the person you play, possibly both of you.

The reasonable thing to do is at least extract our expenses from other players so we can justify our activity as a net zero or slightly positive net activity. I assume you burned through something in the neighborhood of a thousand dollars on your recent trip. Those expenses have to be considered also. All this means that break even play is an exercise in futility for both players.

There is also the issue of competition. Is your goal to compete in a manner that there is no winner and no loser long term? If you do that are you even really competing?

Most people consider a fair match-up to be one that they have to play hard to win but not be extended to their absolute limit. In an absolutely fair match-up the winner should be pushed to his absolute limit. Instead when a player is pushed to his limit to win he proclaims he outran the nuts. Truly outrunning the nuts is a matter more of luck than skill. Nobody outruns the nuts a fraction as often as is reported by the overall membership of AZB.

Adjustments are a tough call. If you play someone often I don't think you consider an adjustment until you have beaten them pretty handily for three or four sessions. Perhaps a small adjustment just for the session making it plain it is just for the session if someone is having a really bad night. Not what they need but enough to keep you on their "good guy" list.

If playing someone you don't know, insist on an adjustment if you can't win. No adjustment, quit. By the same token, don't give enough adjustment that you can't win. I generally refused any adjustment playing strangers. If the cash was sweet enough and they were genuinely about to unscrew I might make a small adjustment. If you are going to have to make a big enough adjustment that you become a net loser from this point forward in the match-up then why are you gambling?

We gamble to win. We also gamble in a manner to try to extract maximum value from each person we gamble with, be it another regular at the local hall or a stranger on the road. Obviously we don't treat the stranger and the regular exactly the same. We are trying to keep the stranger that we met on the road playing all evening if it is profitable. We are trying to keep the person at the hall playing for months and years. You can milk a cow every day for years, you can only butcher it once.

The perfect match-up is the one you win most of the time and the other player thinks he should have won most of the time.

Hu
 
Adjusting

Well, first lets discuss the game that is made from the start. When the game is made, both players think it is a fair game, don't they?

Back in the old days (70's), I did not adjust unless I was 3 sets winner or $500 ahead, whichever came first. I stuck to that rule back then.

Now days people want to adjust after 1 set, and that is a no-no with me.
I did adjust about 3 weeks ago, playing an opponent a race to 7 for $50 originally, then a race to 5 for $100, and I was $200 up, when the backer said they were going to quit unless his player got the 7 ball in a race to 5 for a $100. I felt pretty good about the game, but really wasn't sure of the spot, because I hadn't seen my opponent for 3-4 years, and really didn't know how much, if any, he had improved his game. I went ahead and gave him the wild 7, racing to 5, and I won. They quit.

It all depends how I feel about the game I am in.. I evaluate my opponents game, how many mistakes he makes, whether he is shooting 'down' or not, and if he is a regular gambler or just once in a awhile.
 
I have been in action alot lately.I usually won`t adjust until one of us is at least 2 set winner.I will always give a person a chance at their money back.It may be a different day but they will have a chance unless they want to adjust so I have no shot at winning.
I beat a guy out of $1500 in a 7 ahead set playing even.He said he would play more but I had to give him 3 to 1 on the money and the 8.It was a close game (it took me 5 hours to win and he was on the hill twice).
I told him I would play him even and give a 2 game headstart but he wasn`t getting 3 to 1 or the 8.He basically got mad because I wouldn`t give him the spot he wanted.So we didn`t play anymore.
 
I always saw it as similar to the idea behind capitalism... You look to find the sweet spot that maximizes profits. Ask for too much and people won't buy your product. Ask for too little and you're throwing away potential money. I think the perfect amount of weight is just shy of whatever makes your opponent pull up and refuse to play.

It's hard to like the idea of adjusting the spot until it's truly a fair game. That's the theory behind league handicaps too... You tweak things until both players are near a 50% win rate. So many guys seem to proudly boast they're true gamblers and not looking for a lock. Like they'd literally quit beating up a fish in 9b in favor of, say, betting on coin flips, because they just love an even game. I don't buy it.
 
As someone who understand the statistical math well enough to gamble:: I do not gamble.

With that in mind, I refer to the Great P. T. Barnum: "Never give a sucker an even break"

Gambling is about bringing home the bacon.
You do not care about how even the game is.
You do not care about the emotions of the opponent.
You only care about the depth of his wallet and how much you can extract.

The losing/behind opponent can adjust the stakes by quitting or doubling down.
 
i gambled in my youth but dont anymore since i dont play enough to be consistent
snapshot9 said this above
"Well, first lets discuss the game that is made from the start. When the game is made, both players think it is a fair game, don't they?

i agree with that premise
both players thought they had the best of it

id only adjust the spot if i thought i could still win
and id only play for an amount that still kept me winner if i lost the first set
with the new spot

i dont think you HAVE to give your opponent a chance to win his money back
you can always say i dont think i can win if i give you more weight(unless you creamed him and you are taking candy from a baby)
but you said these are seasoned gamblers so thats not going to be the case

you know the next time you meet hes going to say i lost last time we need to adjust
thats his chance to win his money back
 
MitchAlsup said:
As someone who understand the statistical math well enough to gamble:: I do not gamble.

With that in mind, I refer to the Great P. T. Barnum: "Never give a sucker an even break"

Gambling is about bringing home the bacon.
You do not care about how even the game is.
You do not care about the emotions of the opponent.
You only care about the depth of his wallet and how much you can extract.

The losing/behind opponent can adjust the stakes by quitting or doubling down.
Click to expand...

That's is actually not true. Gambling is about the anticipation of an unexpected outcome. Most people can tell you to the penny what they will bring home in their pay check. How much they will be able to save, by the end of the year. How long it will take them to have enough to retire, etc. Gambling though for a change adds a bit of mystery to their lives, such as the lottery. Where they may have something extra ordinary happen for a change other then the dull day to day existence they live. That is why people gamble, not just to win.

Actually, I take the worst of it most of the time. I have no problem giving up good spots and trying to outrun the nuts, nor do I consider myself a sucker. If it was just about money I would not play at all, I already have plenty of money winning a few hundred from some guy will not make any changes in my life. However, playing 6 hours at a tough game that possibly no one in the room thinks I have a chance to win but me is what it is all about. There in lies the thrill, the unexpected, the excitement.

Ask Keith McCready if the only reason he plays is to win money. Ask Danny DiLiberto or any number of pro players why they play and non will say it is for the money. They get far more out of the game then the lock artist who sits in the chair scared to death to get up and play. Heck, half these so called players would not get up and play even if they have the best of it if it was close, much less taking the worst. Danny DiLiberto would come in the room every night and he was in action in five minutes. Sometimes he won sometimes he lost, playing was what it was about. Just making money was never what it was about. You don't reach that level of play being a coward.
 
Last edited:
Spot is dead

He died a long time ago. I have never understood why anyone would give up a spot or ask for one. Say the better player practices endless hours to hone his skills, why should he give up a spot so a player who does not practice enough has a chance to beat him. Match up even let the better player win. If you lost you probably need to practice more or match up better.
 
Seneca Steve said:
He died a long time ago. I have never understood why anyone would give up a spot or ask for one. Say the better player practices endless hours to hone his skills, why should he give up a spot so a player who does not practice enough has a chance to beat him. Match up even let the better player win. If you lost you probably need to practice more or match up better.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has the same skill levels no matter how much they practice. At some point a player becomes the best player in their room or town. If they want to play and have the contest be worth playing, there needs to be a handicap. Has nothing to do with egos. It benefits the better player maybe even more then the one getting the spot in most cases. There is a reason some people keep doing the TV Guide cross word puzzle they can solve every time and other may graduate to the NY times.

Some people like a challenge and other don't. I am curious, you don't think giving say the 7 and the break to a good player and beating them is not a demonstration of your skills and makes the hours you practiced worth it? What do you do when you reach a certain level where people can't honestly play you, quit?
I don't mean any disrespect but I find your comments to be a bazaar way of thinking.
 
Last edited:
I think for some people, when they hear a "fair game" they think they shouldn't lose. Its pool people, somebody has to win. Also, who can blame the better player for wanting to keep the scales tipped in their favor. I used to play a gentleman every Thursday a 100$ set of nine ball even, and a 100$ set of one pocket with him giving me 9-6. Over about 3 months he came out ahead maybe 300$. We wanted to gamble and I knew I had to play good if I wanted to win, playing 100$ sets regularly will teach you to bear down real quick? There were days he got me bad in the one pocket and even offered a bigger spot, but I refused to handicap anymore. I was going to get better or get broke trying!
 
taking the worst of it most the time

macguy said:
Actually, I take the worst of it most of the time. I have no problem giving up good spots and trying to outrun the nuts, nor do I consider myself a sucker. If it was just about money I would not play at all, I already have plenty of money winning a few hundred from some guy will not make any changes in my life. However, playing 6 hours at a tough game that possibly no one in the room thinks I have a chance to win but me is what it is all about. There in lies the thrill, the unexpected, the excitement.
Click to expand...



If you truly take the worst of it most of the time you lose most of the time. Having to try hard to win isn't taking the worst of it. Some only take locks, some take tougher games. The people that deliberately take games they can't win without luck, which is what outrunning the nuts is, are either suckers or addicted gamblers. It sounds like you enjoy making tough games but not games that you don't think you can win. That isn't taking the worst of it.

I never gambled at pool after the first year or two. I wagered nightly for years, I didn't miss five nights a year wagering on pool. On the other hand it was almost unheard of to finish a week in the hole and there was never a month I wasn't in the black playing pool, no gamble to it. An individual match-up might be a gamble, the overall process was no gamble at all. I think the same is true for almost all of the seasoned gamblers who have been gambling for years. If somebody is losing money overall gambling they are either paying to learn or doing it wrong.

Hu
 
JoeyA said:
Should gambling be a "fair game"?
Click to expand...

The same guy you generously give a "fair game" to so he can win your money will gladly walk into a casino and gamble at a game where everybody knows the house has the advantage.

I doubt if the casino feels guilty.
 
You don't adjust to help them get their money back or make things easier. You adjust because you know you're stealing and want to keep taking their money. If you think you can give more wieght, do it. Too many lock artists out there just won't adjust even though they should still win. But yes, there is such a thing as a fair game.
 
I was told a long time ago

that a good pool player will always keep a ball and a half for himself gambling. So if they offer you the 7, they think they can beat you still giving you the 6, because they are still a half a ball better.

It's ridiculous to spot yourself to even. You're trying to win money, and how hard you make it on yourself is up to you. When you make a game, it is built on perceptions, but you still know the truth about how good your game is. I know countless players that are good open players, meaning they can run the table when they are all out in the open, but they can't make 50% of the one rail banks they have, let alone a 2 or 3 rail bank.

I play a lot of guys now that are just as skilled as me, but they don't have the knowledge of the game as I do because I have been playing 50 years, so I beat them with knowledge. I am also very adept at spotting weaknesses in my opponents game, and using them to my advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top