There has been a lot of discussion about spots in some recent threads, and it got me to thinking about the psychological effect of a spot on the lesser player, specifically how it affects their reaction to winning. It's been mentioned that the presence of a spot can dampen the thrill or satisfaction when the spotted player wins because he realizes that he has not really beaten his opponent, but rather has just beaten the spread. That is the case with me, and I very seldom accept a spot even when playing someone clearly better than me.
In thinking about it now I believe I maybe have come up with a different type of spot that would still give the lesser player a more even chance but not dampen the thrill of winning as much. I guess you could call it a "break even" or "push" spot. Basically, it would be a spot at which the lesser player would not lose his bet, but not win it, either.
For example, lets say that two players establish that a fair spot for the lesser player would be for him to get the 7 in 9-ball. In the system I'm imagining the 7-ball becomes the point at which the lesser player no longer risks losing, but he still has to make the 9-ball to win. Here are a few scenarios using that model:
(1) He makes the 7, misses the 8, and his opponent runs the last two. The game is a "push" from the standpoint of the bet. He loses the game, but not the money - saved by the spot.
(2) He makes the 7 and goes on to get the 8 and 9 as well. He wins game and the money without benefit of the spot.
(3) He never gets to the 7 before the opponent gets out. He loses the game and the money regardless of the spot.
I think this structure could make winning more satisfying for the lesser player. I don't see a down side for the better player if they were going to give a normal spot anyway. This model gives them something of a second shot at not losing the bet on a game where the lesser player makes the spot point.
Has anyone here tried this kind of spot, and if so what did you think of it? Also, what does everyone think of this, regardless of whether you have tried it or not?
In thinking about it now I believe I maybe have come up with a different type of spot that would still give the lesser player a more even chance but not dampen the thrill of winning as much. I guess you could call it a "break even" or "push" spot. Basically, it would be a spot at which the lesser player would not lose his bet, but not win it, either.
For example, lets say that two players establish that a fair spot for the lesser player would be for him to get the 7 in 9-ball. In the system I'm imagining the 7-ball becomes the point at which the lesser player no longer risks losing, but he still has to make the 9-ball to win. Here are a few scenarios using that model:
(1) He makes the 7, misses the 8, and his opponent runs the last two. The game is a "push" from the standpoint of the bet. He loses the game, but not the money - saved by the spot.
(2) He makes the 7 and goes on to get the 8 and 9 as well. He wins game and the money without benefit of the spot.
(3) He never gets to the 7 before the opponent gets out. He loses the game and the money regardless of the spot.
I think this structure could make winning more satisfying for the lesser player. I don't see a down side for the better player if they were going to give a normal spot anyway. This model gives them something of a second shot at not losing the bet on a game where the lesser player makes the spot point.
Has anyone here tried this kind of spot, and if so what did you think of it? Also, what does everyone think of this, regardless of whether you have tried it or not?
