The No Handicapping Crowd Cracks Me Up

deanoc said:
99% of every game i ever played involved a spot

all this blowhard big shot talk is just that
without a spot how can anybody play a better player
guys who don't like spots are afraid to gamble

colonel is right about this
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that there are many, many more "keyboard shortstops" here than there are real world shortstops. I think if this topic came up at the poolroom and everyone had cues in hand there would be a much smaller "I dont need no sissy spot" crowd. :yeah:
 
fastone371 said:
Do you really think the superior player is going to be giving his best game to the weak player?

I dont. What i do think is that the level of improvement would be higher.
In theory player x would get sick of losing and begin to ask questions and practice harder. While player y would win with the spot and not be as motivated to improve.

When you legitimately earn the games you win you can gauge progress better. The better player also wont be too happy about this and play harder.
Click to expand...
 
couldnthinkof01 said:
I dont. What i do think is that the level of improvement would be higher.
In theory player x would get sick of losing and begin to ask questions and practice harder. While player y would win with the spot and not be as motivated to improve.

When you legitimately earn the games you win you can gauge progress better. The better player also wont be too happy about this and play harder.
Click to expand...

I heard that a lot, until i passed up the ones donating. The ones i see improving most nowadays put in the time learning.

Player Y has a better view of their game and will be more consistent, especially with safeties. Player X didn't learn that part, because theirs would be ineffective and the way, way better player doesn't need to play safe. Player Y also knows how to play against different levels of opponents.
 
fastone371 said:
Do you really think the superior player is going to be giving his best game to the weak player? I dont think so. I wish this were not the case but when I play a much weaker opponent I do things that I would not do had I been playing a much better opponent than myself. I spend a lot of time at home practicing on my table, it seems that once you get to a certain level improvements come slowly, that you can go 6 months or longer without improving much.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% with this.Once in a while you will play someone that you truly don't like and you just want crush them bad enough they do not ever want to hold a cue again, embarrass them if you will. However; this is not typical, as it is often totally counterproductive especially in regards to action matches. In action you want to win of course, but not obliterate them. Gotta keep your customers happy and coming back lol.

As to those that say if you play with a spot you won't improve, at least in any meaningful way - that by itself is probably true. However, when it comes to gambling you will encounter people you need weight from, those that you will need to spot, and once in awhile a st right up even match. Just throwing this number out there because not sure how it could be validated but I'd say somewhere along the lines of 75% or more of all action matches would not take place I'd spots were not involved. So in that right spots are a necessity. When it comes to leauge, same thing. If they were not able to handicap players the leagues would not exist, at least not to the extent they are today. So when you think about handicapping in these terms it's really not that bad right?
 
Last edited:
I did not reply about tournament pool
I never played in but one
I play so bad that I had no intersest

I did beat Bob Vanover and little al Mason back to back

odds were about 1000 to 1 against me,buy bar box race to 3

I only mention i have played many many of the greats with huge spots
won some lost more

i have no desire to improve,rather no expectation tp

honestly it was just the action that got me
same for golf,just because my talent was bad
that never kept me from playing

SJD was a great player,great and I was
very week
but on this subject we are agreed
matching up is important and necessary,even fun

i wish sjd was still playing,i would ask for the nuts
he would gladly comply once we determined the exact nature of the nuts
and when the day was over,we would see who really knew

dc
 
deanoc said:
I did not reply about tournament pool
I never played in but one
I play so bad that I had no intersest

I did beat Bob Vanover and little al Mason back to back

odds were about 1000 to 1 against me,buy bar box race to 3

I only mention i have played many many of the greats with huge spots
won some lost more

i have no desire to improve,rather no expectation tp

honestly it was just the action that got me
same for golf,just because my talent was bad
that never kept me from playing

SJD was a great player,great and I was
very week
but on this subject we are agreed
matching up is important and necessary,even fun

i wish sjd was still playing,i would ask for the nuts
he would gladly comply once we determined the exact nature of the nuts
and when the day was over,we would see who really knew

dc
Click to expand...


Dean, beating Bob Vanover is no small feat! Race to three or not!
 
Players have been matching up for more than a 100 years. From the two guys playing for time to the two players playing for 10k a set and everyone in between. I too have taken weight from a few pros. Allen Hopkins, Steve Cook, Buddy Hall, Mike Segal, to name a few. I never gambled any money on anything that I couldn't afford to lose. It was fun...win or lose. I always bet my own. Johnnyt
 
deanoc said:
it was just luck
he was 100 times better than me
lucky
Click to expand...

Sure...... lol. I've been friends with his brother for over 20+ years and he actually taught me a bunch early on. Boy, them Vanover Boyz can play though!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top