UPA Pro Tour Championships
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
John Barton
New member
All right I reread the post and it said something "after we chop it up, I am paid in full and Shane is owed the remaining balance". I am assuming here that Shane did get SOME of that. My question is HOW can one part of the team, and the NON-PLAYING part at that be paid in full while the player is still owed?
Here is another thing that I DON'T understand and never will in all my years of playing pool for money.
WHY should a player LET other people in on the bet if he has to use his own money as part of the bet? I might answer my own question but the only REASON I can see it is when the opposing player is trying to HIGH ROLL and the player doesn't have enough of his own money to fade the bet by himself.
Other than that I see no reason to allow others to take part of my action unless we are very good friends and even then it's kind of a shitty deal because the pressure is doubled when you are risking your friend's money as well.
I have been in plenty of situations where I am about to get a game and people I barely know want part of my action. I always tell them that if they like my side of it so much then they should just stake me. They almost always pull up when I suggest that. They want part of the prize but aren't willing to take the risk?
Then there is the famous hustle - this is going a little off track - where the stranger tells the mark that he will go in half on the bet against the other player. Every time someone tries to steer me with that one I ALWAYS tell them I'll take 30% if they stake it all. Surprise, none of those guys want that "sweet deal" either.
Here is another thing that I DON'T understand and never will in all my years of playing pool for money.
WHY should a player LET other people in on the bet if he has to use his own money as part of the bet? I might answer my own question but the only REASON I can see it is when the opposing player is trying to HIGH ROLL and the player doesn't have enough of his own money to fade the bet by himself.
Other than that I see no reason to allow others to take part of my action unless we are very good friends and even then it's kind of a shitty deal because the pressure is doubled when you are risking your friend's money as well.
I have been in plenty of situations where I am about to get a game and people I barely know want part of my action. I always tell them that if they like my side of it so much then they should just stake me. They almost always pull up when I suggest that. They want part of the prize but aren't willing to take the risk?
Then there is the famous hustle - this is going a little off track - where the stranger tells the mark that he will go in half on the bet against the other player. Every time someone tries to steer me with that one I ALWAYS tell them I'll take 30% if they stake it all. Surprise, none of those guys want that "sweet deal" either.
John Barton said:Regarding the Wiseman payoff?
How could you take money from Ronnie for the set that he and Shane played and NOT split it with Shane?
That's despicable if that's what happened.
I mean, it's really crappy to let Shane do all the work and not give him his share of what is paid out. I am referring to the line where it is said that Shane is still owed from the session but that the other guy is paid in full.
HOW can it be that THE PLAYER doesn't get paid at ALL but the people who weren't playing but were in on the bet get paid? If I were Shane I wouldn't let these guys ANYWHERE near my action ever. I I ever saw them betting on one of my matches I might even dump them on purpose. (just kidding but I find this too be in INCREDIBLY BAD TASTE)
I ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS take care of my horse FIRST when chopping up the cash. If a guy pays off ANYTHING then I either give it all to my horse or we split it as agreed on. And I don't want to hear any BS about Shane having so much of the bet and so and so having so much of it. Whatever the percentages of the bet are is EXACTLY how ANY payment should be split up.
Now, I propose that we coin a NEW TERM for people who air barrel and the pay off in installments. We call them an IPT. As in what are you, the IPT? Or sorry, I don't play IPT style, you gotta post. To a backer whose shorts his players, don't get all IPT on them letting them do all the work while you keep all the money.
--- I HOPE Shane got some of the money ---- I gambled with Ronnie once and beat him, the first five games going to 11.I lost 11:5. I don't think he would have stiffed me for the $300 but he was probably NEVER worried about losing and having to pay off either.
John you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
This is why I did not want to post about this situation.
We split the money 3 ways as agreed. We agreed Shane would take the balance because he would see Ronnie on road more than me or the other guy. We each took $500. I had been up for $100 a game. That equals a $1000 owed, minus Shanes half, leaves me with $500 owed, which I recieved in DCC.
We paid Shane's airfare and entry to this UPA tourny, so I guess we are not too "despicable" too associate with.
ABall said:What time do efren and tang play? What time do matches start? Just got to LA
Matches start at Noon. Tang and Efren at 2 PM, second round. All the undefeated players play tonite.
John Barton said:
You are off base here. These are good guys who do a lot to help Shane and ensure that he gets to tournaments. They are here now and remain close friends with Shane. There is some conversation starting about a big match up between Shane and John Schmidt. Who do you like?
John Barton said:
I like this bit of advice, too however I have a stakehorse who likes to carry the whole financial load but sometimes asks me to go in with him if it is really tough action. I oblige on occasion but generally like you have stated previously, why would you want anyone to go in on any of your action, especially easy action? The bottom line with me is if a stakehorse treats me well, I will sometimes take the worst of it and go in with him on a eally tough game that I have to out run the nuts or simply get lucky. Stakehorses like to see action and sometimes they just enjoy seeing if their horse has some character.
JoeyA
John Barton said:
JB,
Surely the matter of Shane and the backers agreement is none of our business. The player and backers came to an agreement with which everyone was happy. This is a non-issue.
The REAL issue is a prominent player (RONNIE WISEMAN) firing an air barrel. I don't care whether he pays in the future or not. I find his behavior reprehensible. I will never root for him. I will never gamble with him. I will encourage all acquaintances to never gamble with him. Even if he posts, such a person would cheat or steal to triumph. Pool has far too many of this type of character; and far too few like Shane.
What are your thoughts on the air barrel?
Last edited:
teambizy said:
TB,
My theory is that it will happen less often if such events are publicized on the internet for the pool fanatics to view.
Who here will gamble with Tony Ruberto, and leave their money on the light?????
Now this match I would like Shane. I remember one time Shane three fouled John in a match.jay helfert said:
Williebetmore said:
I actually gambled with Ruberto the other day. He was backing a local here that I played 100/gm 1p. We never posted and just paid off after every game. Tony has not been a problem to gamble with down here in South Florida. I have no opinion on what happened in Boston as I wasn't there and too many of the times I hear about something funny in a pool room going down, there is always another side to the story I dont hear.
TannerPruess said:Now this match I would like Shane. I remember one time Shane three fouled John in a match.
I believe that was the match at the US Open 2 years ago, Shane had a big lead and Schmidt went to the restroom never to return. Shane won the match by forfeit. Someone else stopped by and collected Schmidts things.
uwate said:
U-man,
You are a brave soul (but if you leave larger amounts of money on the light in his home room, your judgement will come into question).
Actually, during the incident in question we DID hear from both sides (and there weren't any contradictions, just unpleasantness).
How did you do in the one-pocket games?
Players, especially up and coming ones like Shane should know better than to put themselves in these situations. Ronnie is a notorious degenerate gambler. Anyone who keeps up with pool knows this to be true. So from my perspective, its kind of hard to feel bad for Shane or his backers. Its just part of being involved with seedy gamblers.
jay helfert said:
Jay,
I know this was directed at John (Barton)...but I like John (Schmidt) right now.
shanesinnott said:
I have been asked to take a piece of this game, but I may lay off. Weird thing last night. Santos falls behind Max 7-3 and just packs it in and walks out.
jay helfert said:
Actually is was only 6-3, a friend of mine had money on that match. She found Santos eating later and asked him if he was feeling okay, if something was wrong or some reason for his quitting the match early. I believe his response was something like "I can't make a ball".
My friend was livid, she has fought through cancer and has played every women's pro event she could with the hopes to one day play at that level. She has lost badly in a lot of matches but she keeps trying knowing that the more experience she gets the better. Knowing that someone with Santos' talent can just give up without a life threatening reason just made her sick.