this not the way it should be
- Thread starter jackpot
- Start date
Yes, he is!
But I can agree that it's his business, it's just not optimal play.
And I would bet that the guys that agree with that thought would also agree that it's his business - it's just not correct business in this case as far as the "correct" play.
Jason
I guess we should follow these unwritten rules in pool also like poker - never tell a sucker/suckers they are making a bad play. For that, the 3 or 4 of us are guilty.
Jason
Nonsense. He played pool. He played for money. Optimal play doesn’t come into it. You are imposing your own value system on his pool playing. There is more to this world, and to pool, than sharks and suckers. If you see pool as a vehicle for taking money from suckers and nothing else then you are barking up the wrong tree. There are tons of ways of making lots more money than pool sharks do - without exploiting “losers”. So if you are calling “non optimal” gamblers losers then you might as well call all pool money players losers.
What nonsense this whole thing is!
1. When I (or anyone else) wagers it's my perogative to quit whenever I want. If some drug addicted bum with no job wants to keep playing for 3 days, then good luck to him, but he's not playing with me.
2. Raising the stakes, or double or nothing style wagers just isn't very smart. Usually the guy going double or nothing is going to quit the moment he wins a set. That way, I may have won 6-7 sets, and he's won only one, and we're even? Not only that, but typically that means he didn't have the money to begin with. We can't put money on the light here, as gambling is illegal (and is enforced by room owners), so it's extra risky to play this way.
3. If you make a wager, then that is the wager that has been made. There is no other "agreement" or "rules". These are all figments of your imagination. Nobody has any duty what so ever to keep playing you, if they win. If you want to play more than one set, make the bet for more than one.
4. Nobody should tell you what you're supposed to wager. That is your decision. If they try, tell them to f- off.
1. When I (or anyone else) wagers it's my perogative to quit whenever I want. If some drug addicted bum with no job wants to keep playing for 3 days, then good luck to him, but he's not playing with me.
2. Raising the stakes, or double or nothing style wagers just isn't very smart. Usually the guy going double or nothing is going to quit the moment he wins a set. That way, I may have won 6-7 sets, and he's won only one, and we're even? Not only that, but typically that means he didn't have the money to begin with. We can't put money on the light here, as gambling is illegal (and is enforced by room owners), so it's extra risky to play this way.
3. If you make a wager, then that is the wager that has been made. There is no other "agreement" or "rules". These are all figments of your imagination. Nobody has any duty what so ever to keep playing you, if they win. If you want to play more than one set, make the bet for more than one.
4. Nobody should tell you what you're supposed to wager. That is your decision. If they try, tell them to f- off.
Last edited:
Does the room allow pool tournaments? If so you just have a single game, single elimination , winner take all tournament with the specified entry posted. When that tournament is over, play another. Real simple and no gambling is involved.
What other people do with their money is their business, not anyone else's. IMHO
Good Grief
This had nothing to do with who quit. The LOSER quit, because he
figured, I have way the worst of it and the very best I can do is
maybe get even. The winner is a loser. Instead of making a big
score he wins $150 dollars. The sucker said it's my fault I only
played because I was half drunk and the only other people in
here are women league players. Now every time the sucker
comes in the Nit runs over and asks him to play. No thanks he
told him you had your chance and you dogged it. Why would I
play a game that I can't win more than $50. (But could lose 2 or 3
thousand). The nit has been told by a half a dozen people to
play the guy for what ever he wants they will stake it. The sucker
will not play, he knows he can't win. He let a golden opportunity
get away and he knows it, and that is why he keeps trying to get
the guy to play again. It is not bothering the nit that people are
telling him he made a dumb move to let a sucker off the hook.
so why is it bothering anyone on here,it was a dumb move.
Both involved know it and said so. The sucker said I can't
believe I got drunk and almost went off to that nit, I should
by him dinner for quitting, and the nit keeps trying to get him
to play again, because he knows he screwed up.
jack
This had nothing to do with who quit. The LOSER quit, because he
figured, I have way the worst of it and the very best I can do is
maybe get even. The winner is a loser. Instead of making a big
score he wins $150 dollars. The sucker said it's my fault I only
played because I was half drunk and the only other people in
here are women league players. Now every time the sucker
comes in the Nit runs over and asks him to play. No thanks he
told him you had your chance and you dogged it. Why would I
play a game that I can't win more than $50. (But could lose 2 or 3
thousand). The nit has been told by a half a dozen people to
play the guy for what ever he wants they will stake it. The sucker
will not play, he knows he can't win. He let a golden opportunity
get away and he knows it, and that is why he keeps trying to get
the guy to play again. It is not bothering the nit that people are
telling him he made a dumb move to let a sucker off the hook.
so why is it bothering anyone on here,it was a dumb move.
Both involved know it and said so. The sucker said I can't
believe I got drunk and almost went off to that nit, I should
by him dinner for quitting, and the nit keeps trying to get him
to play again, because he knows he screwed up.
jack
when you can't post
The city I lived in or near most of my gambling days had a no gambling rule. We gambled for small stakes no problem. However, as soon as you posted a few hundred dollars or more on the light somebody would drop a dime and the police would show up. First thing they did was confiscate that money for evidence of course. The amount that got to the evidence room was always less than what was on the light, the responding unit and the caller both got a chunk. I saw three thousand dollars go bye-bye just like that in the early seventies. Fortunately I wasn't involved. Half of it disappeared on the way to the evidence room and the judge took the other half plus a fine. Lesson learned and it didn't cost me a dime.
Without being able to post it was just a given that you were probably going to get air barreled on the last bet. Didn't even bother me unless I was air barreled on the first bet, I figured the chances were about fifty-fifty I would get air barreled on the last!
Hu
The city I lived in or near most of my gambling days had a no gambling rule. We gambled for small stakes no problem. However, as soon as you posted a few hundred dollars or more on the light somebody would drop a dime and the police would show up. First thing they did was confiscate that money for evidence of course. The amount that got to the evidence room was always less than what was on the light, the responding unit and the caller both got a chunk. I saw three thousand dollars go bye-bye just like that in the early seventies. Fortunately I wasn't involved. Half of it disappeared on the way to the evidence room and the judge took the other half plus a fine. Lesson learned and it didn't cost me a dime.
Without being able to post it was just a given that you were probably going to get air barreled on the last bet. Didn't even bother me unless I was air barreled on the first bet, I figured the chances were about fifty-fifty I would get air barreled on the last!
Hu
I have no problems with him declining the double up because it could be a tactic to bump the money per set. It’s up to the winner and not loser to decide because I can quit and not let you win back your money. When I usually play I always put a time limit. I got 3 hours or X amount of sets in me.
Exactly so. The 3 or 4 "woke" players in this thread are basically talking about opportunity cost, where the winning player made a suboptimal choice and therefore did not gain as much money as they should.
By that logic, anyone outside of the world top 20 playing pool for money instead of working at Circle K for minimum wage is a "loser", since they are very much so choosing the opportunity where they make less money.
I have met so many players who never amount to much in the game because they are overly concerned with making money off gambling, and therefore never push themselves to compete against those who would drill them, giving them some knowledge of which weaknesses to learn from.
Personally, I play balls to the wall every time I pick up a cue, and money never even crosses my mind. I consider those who require money on a game to concentrate to be relatively weak-minded individuals. Rodney Morris used to imagine himself playing in the U.S. Open finals during his practice sessions, and was known to snap a cue or two during practice when he missed at the wrong moment in his "match". That's the sort of mindset and self-discipline I aspire to. If you have that sort of mindset in PRACTICE, then there is no amount of pressure that a money game can pout on you that will faze you that much.
Last edited:
I'm not up to reading all these posts but doubling the bet when you're losing is a standard hustler move, or used to be.
The thread did remind me of a story from over 50 years ago in a pool room in Florida some of you might like. At this room everyone played a slightly different version of 9 ball. If you made the 9 with balls still on the table, you won the bet but the 9 was spotted and the game continued. Those rules promoted rolling the cheese a lot and learning combos, caroms, and billiards better than most. One day a player known as "Greasy" was playing a sailor some $5 nine ball and planting his "seed" money (keep in mind this was 1966 $ and minimum wage was $1.25). After the sailor won $25 he started saying he had to get back to the ship. Naturally Greasy objected and said "come on man, a least give me a chance to get even, lets play one more for $25". The sailor agreed. When Greasy made the 9 the fifth time in that game the sailor whacked him over the head with his stick and ran out the door. Of course the room emptied chasing the sailor down the street. Except for me, I was laughing too hard to chase anybody. Greasy was just too greedy.
A couple months later I joined the Army. Starting salary was $90.10 per month. No way that sailor had $125, even with Greasy's $25.
The thread did remind me of a story from over 50 years ago in a pool room in Florida some of you might like. At this room everyone played a slightly different version of 9 ball. If you made the 9 with balls still on the table, you won the bet but the 9 was spotted and the game continued. Those rules promoted rolling the cheese a lot and learning combos, caroms, and billiards better than most. One day a player known as "Greasy" was playing a sailor some $5 nine ball and planting his "seed" money (keep in mind this was 1966 $ and minimum wage was $1.25). After the sailor won $25 he started saying he had to get back to the ship. Naturally Greasy objected and said "come on man, a least give me a chance to get even, lets play one more for $25". The sailor agreed. When Greasy made the 9 the fifth time in that game the sailor whacked him over the head with his stick and ran out the door. Of course the room emptied chasing the sailor down the street. Except for me, I was laughing too hard to chase anybody. Greasy was just too greedy.
A couple months later I joined the Army. Starting salary was $90.10 per month. No way that sailor had $125, even with Greasy's $25.
Louie Roberts (RIP) taught me a great lesson, which applies here:
You can shave a sheep many times, but only skin him once.
By leaving winner, the player basically ensured future winnings from the guy.
The player WANTS to play again, and will GLADLY lose another $150.
Contrary to many opinions on here, the winner did not leave money on the table, rather he made sure he'd win more next time, and again, and again.
Just my take on it.
-von
You can shave a sheep many times, but only skin him once.
By leaving winner, the player basically ensured future winnings from the guy.
The player WANTS to play again, and will GLADLY lose another $150.
Contrary to many opinions on here, the winner did not leave money on the table, rather he made sure he'd win more next time, and again, and again.
Just my take on it.
-von
You are 100% WRONG! If you would read, you would see that the losing player will NOT play again because he knows he cannot win.
I like how all you guys have these little sayings and then go on to twist them into every situation even though it's been posted here that in fact it is the exact opposite.
Jason
Well goddamn. Im glad we got that cleared up. :thumbup:
Why would a guy who knows he can't win be trying to double the bet?
The other guy, for whatever reason, quit because it wasn't worth it for him to keep playing. I think it's as simple as that.
The other guy, for whatever reason, quit because it wasn't worth it for him to keep playing. I think it's as simple as that.
Oh, you assume the "losing player" won't play again, yet didn't he ask to double the bet?
That's a clear contradiction. He can't double the bet without playing more.
Yes, I know the actual expression is "shear". How much time did you spend with Louie???
-von