What's up with EXHIBITIONS?

[iba7467]

I will start by saying that I am glad to see people putting money into pool.

Then, I must say that I have a problem with these exhibitions. It's just my opinion so don't get all riled up at me, but feel free to voice you opinion either in agreement or against.

I know there is a poster on here who has a great quote (I'm paraphrasing): pressure isn't having a putt that is $100,000 if you make it and $50,000 if you miss - it's putting for $20 when you only have $10. Now I'm not recommending that these guys bet their livelihoods on anything but playing for free money with no cost for losing (actually still getting a free vacation out of it) is not an exciting match to me.

Now, I believe Efren/Frost and Earl/Johnny do really want to win, but it is not the same. If it is someone elses money why not make a saver, why not just split the money. Anyone can feel they still earned there appearance fee and really tried hard even if they arrange a split. That doesn't make them bad people (and I'm not saying either of these matches will have this). In fact, I'm saying I would think most people would do the same and guarantee themselves at least something, but this is not the same as playing for the rent money.

Just my $0.02 and don't berate me for defaming the players because I am not. I am not accusing anyone of doing business, in fact I do not believe any of them are. I just think these are exhibitions and don't feel the players will be giving it their all as if it were a tournament or action match.

 

[Jaden]

lol...

I will start by saying that I am glad to see people putting money into pool.

Then, I must say that I have a problem with these exhibitions. It's just my opinion so don't get all riled up at me, but feel free to voice you opinion either in agreement or against.

I know there is a poster on here who has a great quote (I'm paraphrasing): pressure isn't having a putt that is $100,000 if you make it and $50,000 if you miss - it's putting for $20 when you only have $10. Now I'm not recommending that these guys bet their livelihoods on anything but playing for free money with no cost for losing (actually still getting a free vacation out of it) is not an exciting match to me.

Now, I believe Efren/Frost and Earl/Johnny do really want to win, but it is not the same. If it is someone elses money why not make a saver, why not just split the money. Anyone can feel they still earned there appearance fee and really tried hard even if they arrange a split. That doesn't make them bad people (and I'm not saying either of these matches will have this). In fact, I'm saying if I would think most people would do the same and guarantee themselves at least something, but this is not the same as playing for the rent money.

Just my $0.02 and don't berate me for defaming the players because I am not. I am not accusing anyone of doing business, in fact I do not believe any of them are. I just think these are exhibitions and don't feel the players will be giving it their all as if it were a tournament or action match.

How many big money games do you REALLY think are being put up by the people playing??

I would wager that the vast majority of big action is played with stake horses. How is that really different? Does it really matter who's putting up the money when the players are either going to play to win or not?

I think it's going to be the same regardless. They've got a chance to win the money, they're going to play unless they're waylaying and betting against themselves. I"m not accusing anyone here, just stating the only reason we wouldn't see someone's best game. The only other reason would be if the opponents were best friends or something and they agree to split the money regardless. Although in my experience, best friends tend to try harder against each other when they both play pool.

Jaden

 

[JAM]

I understand your reasoning. Savers are made all the time, but it does not mean the game is being thrown (dumped) or that they are not playing their best pool.

In the case of Earl Strickland, I can say with confidence that he's a show hound and does not want to perform badly, especially if it is being filmed. Whether it's his own dough or somebody else's, he's giving his all.

Johnny Archer has too much pride to even think about not playing his best.

Shane is a conservative player who always gives it his all. There is no smack talk with him. He lets his stick do the talking.

Efren doesn't have a thing to prove. I actually think he plays for fun today and doesn't really need the cheese as much as he did 30 years ago. He is a pool icon to every pool fan around the world.

As far as savers, well, they happen. Some people don't care for the saver philosophy, but in my personal observation and experience, savers are usually done between friends when they have to face each other in a tournament. The amount that I have seen for a saver involving my partner has been usually 10 percent.

I do know of one player, though, where the saver philosophy backfired. He was competing at the Joss Tourning Stone event a few years ago. He made a saver with four players in the tournament. He also was staked in the tournament. He ended up scoring large, but by the time stakehorse took his cut and he did the chop-chop, and then he paid all the players their percentage savers, he was broke. Poor fellow actually tried to borrow money from one of the people he made a saver with after he had already paid him the saver, but the player said no way. He went home with empty pockets even though he scored large in the tournament.

When pool players reach a certain level, they develop a big ego. Some have bigger egos than others. The money is nice, but their self-respect is more meaningful to them in the end when it comes to exhibitions. JMHO, FWIW! :smile:

 

[iba7467]

How many big money games do you REALLY think are being put up by the people playing??

I would wager that the vast majority of big action is played with stake horses. How is that really different? Does it really matter who's putting up the money when the players are either going to play to win or not?

Jaden

Yes it matters. That is a fact. If a player and stakehorse are together the player will not make money unless they win. In fact, if they are travelling most often the player must win just to cover expenses and then gets money after those expenses are covered. There is a big difference.

Being staked is playing "for" someone who makes money if you win and loses money if you lose (at least as long as the player has integrity and isn't dumping).

Being part of an exhibition is "playing for" someone who has no benefit if you win or lose. You are not having to cover expenses. You are not thinking this may cause your stakehorse to lose money and not bet on you in the future.

I'm just saying, I think it is totally different. I do appreciate hearing other opinions and hope a lot of people chime in.

 

[iba7467]

When pool players reach a certain level, they develop a big ego. Some have bigger egos than others. The money is nice, but their self-respect is more meaningful to them in the end when it comes to exhibitions. JMHO, FWIW! :smile:

Nice post JAM. I believe most of your observations are right about these players. I would bet (and love to hear also) that Keith would probably snicker at someone thinking it was even close to the same pressure and intensity. I could be totally wrong, but I believe he'd say that was the best thing about playing back then, was really digging in and having to play like there was no tomorrow (I'm sure he'd also say it was nice to have some easy games at times too).

Not dragging Keith into it, but that is one of the things everyone here respects about him was his willingness to make tough match-ups and run out from everywhere. You aren't obligated to do anything, but I would love to hear his opinion.

 

[JAM]

Nice post JAM. I believe most of your observations are right about these players. I would bet (and love to hear also) that Keith would probably snicker at someone thinking it was even close to the same pressure and intensity. I could be totally wrong, but I believe he'd say that was the best thing about playing back then, was really digging in and having to play like there was no tomorrow (I'm sure he'd also say it was nice to have some easy games at times too).

Not dragging Keith into it, but that is one of the things everyone here respects about him was his willingness to make tough match-ups and run out from everywhere. You aren't obligated to do anything, but I would love to hear his opinion.

I will ask him to post later.

It seems like most of the pool action these days is on the West Coast or Vegas.

I do know this. He plays harder on other people's money, it seems to me, than his own. We were in New England one time at a Joss tournament. Santos was there with a few other Filipino pool stars. Santos wanted to play for two dimes a set. Well, to be honest about it, we did not have two dimes on us to gamble. We were on the road for a weekend tournament, not action, but when Keith is around, the possibility for action is always present.

After I told Keith we did not have two dimes to wager, Keith went to Plan B, which is committee money. Ryan McCreesh and Doughnut Man from Baltimore were the only two who wanted in with Keith. Everybody else's dough was on Santos.

The match commenced, and it was over in 20 minutes, with Keith collecting the cheese. Santos wanted to play another set. Pool people can sure be fickle. This time, there was a line of stakeholders wanting to be part of Keith's committee. He had to actually cut some people off.

Keith won, ended up playing Al Lapena, won again, and we came home with a nice boodle. I've got a picture of Ryan and Keith holding the money somewhere.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that in Keith's case, he does play hard when he's being staked or playing on other people's money. Keith McCready is all about connecting with the crowd. The more connected he is, the better he plays.

Of course, nobody likes to lose. Show me somebody who likes to lose, and I'll show you a loser.

 

[cleary]

It is to my understanding that Frost/Efren is not an exhibition. Am I wrong?

 

[Big Perm]

Actually, I think with the right players, an exhibition could be much more fun to watch......I would think the players could be more fearless, more likely to take a shot at a flier, and more likely to put together some nice packages.....instead of going for a safety in a tough spot, I'd rather see them swing away and show some creativity....

 

[MOJOE]

Actually, I think with the right players, an exhibition could be much more fun to watch......I would think the players could be more fearless, more likely to take a shot at a flier, and more likely to put together some nice packages.....instead of going for a safety in a tough spot, I'd rather see them swing away and show some creativity....

I like how you think.. I'd never thought of it that way but I've gotta agree.. It's enjoyable to see some offensive pool too!!

 

[Rick S.]

The actual truth is they can't afford to gamble with personal income....(remember these are pool players you are talking about.)

You guys seem to think that they are wealthy....(LOL!!!)


If it weren't for these exhibitions, you never would see the match ups you are seeing now. Be happy!

 

["CaliRed".]

I would put exhibitions in the bottom tier of my enjoyment of viewing pool.

Top tier - (in order of preference)

Gambling matches where both players are playing on their own money (obviously the higher the bet, the more exciting and suspenseful):smile:

Any other gambling match above 100 a game or 500 a set

The finals or semis of a big tourney. The semi's is exciting to see who gets in the finals and the finals.... well, for being the finals

Bottom tier -

the rest of the tournament matches

Exhibitions

Gambling matches for 20 a game or 50 a set

If you can tell, I like matches that have pressure to them and that involve the exchange of money. To me, that is the most intense pressure for most people and what tickles my pickle:smile:. yes, you will every now and then have someone playing that has a lot of money, and there is no pressure for them if they lose, but usually their opponent is giving up tremendous weight and the money does matter to them, so that makes it enjoyable.

Bottom line, I like to watch games that "mean something". The more it "means", the more I enjoy it. That's why I mostly watch the ending of tournaments... each game "means something" .. much more then it meant earlier in the tournament.

If players are playing with their own money and they only have 2 barrels to shoot, every game "means alot".

Exhibitions.... it doesn't "mean" much. Pride, bragging rights, wanting to do good in front of the audience... maybe a few more bucks then the other guy.

In the end though.... I am a beggar, and beggars can't be choosy . I will not complain if I get to see 2 champions square off in any capacity, as I am still able to watch in awe of what they can do on a pool table that is still hard for me to comprehend after watching and playing this game for 30 years.:smile:

 

[TheBook]

Evil Knievel said that he could beat anyone at anything if the bet was high enough. He said that he laughs when he hears the announcer talk about the pressure on the next shot in a tournament. His reasoning was that the player isn't losing anything because it is not their money. He claimed that he would play anyone golf, pool, bowling etc to any amount of money as long as it was their money. Claiming that is where the pressure is not being the difference between the payoff of 1st and 2nd place.

 

[JamisonNeu]

Exhibition matches are so the "pro players" get to relax, and have more fun. This is one way to attempting to bring the crowd one step closer to their favorite players. I have down thousands of trick shot exhibitions and I know that they are fun and they pay for sure.

I just got an idea from reading this thread though, I have never done this before...I would be willing to play for my exhibition pay against a pool hall owner, where I did my show at. That would be a good addition to the show I'll bet it would get the local crowd going.

Anyone interested in this arrangement let me know. I'll put up my exhibition fees against the host of the event. Then it would only cost the pool hall, gas money to get there, and a meal. You pick a game, I pick a game, and the crowd picks a game. If you win 2 of 3, then all I get is gas money, and a meal.

If I win I get 400, and gas money...You still buy me a meal, and gas money..lol

Has this ever been offered up before???

 

[Black-Balled]

Evil Knievel said that he could beat anyone at anything if the bet was high enough. ... He claimed that he would play anyone golf, pool, bowling etc to any amount of money as long as it was their money. Claiming that is where the pressure is not being the difference between the payoff of 1st and 2nd place.

What a dumbass. His wallet is lucky he dead.

I say you he dead.

 

[spktur]

First off I want to go on record that I like Evel Knievel.

But did you ever notice it always someone who doesn't play tournaments who says 'there's no pressure in tournament play'? After watching the pros play both at gambling and at tournament play for about 30 years I have noticed the players tend to player looser and take more chances and generally make greater shots when gambling. My belief is that in the gambling format there is always the chance to make a comeback in this long set or in a subsequent set, but in tournament play if you lose you're out, have a bad set or get a few bad rolls and you're out. And for this reason, I prefer to watch the gambling matches where they play loose and take a chance and go for shots.

 

[bfdlad]

I will start by saying that I am glad to see people putting money into pool.

Then, I must say that I have a problem with these exhibitions. It's just my opinion so don't get all riled up at me, but feel free to voice you opinion either in agreement or against.

I know there is a poster on here who has a great quote (I'm paraphrasing): pressure isn't having a putt that is $100,000 if you make it and $50,000 if you miss - it's putting for $20 when you only have $10. Now I'm not recommending that these guys bet their livelihoods on anything but playing for free money with no cost for losing (actually still getting a free vacation out of it) is not an exciting match to me.

Now, I believe Efren/Frost and Earl/Johnny do really want to win, but it is not the same. If it is someone elses money why not make a saver, why not just split the money. Anyone can feel they still earned there appearance fee and really tried hard even if they arrange a split. That doesn't make them bad people (and I'm not saying either of these matches will have this). In fact, I'm saying I would think most people would do the same and guarantee themselves at least something, but this is not the same as playing for the rent money.

Just my $0.02 and don't berate me for defaming the players because I am not. I am not accusing anyone of doing business, in fact I do not believe any of them are. I just think these are exhibitions and don't feel the players will be giving it their all as if it were a tournament or action match.

Just a question for you as your post got me to thinking and trying to see it from your point of view. Do you think that NBA and NFL games are exhibitions also? I mean, the players get paid millions for a season win or lose. For the $$ those guys get paid in one year most of us could retire. So why do they try to win?? Let me know. Hope all is well with you by the way and happy new year.

 

[bfdlad]

Exhibition matches are so the "pro players" get to relax, and have more fun. This is one way to attempting to bring the crowd one step closer to their favorite players. I have down thousands of trick shot exhibitions and I know that they are fun and they pay for sure.

I just got an idea from reading this thread though, I have never done this before...I would be willing to play for my exhibition pay against a pool hall owner, where I did my show at. That would be a good addition to the show I'll bet it would get the local crowd going.

Anyone interested in this arrangement let me know. I'll put up my exhibition fees against the host of the event. Then it would only cost the pool hall, gas money to get there, and a meal. You pick a game, I pick a game, and the crowd picks a game. If you win 2 of 3, then all I get is gas money, and a meal.

If I win I get 400, and gas money...You still buy me a meal, and gas money..lol

Has this ever been offered up before???

Jamison, I have never heard a offer like that. It may be a good thing, depends though as Archer owns a pool room, as does Schmidt and Jimmy at Kolby's and I am sure many more. I am not doubting your ability but this could turn into a real loser for you in certain situations. Just saying and happy New year to you too Jamison.

 

[alstl]

Professional sports operate on the assumption that the players will get paid to perform. If the losing players never got paid most would quit and find another way to make a living.

 

[cleary]

But this isn't the NFL or NBA. Totally different. Pool is more like tennis, golf, poker. You can make money from sponsors, winnings or end up working at home depot.

 

[iba7467]

Just a question for you as your post got me to thinking and trying to see it from your point of view. Do you think that NBA and NFL games are exhibitions also? I mean, the players get paid millions for a season win or lose. For the $$ those guys get paid in one year most of us could retire. So why do they try to win?? Let me know. Hope all is well with you by the way and happy new year.

Thank you for your polite response and again I will say that I don't want anyone to feel I am speaking directly about the players involved in these matches. That said, I believe the $$ you mention is exactly why this isn't a valid comparison. In the NBA/NFL bench players must perform in order to maintain a spot. A stars performance (usually) directly relates to earnings and endorsements.

Pool is so much different because there is not a pay-to-play system which rewards players for being better. Look at the less than stellar performance of Gabe/Scott in their previous exhibition match. Whether it was intentional or not, I guarantee this cost both of them some possible earnings.

NBA/NFL is a job. It is like going to work for four months out of the year. They have the same incentive as you or I. They know they must perform to continue their employment. Pool players so seldom get opportunities like this that I feel it is not the same. Now if someone sponsored these and the winner got to continue playing the challengers - like boxing - this could be a huge incentive, but it is not likely that any of these will equate to consistent earnings (I hope I am wrong).

Sorry so wordy, but you asked for my opinion. This is also why I posted the thread - to hear comments and differing opinions.