Ugly Fact-
- Thread starter Chicagoplayer
- Start date
PoolChump
Banned
Ugly Disappointment
I clicked on this post to see who is considered to be the ugliest professional pool player, but instead was informed Team USA sucks. :sorry:
I clicked on this post to see who is considered to be the ugliest professional pool player, but instead was informed Team USA sucks. :sorry:
Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I never wulda thunk otherwise. I dont think that was an excuse as I did not watch the MC yet and dont really care who won because it does not affect me either way, just simply stating what I thought the problem may be. Figured I would chime in with a possible answer rather than crowing about how big or small my testicles are because my team won (huge testicles apparently) or my team lost (minuscule testicles apparently) That seems like what 90% of the threads have been about for the last week or or so. I mean cmon, who the f#$& really cares what happened at the MC, unless you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years I think everyone realizes professional pool in the US is on life support, the dominance of the MC one way or another aint gonna fix it. Im going to go read up on how Europe is more than 50 miles across now, thanks again for bringing that to my attention, you learn something new everyday!!!! Greenie for you for improving my edumacation.
Well, your answer(excuse) was completly wrong.
Btw, my team is USA but I don't sit here like a 5 year old making excuses.
Looks like you care cause you responded lol but feel free to carry on. Maybe you can come up with some better excuses or as you like to call them "problems"
Good luck
Jason
The fact that one guy out of 300M has impressed us all by winning 5 international majors on his home soil is hardly a key note to success or in anyway discredits what at the end of the day is my opinion...
Am off to play Snooker now, got 2 league games tonight! :thumbup:
FYI giant letters and colors don't actually give your words more weight, the words still have to make sense.
And the Chicago Bulls are 6-time NBA champions,
but what happened in the 90's has nothing to do with right now.
First of all, shortening a race doesn't automatically make the weaker team win,
it just gives them a better chance than they normally have. But they're still more likely to lose than win.
It just means that instead of having, say, a 43% chance to win a long race,
maybe it gets bumped up to 45% in a short race.
But it never pushes their chances up over 50%.
They don't magically become the better players just because the race is short.
Remember, this is not a race to 5. It's a best of over 20 races to 5.
If you don't get why that matters, imagine shortening the race to the most unfair number of all, race to 1.
Now imagine playing over 20 of those short races against Shane Van Boening.
Can you still win just because it's a short race to 1?
No, because even though the race is short, MULTIPLE races means the cream rises to the top.
If you looked at the statistics without any bias, you'd know that coin flipping would NEVER produce the results europe has had.
If Europe is heads and USA is tails, you're saying Europe's flipped heads 7 times in a row, and 9 out of the past 10 times.
You ever try getting 7 heads in a row, or 9 out of 10, flipping a quarter?
Try it. The odds are less than 1%.
Or try looking at it by rack count instead. Here's europe vs USA, over the last few years.
2014: 60-45
2015: 77-65
2016: 63-41
It doesn't matter whether you break those numbers up into 5's, or 11's, or 100's.
You don't win 200-150 in rack count with "luck".
If you flip a coin 350 times, you'll never get 200 heads or more.
You'll just see the same results, except it takes longer. Because Europe has multiple world champions,
with more experience, and they dog it less under pressure.
Actually, yes he did. Followed by the 100% accurate observation that for some reason,
Shane can't bring that level of play to the mosconi cup.
This is not how a 5-time us open champ is supposed to shoot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onp9JtmvtrM&t=743s
Weren't you just claiming that short races don't matter? In that case, their tiny handful of games together
doesn't mean anything. They could just "gotten lucky" like Europe apparently does.
You have no way of knowing that, because nobody puts gambling money in the history books.
But they do put world championships and mosconi cup records in the history books.
If you're trying to claim Mike has the same shooting ability and the same ability to handle pressure as all the euros,
that means he should be able to match Darren's wins in events like the World Straight Pool, World 9b, and 2 US opens.
He should be able to match Niels' record with wins in World 9b, WPM, and ICOC, and 2nd place world 8b.
But he can't match those records because he's just not at that level (yet). He's very good, our 2nd best player,
but USA's #2 is just not as good as Europe's #2 (nevermind their #1).
You can use their tournament records posted on AZB instead and arrive at the same conclusion.
Anyway if it's so meaningless and silly why all the giant bold italics brightly colored posts about it?
And the Chicago Bulls are 6-time NBA champions,
but what happened in the 90's has nothing to do with right now.
First of all, shortening a race doesn't automatically make the weaker team win,
it just gives them a better chance than they normally have. But they're still more likely to lose than win.
It just means that instead of having, say, a 43% chance to win a long race,
maybe it gets bumped up to 45% in a short race.
But it never pushes their chances up over 50%.
They don't magically become the better players just because the race is short.
Remember, this is not a race to 5. It's a best of over 20 races to 5.
If you don't get why that matters, imagine shortening the race to the most unfair number of all, race to 1.
Now imagine playing over 20 of those short races against Shane Van Boening.
Can you still win just because it's a short race to 1?
No, because even though the race is short, MULTIPLE races means the cream rises to the top.
If you looked at the statistics without any bias, you'd know that coin flipping would NEVER produce the results europe has had.
If Europe is heads and USA is tails, you're saying Europe's flipped heads 7 times in a row, and 9 out of the past 10 times.
You ever try getting 7 heads in a row, or 9 out of 10, flipping a quarter?
Try it. The odds are less than 1%.
Or try looking at it by rack count instead. Here's europe vs USA, over the last few years.
2014: 60-45
2015: 77-65
2016: 63-41
It doesn't matter whether you break those numbers up into 5's, or 11's, or 100's.
You don't win 200-150 in rack count with "luck".
If you flip a coin 350 times, you'll never get 200 heads or more.
You'll just see the same results, except it takes longer. Because Europe has multiple world champions,
with more experience, and they dog it less under pressure.
Actually, yes he did. Followed by the 100% accurate observation that for some reason,
Shane can't bring that level of play to the mosconi cup.
This is not how a 5-time us open champ is supposed to shoot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onp9JtmvtrM&t=743s
Weren't you just claiming that short races don't matter? In that case, their tiny handful of games together
doesn't mean anything. They could just "gotten lucky" like Europe apparently does.
You have no way of knowing that, because nobody puts gambling money in the history books.
But they do put world championships and mosconi cup records in the history books.
If you're trying to claim Mike has the same shooting ability and the same ability to handle pressure as all the euros,
that means he should be able to match Darren's wins in events like the World Straight Pool, World 9b, and 2 US opens.
He should be able to match Niels' record with wins in World 9b, WPM, and ICOC, and 2nd place world 8b.
But he can't match those records because he's just not at that level (yet). He's very good, our 2nd best player,
but USA's #2 is just not as good as Europe's #2 (nevermind their #1).
You can use their tournament records posted on AZB instead and arrive at the same conclusion.
Anyway if it's so meaningless and silly why all the giant bold italics brightly colored posts about it?
FYI giant letters and colors don't actually give your words more weight, the words still have to make sense.
And the Chicago Bulls are 6-time NBA champions,
but what happened in the 90's has nothing to do with right now.
First of all, shortening a race doesn't automatically make the weaker team win,
it just gives them a better chance than they normally have. But they're still more likely to lose than win.
It just means that instead of having, say, a 43% chance to win a long race,
maybe it gets bumped up to 45% in a short race.
But it never pushes their chances up over 50%.
They don't magically become the better players just because the race is short.
Remember, this is not a race to 5. It's a best of over 20 races to 5.
If you don't get why that matters, imagine shortening the race to the most unfair number of all, race to 1.
Now imagine playing over 20 of those short races against Shane Van Boening.
Can you still win just because it's a short race to 1?
No, because even though the race is short, MULTIPLE races means the cream rises to the top.
If you looked at the statistics without any bias, you'd know that coin flipping would NEVER produce the results europe has had.
If Europe is heads and USA is tails, you're saying Europe's flipped heads 7 times in a row, and 9 out of the past 10 times.
You ever try getting 7 heads in a row, or 9 out of 10, flipping a quarter?
Try it. The odds are less than 1%.
Or try looking at it by rack count instead. Here's europe vs USA, over the last few years.
2014: 60-45
2015: 77-65
2016: 63-41
It doesn't matter whether you break those numbers up into 5's, or 11's, or 100's.
You don't win 200-150 in rack count with "luck".
If you flip a coin 350 times, you'll never get 200 heads or more.
You'll just see the same results, except it takes longer. Because Europe has multiple world champions,
with more experience, and they dog it less under pressure.
Actually, yes he did. Followed by the 100% accurate observation that for some reason,
Shane can't bring that level of play to the mosconi cup.
This is not how a 5-time us open champ is supposed to shoot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onp9JtmvtrM&t=743s
Weren't you just claiming that short races don't matter? In that case, their tiny handful of games together
doesn't mean anything. They could just "gotten lucky" like Europe apparently does.
You have no way of knowing that, because nobody puts gambling money in the history books.
But they do put world championships and mosconi cup records in the history books.
If you're trying to claim Mike has the same shooting ability and the same ability to handle pressure as all the euros,
that means he should be able to match Darren's wins in events like the World Straight Pool, World 9b, and 2 US opens.
He should be able to match Niels' record with wins in World 9b, WPM, and ICOC, and 2nd place world 8b.
But he can't match those records because he's just not at that level (yet). He's very good, our 2nd best player,
but USA's #2 is just not as good as Europe's #2 (nevermind their #1).
You can use their tournament records posted on AZB instead and arrive at the same conclusion.
Anyway if it's so meaningless and silly why all the giant bold italics brightly colored posts about it?
All excellent points!
John Disque
Banned
I don't bet on coin-tosses or circle-jerks for Youtube.
If you, and many people like you, are afraid of finding out who REALLY has more heart and talent... I can only laugh at you and tell you to enjoy your America-bashing while it lasts...
My sister could win a race to five, alt-breaks, against anyone in the world.
She should probably give Mark Wilson a shout then I hear he's looking for someone with that exact skillset!
fyi giant letters and colors don't actually give your words more weight, the words still have to make sense.
And the chicago bulls are 6-time nba champions,
but what happened in the 90's has nothing to do with right now.
First of all, shortening a race doesn't automatically make the weaker team win,
it just gives them a better chance than they normally have. But they're still more likely to lose than win.
It just means that instead of having, say, a 43% chance to win a long race,
maybe it gets bumped up to 45% in a short race.
But it never pushes their chances up over 50%.
They don't magically become the better players just because the race is short.
Remember, this is not a race to 5. It's a best of over 20 races to 5.
If you don't get why that matters, imagine shortening the race to the most unfair number of all, race to 1.
Now imagine playing over 20 of those short races against shane van boening.
Can you still win just because it's a short race to 1?
No, because even though the race is short, multiple races means the cream rises to the top.
If you looked at the statistics without any bias, you'd know that coin flipping would never produce the results europe has had.
If europe is heads and usa is tails, you're saying europe's flipped heads 7 times in a row, and 9 out of the past 10 times.
You ever try getting 7 heads in a row, or 9 out of 10, flipping a quarter?
Try it. The odds are less than 1%.
Or try looking at it by rack count instead. Here's europe vs usa, over the last few years.
2014: 60-45
2015: 77-65
2016: 63-41
it doesn't matter whether you break those numbers up into 5's, or 11's, or 100's.
You don't win 200-150 in rack count with "luck".
If you flip a coin 350 times, you'll never get 200 heads or more.
You'll just see the same results, except it takes longer. Because europe has multiple world champions,
with more experience, and they dog it less under pressure.
Actually, yes he did. Followed by the 100% accurate observation that for some reason,
shane can't bring that level of play to the mosconi cup.
This is not how a 5-time us open champ is supposed to shoot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onp9jtmvtrm&t=743s
weren't you just claiming that short races don't matter? In that case, their tiny handful of games together
doesn't mean anything. They could just "gotten lucky" like europe apparently does.
You have no way of knowing that, because nobody puts gambling money in the history books.
But they do put world championships and mosconi cup records in the history books.
If you're trying to claim mike has the same shooting ability and the same ability to handle pressure as all the euros,
that means he should be able to match darren's wins in events like the world straight pool, world 9b, and 2 us opens.
He should be able to match niels' record with wins in world 9b, wpm, and icoc, and 2nd place world 8b.
But he can't match those records because he's just not at that level (yet). He's very good, our 2nd best player,
but usa's #2 is just not as good as europe's #2 (nevermind their #1).
You can use their tournament records posted on azb instead and arrive at the same conclusion.
Anyway if it's so meaningless and silly why all the giant bold italics brightly colored posts about it?
flag on the play: illegal use of logic (and its more truthier because its written in blue with larger font size)
John Disque
Banned
I write in large text because I know a lot of people who have bad eyesight. My books are published in oversize text for the same reason.
As for using colors ---- I first did it just to experiment and see what was possible. I continue to do it because it seems to piss off chumps who get hung-up on irrelevant, trivial crap (Like a natural-weed-eater - I know whose comments are relevant and who is useless.)
Last edited:
PoolChump
Banned
We chumps are bottom weed eaters
Who are you calling a chump? We chumps are natural weed eaters. Bottom feeders.
Who are you calling a chump? We chumps are natural weed eaters. Bottom feeders.
Last edited:
everyone can......only those 5 americans cant :thumbup:
:crying::crying::crying::crying: and it continues. Careful, better drink a lot of water, you're gonna get dehydrated.
Jason