substance players

[maximillion]

This question was spawned by another thread but I think it deserves its own.

Here is the sinereo

You are obviously beating someone pretty steadily.

Then they decide they want to take little breaks for personal stuff. Obviosly some sort of drug.

What are ways that you can bring them out of the zone that they have sort of cheated there way into.

 

[Celtic]

Does this include alcohol? Coffee? A smoke? where do you draw the line? At the legality of the substance that is effecting the performance? Then it becomes less of a pool matter and more of a legal one and as such "cheating to gain an edge" is a little misplaced since if you take the nicotine away from a smoker pool player they often get alot easier to beat, same thing with coffee which helps alot of people with the game. Alcohol is a crutch to alot of players to help fight off nerves, should we call them "cheaters" as well? It seems to get pretty bloody subjective.

 

[lewdo26]

They'll eventually crash. Keep the money in the owner's safe and come the next day for another set. This I heard from one of our most colorful posters. He might choose to come forth and tell you more from firsthand experience.

 

[maximillion]

I see your point, I do. But to go out to your car and snort some coke, or take a hit of acid, or smoke a bowl, Is not an option for some players

Im not a baseball fan.

Imagine Babe ruths record being beat by someone who is way heavy into steriods, then dies at 40

And no-one remembers babe ruth

 

[maximillion]

They'll eventually crash. Keep the money in the owner's safe and come the next day for another set. This I heard from one of our most colorful posters. He might choose to come forth and tell you more from firsthand experience.

That is new insight to me. I remember from years ago fealing realy shitty the next day after some stuff.

 

[Celtic]

I see your point, I do. But to go out to your car and snort some coke, or take a hit of acid, or smoke a bowl, Is not an option for some players

It is an option, just not a very good one. I think smoking is a huge advantage in pool for those that do, it gives them something familiar that naturally calms the nerves and has the added bonus of being a distraction that creates a zone of inner peace and can help maintain the emotionless focus that this game takes to be played at a top level. That being said becoming a smoker to get possible benefits will also have a good chance of coming back to bite you in the ass later in life when the doctor says you dont have a cold, you have lung cancer. As such I miss out of the benefits that a smoker may have and on occasion may lose to them due to my choice not to ruin my health for the sake of playing better pool. Harder and more illegal drugs are different only as a matter of scale, if you see them as cheating then the smoking of a cigarette is also cheating, the difference is in the legality, not the effect they have on the game because for all we know a smoke and a cup of coffee could be every bit as positive to one person as some nose candy is to another.

The original thread this came off of was about pot, which is about as illegal as alcohol was in the 1930's in the USA during the prohibition and that did not stop Ralph Greenleaf from drinking it non-stop since he could not handle the pressure of competition without it. Should we relegate him to the status of a cheater since he drank and doing so was illegal at the time? This is a debate that immediately gets way into shades of grey, where do you draw the line? Why should any of us believe that the line WE draw is the one that should be followed?

 

[maximillion]

"The difference is the legality" I guess would be the main statement in this issue. But me, with the job that I have, do not have the option of pushing legality.

So if someone requires the edge (drugs) that I can not legaly gain, to beat me. Should they be considered a better player than I?

 

[Celtic]

"The difference is the legality" I guess would be the main statement in this issue. But me, with the job that I have, do not have the option of pushing legality.

So if someone requires the edge (drugs) that I can not legaly gain, to beat me. Should they be considered a better player than I?

Actually that hits an extremely interesting area of discussion. Do the drugs improve the players skills or instead remove inhibitions that keep their top game from coming out? It is no secret that many players have seriously weak mental games and despite great skills cannot win at all because they collapse under pressure. Other without nearly the skills yet very strong mental games though can actually perform well and overcome their lack in ability through sheer will to succeed. Now if the player who is actually better requires drugs in order to overcome the mental weakness and the game you are getting in the drug induced state is simply their total skill in the game with all the inhibitions removed are you truly better at that point then that person? Perhaps your mental game is strong to begin with and you play near the top of your potential and the drugs would therefore do little to improve your game. On the other hand your opponent who you can beat when he is sober or straight in actuality has loads more skill at the game but his mental game defeats him.

That is where I would put Ralph Greenleaf. I dont think that guy lacked in pool skills, he was probably the best pool player of his era and arguably ever. Even Mosconi admitted the awesome level of play Ralph could reach and he was a pretty tough critic of pool skills. Did the alcohol increase Ralph's skills or simply let those skills be relized at the table? I would guess the latter and I would think that most drug induced states of pool "zone" are the same. He might not have ever won a world championships without booze but would that mean he was not the greatest? That skill was still in there, when it came to potential and skills he had more then anyone but they required a drug to be allowed to flow.

Drugs will affect different players in different ways. Just because one person shoots better in a drug induced state does not mean you will. If you can beat a guy straight and he can beat you when drug induced does that mean you could beat him when both of you are on drugs? Not necessarily, and if he can beat you straight or stoned in his drug induced state I would argue that this means he has more skills in the end and that it is mostly mental issues stopping his game from being relized in a straight state.

 

[TheConArtist]

What are ways that you can bring them out of the zone that they have sort of cheated there way into.

Make them nervous lol, There are alot of players that do the same thing here, They have to be chemically imbalanced to play or something, So when i know they are on something, i joke around about it, and they can't play at all. Cole 'TheConArtist'

 

[vapoolplayer]

This question was spawned by another thread but I think it deserves its own.

Here is the sinereo

You are obviously beating someone pretty steadily.

Then they decide they want to take little breaks for personal stuff. Obviosly some sort of drug.

What are ways that you can bring them out of the zone that they have sort of cheated there way into.

two things you can do here:

1: don't play people who do

2: learn to play good enough that it doesn't matter.

VAP

 

[Black-Balled]

take a hit of acid

Acid?! Are you serious? That's the easiest one to beat.
Tell him to check out the carpet! And tell the house man to turn off the time

 

[Snapshot9]

It is also proven ...

That drinking water also settles the nerves .... Are you going to ban
someone from drinking water too. Don't worry about banning smoking.
No smoking players would be there to begin with ....

People really go overboard about this banning thing ...

 

[senor]

If it feels good, do it

I could care less what my opponent does to keep the mixture right, just don't slow play me.

 

[chefjeff]

(snip)

The original thread this came off of was about pot, which is about as illegal as alcohol was in the 1930's in the USA during the prohibition and that did not stop Ralph Greenleaf from drinking it non-stop since he could not handle the pressure of competition without it. Should we relegate him to the status of a cheater since he drank and doing so was illegal at the time? This is a debate that immediately gets way into shades of grey, where do you draw the line? Why should any of us believe that the line WE draw is the one that should be followed?

I have an ad from Life magazine, I think, circa 1938, on my poolroom wall that features Ralph. It is for Camel cigarettes. I quote Ralph (or at least the ad writer who is pretending to quote Ralph):

"I'd say the most important rule in this game is to have healthy nerves. It pays to be sure of the mildness of your cigarette. And on that score, I think, Camels have a lot extra to offer. One of the main reasons why I've stuck to Camels for 20 years is---they don't ruffle my nerves."

Btw, the ad has a nice picture of Ralph ready to shoot a masse' shot with a bunch of well dressed couples closeby, watching him.

Some things never change.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Mike Templeton]

This question was spawned by another thread but I think it deserves its own.

Here is the sinereo

You are obviously beating someone pretty steadily.

Then they decide they want to take little breaks for personal stuff. Obviosly some sort of drug.

What are ways that you can bring them out of the zone that they have sort of cheated there way into.

I am going to admit here that I have experimented wiuth drugs and their effect on pool performance. I just hope people won't judge what I have to say unless they have been there.

I have been trying to supplement my income by playing pool for 15 years. Late nights in the pool room. Not knowing when a game will come in. Getting up at 6am, working all day Friday, then not matching up till 1am or 2am Saturday morning. Your body sometimes needs help. And for those who say, "just don't gamble", or "don't make a game after midnight", you just don't know. The allure of that part of the game is what sucks in many of the players who end up needing help with drugs.

When I was younger, it wasn't as bad. I have never drank alcohol or smoked, so I did have an advantage there, IMO. I would drink alot of coffee and take no-doz, then sleep in all day Sunday to try to recover before work on Monday. And it took years before I was really tempted to try any illegal stimulants. But with other gamblers and players touting the benefits of diet pills, coke, crank, etc., it makes it difficult to not want to at least try to see if there is a positive effect on your game if you try these boosters.

From my experiences, when you first take diet pills, or something else to help revive you, you are more alert and you do play a little better. And that is where you get hooked. Then most players will get the mindset of "How did I ever survive without these little "pick-me-ups" that I use now?"

But as time goes on, and it take more diet pills, or other, harder drugs to keep you alert, it really affects your game in a very negative and adverse way. Your game gets really inconsistent. You will play like a champion sometimes, but other times you will literally play 2 to 3 balls worse that you normally play. And I haven't done that many drugs. Far less than alot of the other players that I know. But my game would go up and down. Not in weeks, but in a matter of minutes. I would be a world beater the first part of a set, then couldn't make a ball 20 minutes later.

I think the misconception comes because most people will report seeing a player go to the bathroom, then come out and play like a champion. That is the news that gets spread. And that makes people more interested in the drugs of choice among players. Nobody ever hears of the matches where a player goes to the bathroom, then loses the set in about an hour.

I do not play on drus any longer. I much prefer the consistency of my "natural" game. The drug induced boosts that occasionally occurred were nice, but they end up costing much, much more in the long run.

To answer Max's question, I don't think that much can be done to affect the game of a player who is on drugs. You can hang in ther with them. Their game may drop a ball or two at any time. But they may catch a gear also, and not miss for severay days

Mike

 

[chefjeff]

"The difference is the legality" I guess would be the main statement in this issue. But me, with the job that I have, do not have the option of pushing legality.

So if someone requires the edge (drugs) that I can not legaly gain, to beat me. Should they be considered a better player than I?

Legal/illegal is the false distinction in these arguments. The war on (some) drugs tends to distort rational thinking and pretends to effortlessly answer the question of what chemical is OK and what is not OK to ingest. In fact, the new "snitch law" could make it so anyone here who knows the people who admitted to illegal drug use could go to jail for 2 years for not telling on the illegal user. I see a time real soon when, in our example, the board administrator will be arrested for not narcing on the person who post their illegal drug usage. Beware, fascism is still with us!

It's an individual choice in reality, but the powers that be don't want us making it for ourselves (note Supreme court ruling that just came out). If it works for you and it adds to your long-term happiness, go for it, BUT keep it quiet.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Egg McDogit]

to ingest. In fact, the new "snitch law" could make it so anyone here who knows the people who admitted to illegal drug use could go to jail for 2 years for not telling on the illegal user. I see a time real soon when, in our example, the board administrator will be arrested for not narcing

woah snitch law?? are you serious??

 

[Mike Templeton]

woah snitch law?? are you serious??

I guess before long, if you saw someone doing 65 MPH in a 50 MPH zone a month ago, you will be required to turn them in to the DMV.

I think there has been one of those in the poolroom for years now, anyway. Something has been knocking the action.

Mike

 

[chefjeff]

woah snitch law?? are you serious??

Oh, I don't make up these things...only wacko control freaks could be so imaginative.

Inform on Your Own Children or Go To Jail_. One of the orthodox needs of every authoritarian police state is a systematic organization of informers, striving to ensure that every criminal -- in the eyes of the tyrant -- act is caught and punished. Stalin glorified the child who informed on his own parents. Now, thanks to HR 1528, any American who witnesses certain victimless crimes must report them or go to jail. _The sentence is increased for parents who do not inform on their children. _ To quote from HR 1528 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1528:
“SEC. 425. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who witnesses or learns of a violation of sections 416(b)(2), 417, 418, 419, 420, 424, or 426 to fail to report the offense to law enforcement officials within 24 hours of witnessing or learning of the violation and thereafter provide full assistance in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the person violating paragraph (a).

‘(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be sentenced to not less than two years or more than 10 years. If the person who witnesses or learns of the violation is the parent or guardian, or otherwise responsible for the care or supervision of the person under the age of 18 or the incompetent person, such person shall be sentenced to not less than three years or more than 20 years.'”

Here's a good summary of the bill:

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/wacmoreinfo.asp?item=26179

If you're into self-punishment and want to take politcal action, go here:

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=26179&ms=Sensen0505-lm

Jeff Livingston

 

[Nostroke]

I have an ad from Life magazine, I think, circa 1938, on my poolroom wall that features Ralph. It is for Camel cigarettes. I quote Ralph (or at least the ad writer who is pretending to quote Ralph):

"I'd say the most important rule in this game is to have healthy nerves. It pays to be sure of the mildness of your cigarette. And on that score, I think, Camels have a lot extra to offer. One of the main reasons why I've stuck to Camels for 20 years is---they don't ruffle my nerves."

Btw, the ad has a nice picture of Ralph ready to shoot a masse' shot with a bunch of well dressed couples closeby, watching him.

Some things never change.

Jeff Livingston

When i think of mild cigarettes, Camels are not usually the ones that come to mind.