What do you think about this situation - was I in the wrong here?
- Thread starter BillPorter
- Start date
Was I in the Wrong here?
You were in the wrong here. You certainly insinuated (sp) cutting the ball all along. You changed the bet in the middle of it because you knew you couldn't cut it in and then blamed your cue because of it. You could of taken out a tip tapper (or tip tool) and repaired your tip. Since he considered you a friend he didn't want to cause any problems. You should not only give him his 100 back but you should take the addtional 40 shots trying to cut the ball in and if you don't you should pay him another 100. If you didn't hear somebody say to kick it in you would of shot the last 40 shots trying to cut it in and lost. There is no difference than an outside player telling a player how to shoot a shot during a game when he is gambling or playing in a tournament.
You were in the wrong here. You certainly insinuated (sp) cutting the ball all along. You changed the bet in the middle of it because you knew you couldn't cut it in and then blamed your cue because of it. You could of taken out a tip tapper (or tip tool) and repaired your tip. Since he considered you a friend he didn't want to cause any problems. You should not only give him his 100 back but you should take the addtional 40 shots trying to cut the ball in and if you don't you should pay him another 100. If you didn't hear somebody say to kick it in you would of shot the last 40 shots trying to cut it in and lost. There is no difference than an outside player telling a player how to shoot a shot during a game when he is gambling or playing in a tournament.
Last edited:
Yeah, you're in the wrong.
The spirit of these things should not be "what can I get away with that is technically not violating the bet, and nobody can prove what I originally meant to do, and he never said this and I never claimed that".
The spirit of the thing should be that both players are clear on what's being bet on and it can't be changed mid-bet... even if nobody signed a legal document or spelled out every little detail. Ask yourself honestly if A: you meant 'cutting' it in and B: he thought you meant cutting it in. If the answer to both of those is "yes" then you changed the bet and he's right to feel cheated.
Kicking this in isn't easy but it's about 10 times easier than 'cutting' it by spinning off the head rail. For you to say 'well you never specified kicking' would be like me demanding you pay up on some gaff bet like "I bet I can roll the cue ball under this bridge" and then rolling it under the table.
The spirit of these things should not be "what can I get away with that is technically not violating the bet, and nobody can prove what I originally meant to do, and he never said this and I never claimed that".
The spirit of the thing should be that both players are clear on what's being bet on and it can't be changed mid-bet... even if nobody signed a legal document or spelled out every little detail. Ask yourself honestly if A: you meant 'cutting' it in and B: he thought you meant cutting it in. If the answer to both of those is "yes" then you changed the bet and he's right to feel cheated.
Kicking this in isn't easy but it's about 10 times easier than 'cutting' it by spinning off the head rail. For you to say 'well you never specified kicking' would be like me demanding you pay up on some gaff bet like "I bet I can roll the cue ball under this bridge" and then rolling it under the table.
Was I in the wrong here?
Creedo said: "Ask yourself honestly if A: you meant 'cutting' it in and B: he thought you meant cutting it in. If the answer to both of those is "yes" then you changed the bet and he's right to feel cheated."
Tap, tap, tap.
Creedo said: "Ask yourself honestly if A: you meant 'cutting' it in and B: he thought you meant cutting it in. If the answer to both of those is "yes" then you changed the bet and he's right to feel cheated."
Tap, tap, tap.
on second thought
The bottom line here as I see it, is the shot did not happen the way you or he envisioned it at the beginning. I agree with those who say you were both wrong. He for not letting you change cues, and you for kicking it in. Technically, I still think you win the bet, because he had the opportunity to call the bet off, but didn't. However, if you really consider him a friend, I don't think it's worth $100 to cause hard feelings, and this is another example of how money can come between friendships.
The bottom line here as I see it, is the shot did not happen the way you or he envisioned it at the beginning. I agree with those who say you were both wrong. He for not letting you change cues, and you for kicking it in. Technically, I still think you win the bet, because he had the opportunity to call the bet off, but didn't. However, if you really consider him a friend, I don't think it's worth $100 to cause hard feelings, and this is another example of how money can come between friendships.
monkeywithagun
Registered
What was his "mild statement" when you started kicking at the ball? To me, the fact that he made any statement about it shows that he did not intend for you to ever kick at the ball.
I like you Bill and you're my buddy and all, but this one isn't quite kosher, and in your heart you know it. First of all in your own statement above you say the bet is "cutting the five ball in the corner pocket." You didn't say anything about kicking it in.
When you tried a kick shot, he complained saying that wasn't the bet you made. You "convinced" him that the bet you made wasn't to cut it in, but you have admitted here that it was in fact the bet you made. I think he probably didn't argue because he wasn't that kind of guy. He didn't want to start a ruckus or raise a stink. He basically let you get away with it.
Now you come on here and ask for affirmation that you didn't do anything wrong. My opinion is give the guy back his money next time you see him. Man up my friend.
I say you are not in the wrong, because the bet didn't specify that you couldn't kick the ball in. He also didn't specify that you cannot change your equipment until you asked, so I think you guys are even. As for you offering the money back to him is quite standup, no point of creating bad blood over a bet, though it always happens. I think you did the right thing and all in all, you still won :thumbup:
P.S. I'll take 100 shots at this one ANYTIME, as long as it's on Simoniz cloth. You can bet me up to 1K. I will cut it in!
Last edited:
He explained it here saying (cutting the 5 ball in). We won't know exactly what words were exchanged when the bet was made, and that's just the way it is. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd never bet with anyone again over something so small, but I'd learn my lesson and be specific next time?
Isn't this how you set up for 1 ball 1 pocket? You always kick that shot. That makes me want to think "cutting the 5 ball" was part of the bet cause I've never shot that shot, but I'll take a hundred tries (kicking) all day.
bad on both of your parts
Bill,
First off, you both understood that the bet was the shot you had made before, a cut. Sliding out of that wasn't kosher. However, making the shot with any conventional pool cue was totally reasonable. Even swapping to a trick cue while it would have been a bit of gamesmanship would still have been within normally accepted standards since I doubt seriously anybody specified a cue to begin with. His bit of game playing not letting you change cues almost certainly made you more inclined for a little tit for tat when somebody gave you the idea of kicking.
I think you should have pulled down your money when he wouldn't let you swap cues. As it sits now I would tell him he can have his hundred back, try the bet from scratch again using any cue you choose, or you will donate the hundred in his name to the next event played at the hall. At that point he will probably take his money back since I get the impression that neither of you really like this bet a whole lot.
Hu
Bill,
First off, you both understood that the bet was the shot you had made before, a cut. Sliding out of that wasn't kosher. However, making the shot with any conventional pool cue was totally reasonable. Even swapping to a trick cue while it would have been a bit of gamesmanship would still have been within normally accepted standards since I doubt seriously anybody specified a cue to begin with. His bit of game playing not letting you change cues almost certainly made you more inclined for a little tit for tat when somebody gave you the idea of kicking.
I think you should have pulled down your money when he wouldn't let you swap cues. As it sits now I would tell him he can have his hundred back, try the bet from scratch again using any cue you choose, or you will donate the hundred in his name to the next event played at the hall. At that point he will probably take his money back since I get the impression that neither of you really like this bet a whole lot.
Hu
Couldn't agree more. Spot on summary.
The fact that the bet with this guy only arose in the first place as a direct result of Bill recounting a story to him of a previous succesful bet he had made regarding "cutting it in" previously is crucial to everything which panned out later.
The insistence on use of the same cue throughout is absolutely the point at which this bet should have been called off. Changing the cue as many times as he wanted to would have been reasonable. What if Bill's tip had broken off? Would the other guy have insisted that he had to continue with it unaltered?
The later kicking issue just muddies the water, irreversible damage to the fair and reasonable nature of the bet has already been inflicted by that time.
The above suggested amicable solution is realistic and won't leave a bad taste for either player.
I think he would be comfortable using a different cue after being 60 shots in. From the sound of it to me, person A (OP) was upset because a 2nd cue could not be used even though it wasn't part of the original bet. Person B was upset that after "changing" the rules 60 shots in, he got beat at his own game.
there is something called the spirit of the bet. and you make a bet based on a common understanding of what is to be done. and in this case that understanding even though unsaid, was to cut the ball using the cue he was holding at the time.
otherwise this isnt anything but a gimmick bet that only brings and argument.
otherwise this isnt anything but a gimmick bet that only brings and argument.
Thanks for your perspectives on this situation
I appreciate all of the replies to my original post. The opinions ranged all the way across the spectrum, from just saying I was right to take the money to saying I should not only give it back, but take the remaining 40 tries (before I started kicking at the ball), shooting straight at the ball, as a continuation of the original bet.
To be honest, I wriggled out of the original bet and wriggled into an altered bet. Kicking the ball into the pocket was clearly not in the "spirit" of the original bet. I do believe that the reason he let me kick at the ball was that he thought he was going to win the $100 anyway, that I wasn't going to make the shot, but that isn't really relevant, is it?
The comments that rang most true and useful to me are the following:
So when I see him next, I plan to give him the money back. I don't want to shoot at the damn shot again as I hurt my back when trying it yesterday. (I'm 67 with a bad back and jacking up on that shot so many times messed up something in my back.)
But what if he refuses to take the money? Then Hu's suggestion that I donate it to some event at the pool hall might help make things right. I'll let you know what happens.
I appreciate all of the replies to my original post. The opinions ranged all the way across the spectrum, from just saying I was right to take the money to saying I should not only give it back, but take the remaining 40 tries (before I started kicking at the ball), shooting straight at the ball, as a continuation of the original bet.
To be honest, I wriggled out of the original bet and wriggled into an altered bet. Kicking the ball into the pocket was clearly not in the "spirit" of the original bet. I do believe that the reason he let me kick at the ball was that he thought he was going to win the $100 anyway, that I wasn't going to make the shot, but that isn't really relevant, is it?
The comments that rang most true and useful to me are the following:
So when I see him next, I plan to give him the money back. I don't want to shoot at the damn shot again as I hurt my back when trying it yesterday. (I'm 67 with a bad back and jacking up on that shot so many times messed up something in my back.)
But what if he refuses to take the money? Then Hu's suggestion that I donate it to some event at the pool hall might help make things right. I'll let you know what happens.
It was probably going to be a one rail kick shot (off the bottom rail next to the ball) even if you had massed it in. So, what's the problem? I saw a guy once make this shot three times in a row from the corner pocket and the ob was on the third diamond, one more diamond over. About 10 people standing there bet $100.
Update
The matter has been resolved. I spoke to the guy just a few minutes ago and told him that I knew he wasn't thinking I would kick at the ball and said I was giving him his money back. We talked about several aspects of the situation and agreed to just put it behind us. We shook hands and I believe we remain friends. He did reveal that after the bet he had gotten so angry that he had to leave the pool hall or risk saying or doing something he might regret.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this thread. Reading over all the posts, as I did last night, helped me see the situation more clearly and come to a good decision about what to do. Before I started this thread, I was a bit angry myself and had come up with several "good" reasons why I should just keep the money and be done with it. But as we all know, or should know, a friendship that isn't worth $100 isn't a real friendship.
The matter has been resolved. I spoke to the guy just a few minutes ago and told him that I knew he wasn't thinking I would kick at the ball and said I was giving him his money back. We talked about several aspects of the situation and agreed to just put it behind us. We shook hands and I believe we remain friends. He did reveal that after the bet he had gotten so angry that he had to leave the pool hall or risk saying or doing something he might regret.
Thanks again to all who contributed to this thread. Reading over all the posts, as I did last night, helped me see the situation more clearly and come to a good decision about what to do. Before I started this thread, I was a bit angry myself and had come up with several "good" reasons why I should just keep the money and be done with it. But as we all know, or should know, a friendship that isn't worth $100 isn't a real friendship.
You're a good man Charlie Brown! Doesn't it feel good when you do the right thing? Now you have an even better friendship and something to laugh about for years.