Siming Vs Shane: 7 sets race to 11

mikepage said:
I think this idea of someone playing better for $10,000 than for $100 is hilarious. There is no evidence for it.

And besides, even if there was a play better when you really really want it as opposed to just really want it effect, wouldn't it apply to the opponent as well?

Suppose we told John Schmidt that if he didn't break 500 in the next 30 hours of trying we were going to toss his motorcycles and guns into the ocean. Would he be more likely to succeed? I doubt it. If there is any effect at all, I think it would go in the other direction.
Click to expand...

Mike,
I have a lot of experience with top players especially Shane and most top players play better once they are betting real money. I have watched Shane play crazy shots when he is playing for $100 a set. It does go both ways for sure, I have seen players that play amazing for $5 a game but any more and they play too tight and play worse.

There is a good player that I played 8 ball with 2 games on the wire going to 5, we would play for $50 or $100 a set and he would win more than I would. Other people would want to go in with him and we played some sets for $500 and I won every time. I didn't win because I was stalling before, I would win because I would play smarter (more safety's) and I think he played a little worse because this slowed down his game.


I can definitely tell when Shane is playing a challenge set compared to a gambling match, his entire demeanor and tempo changes
 
Watching the sets, it appears Shane came to play. He was putting some packages together. I didn’t see him shoot a single windy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
mikepage said:
I think this idea of someone playing better for $10,000 than for $100 is hilarious. There is no evidence for it.

And besides, even if there was a play better when you really really want it as opposed to just really want it effect, wouldn't it apply to the opponent as well?

Suppose we told John Schmidt that if he didn't break 500 in the next 30 hours of trying we were going to toss his motorcycles and guns into the ocean. Would he be more likely to succeed? I doubt it. If there is any effect at all, I think it would go in the other direction.
Click to expand...
Don't get stuck on the numbers.

If you are going to contend funsie efforts mean as much as those with a tangible reward/ loss...not sure what to tell ya, other than

Mmmmkay
 
TheMarsMan said:
Mike,
I have a lot of experience with top players especially Shane and most top players play better once they are betting real money. I have watched Shane play crazy shots when he is playing for $100 a set. It does go both ways for sure, I have seen players that play amazing for $5 a game but any more and they play too tight and play worse.

There is a good player that I played 8 ball with 2 games on the wire going to 5, we would play for $50 or $100 a set and he would win more than I would. Other people would want to go in with him and we played some sets for $500 and I won every time. I didn't win because I was stalling before, I would win because I would play smarter (more safety's) and I think he played a little worse because this slowed down his game.


I can definitely tell when Shane is playing a challenge set compared to a gambling match, his entire demeanor and tempo changes
Click to expand...

Yes I understand. But I think people make a presumption that playing tighter and more deliberately like we do when more is on the line goes hand in hand with playing better. Caring more doesn't mean playing better. Trying harder doesn't mean playing better.

This is not an easy thing to measure. But I think the actual change in level of play is not so different as the demeanor change.
 
mikepage said:
Yes I understand. But I think people make a presumption that playing tighter and more deliberately like we do when more is on the line goes hand in hand with playing better. Caring more doesn't mean playing better. Trying harder doesn't mean playing better.

This is not an easy thing to measure. But I think the actual change in level of play is not so different as the demeanor change.
Click to expand...
To me, a simple illustration of the phenomenon is the choice to shoot a flyer, rather that play a safe...the former a choice one might make when something of elevated significance is on the line.

Instead of possibly selling out, getting ball in paw. That brings the level of play well up.
 
Cardigan Kid said:
One thing I noticed, that without commentary/background noise, I'm more focused on the players and their mindset and my inner what-would-do voice.
Eventually, if you mute and play something you enjoy...anything without vocals...maybe some classic Bach or even a movie score...you can zero in.
I was actually aware and didn't drift at all for the entire 2+ hours.
Haven't done that in a while.
Also the stellar play by both players didn't hurt things at all. Great match.
Click to expand...



I can understand. The only way I used to be able to watch Britany Spears music videos was on mute!

As far as the match goes, why does it matter if they play for money or not? I've seen terrible players play for money, this doesn't make them better players or gamblers. I think it's awesome they had the opportunity to make the match and be able to play it!
 
mikepage said:
I think this idea of someone playing better for $10,000 than for $100 is hilarious. There is no evidence for it.
Click to expand...

There's a Joe Rogan podcast that's great with Pat Militech and they talk about how some mma fighters are unbeatable in the gym but simply can't perform once they are under the spotlight and also about how other fighters are above average in the gym and straight up killers under the spotlight. Pat specfically mentioned Steve Rusk who I'd never heard of and how he ragdolled Matt Lindland (olympic wrestling silver medalist) who never heard even of him and was dumbfounded. I found Rusk on youtube and all the comments mentioned the podcast and they wanted to see this guy who could rip guys arms off in the gym.

I know several pool players that play great for $50 - 200 but over that they rarely if ever seem to win. There was a strong player in town playing one pocket earlier this year and the higher the bet got the less he liked the game and the guy with him said he's basically unbeatable for $50 a game but didn't like $500 a game. Wasn't there a straight pool player that had crazy high runs in practice but couldn't win an event?
 
Last edited:
TheMarsMan said:
Mike,
I have a lot of experience with top players especially Shane and most top players play better once they are betting real money. I have watched Shane play crazy shots when he is playing for $100 a set. It does go both ways for sure, I have seen players that play amazing for $5 a game but any more and they play too tight and play worse.

There is a good player that I played 8 ball with 2 games on the wire going to 5, we would play for $50 or $100 a set and he would win more than I would. Other people would want to go in with him and we played some sets for $500 and I won every time. I didn't win because I was stalling before, I would win because I would play smarter (more safety's) and I think he played a little worse because this slowed down his game.


I can definitely tell when Shane is playing a challenge set compared to a gambling match, his entire demeanor and tempo changes
Click to expand...


Sorry if I posted wrong.

But marsman isn’t saying when u play for cheap u lose more than u win, then when u play for say $500 u play more safes and u play smarter and win every time, isn’t that exactly what stalling is???
 
mikepage said:
I think this idea of someone playing better for $10,000 than for $100 is hilarious. There is no evidence for it.

.
Click to expand...

Efren is a living proof of that , I think.
Efren definitely played better for $10K than for $100 in one pocket.
 
Alex Kazakis would've went for the bank to win and not
the safe if it was practice. (@ World pool Masters finals)
 
JoeyInCali said:
Efren is a living proof of that , I think.
Efren definitely played better for $10K than for $100 in one pocket.
Click to expand...

It's normal when your workin' it. It's thee only way to make an honest livable living and be on the road. Every moment is relative to some other place and time. If your income is ONLY from match play, those inert actions are an automatic no brainier....if ya wanna eat.
 
Johnson said:
There's a Joe Rogan podcast that's great with Pat Militech and they talk about how some mma fighters are unbeatable in the gym but simply can't perform once they are under the spotlight and also about how other fighters are above average in the gym and straight up killers under the spotlight. Pat specfically mentioned Steve Rusk who I'd never heard of and how he ragdolled Matt Lindland (olympic wrestling silver medalist) who never heard even of him and was dumbfounded. I found Rusk on youtube and all the comments mentioned the podcast and they wanted to see this guy who could rip guys arms off in the gym.

I know several pool players that play great for $50 - 200 but over that they rarely if ever seem to win. There was a strong player in town playing one pocket earlier this year and the higher the bet got the less he liked the game and the guy with him said he's basically unbeatable for $50 a game but didn't like $500 a game. Wasn't there a straight pool player that had crazy high runs in practice but couldn't win an event?
Click to expand...


Tom Jennings. And it isn't / wasn't that he "couldn't" win an event, but, in figuring the ratio of how many absurdly high runs he had in practice and his wins ( two U.S. Open 14.1 tourneys, one of which has been and will remain strongly debated due to almost every world champion that year playing in a competing tourney { the first PPPA } due to players creating the PPPA shortly before ), he has become perhaps a bit "unfairly " convicted of being a choke artist in competition. Also, according to someone I know well who knew him, he never gambled, adding to the idea that he just couldn't "get 'er done". All of it unfair? Yeah... most likely. Stories like this tend to take on a life off their own...
 
Cardigan Kid said:
I didn't know they played: Siming vs Shane

I just saw this link today. Started watching now...
He says they played 7 sets to 11 over 3 days...
This should be some good data to test the Fargo Rate numbers.


https://youtu.be/TzqK7lrId-w



Day 2 of 3.....

https://youtu.be/2K2uaJC1INE
Click to expand...
Just watched the first set of day 2. Siming comes back from 10-5 to win the first set 11-10, including a 3-pack with some impressive shots to finish out the set. Regardless of the lack of a wager, it's obvious both players have great respect for each other and are trying to play their best.
 
ChrisinNC said:
Just watched the first set of day 2. Siming comes back from 10-5 to win the first set 11-10, including a 3-pack with some impressive shots to finish out the set. Regardless of the lack of a wager, it's obvious both players have great respect for each other and are trying to play their best.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't get--the thread turned into do players play better with big money or not...but the two players in front of us here are one of the best male players in the world, and the best female player in the world.

When Shane came back to win 11-10 on Day 1 set 1...he had to work, and overcome a deficit twice...he never lead until the end.
To think he was just shootin' the breeze is just not accurate if you watch that first set....then he comes out in set 2 like an aggressive pool gorilla and runs a 4 pack. He obviously was not taking her lighting and she was clearly ready to play. Money or no money--these two are playing jam up, not taking crazy 3 rail breaks and yuking it up.

I don't see how they would play different even if there was $10 K on the line--this is an extremely low key Bobby Riggs vs Billie Jean King....but with the #1s in the sport and gender. There is something at stake here and both players have conducted themselves as such in my opinion.
 
PoolBum said:
Or Babe Cranfield.
Click to expand...

Yup, Babe Cranfield is a much better example than Tom Jennings of a great practice room player with far fewer credentials in competition or action. Other such players include Gene Nagy, George Mikula, and Mike Eufemia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top