What's up with "I will let"

u12armresl

u12armresl

One Pocket back cutter
Silver Member
Does it make people who stake others feel gigantic by saying "I will let this guy or that guy play you" like they have some ownership over the person.

Is it because they can't play and want to be able to hold up a hand and say I will be the power who says if you can play or not, and I have not raised my hand to say you can play.

They sit around the pool hall and will call someone, or will let someone play, wonder if the player knows they are on a leash.
 
The guys I know who often don't have money try to make all types of games and then look for someone to back them. Putting the leash on a player would give you a sense of ownership and probably make a player uncomfortable. Uncomfortable enough to lose easy games in most cases.

I have backed people from time to time and my favorite guys to back are the ones who are real honest about the games they are in and don't say they are stealing just to get staked. They are the ones who will bet the last of their own cash and you stake the remainder pretty much. Also gotta love the guys who lose, but they give you money when they make little scores to cover some of their own losses. Those guys have a lot of character. Really love the guys who are happy to play for 30% or 40% when they are getting staked.
 
just the way it is

u12armresl said:
Does it make people who stake others feel gigantic by saying "I will let this guy or that guy play you" like they have some ownership over the person.

Is it because they can't play and want to be able to hold up a hand and say I will be the power who says if you can play or not, and I have not raised my hand to say you can play.

They sit around the pool hall and will call someone, or will let someone play, wonder if the player knows they are on a leash.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't sound very good, especially to the player. However the golden rule remains the same, he who has the gold makes the rules! If you want to play for the backer's cash then the guy with the cash does call the shots. He "lets" the player play on his money when he likes the game and doesn't back him when he doesn't.

Hu
 
This is funny, this happen to me in Vegas at the poker table. I won a hand,
guy near me asked if I played pool, I said yes, then he proceed to say, Do you want to play some 500-1000$ sets. I told him, I will let you know, than he said, "Oh I don't play, but I will line you up a game if you want". I told him, than I will definately play you some. Than he starts with the I quit years ago but I played jam up.......... We have all heard the story. LOL.
 
ShootingArts said:
Yeah, that doesn't sound very good, especially to the player. However the golden rule remains the same, he who has the gold makes the rules! If you want to play for the backer's cash then the guy with the cash does call the shots. He "lets" the player play on his money when he likes the game and doesn't back him when he doesn't.

Hu
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's hard to be too picky when you're getting a free roll in a game you couldn't otherwise afford.

Aaron
 
u12armresl said:
Does it make people who stake others feel gigantic by saying "I will let this guy or that guy play you" like they have some ownership over the person.

Is it because they can't play and want to be able to hold up a hand and say I will be the power who says if you can play or not, and I have not raised my hand to say you can play.

They sit around the pool hall and will call someone, or will let someone play, wonder if the player knows they are on a leash.
Click to expand...

It's just a way of speaking that doesn't mean that someone is saying that they own another person. It means I will back so and so against you.

If you wanted the real literal meaning then it's "I will let so and so play on MY MONEY against you." Which is in fact what you are doing when you back someone to play.

It's pool speak. I personally am much more offended by referring to groups of players as one's "stable" as if they were horses. Why not the team?
 
That also bothers me. It's a way of someone taking another person's skill and accomplishment and somehow trying to make it their own, or use it to back forum arguments that have NOTHING to do that player. The logic chain goes something like:

"I have a certain belief"
"Some top level player somewhere has a similar belief"
"I will let that top player demolish you and this proves my belief is right"

Where it breaks down is:

- For every high level player who uses or supports "A" you can find another high level player who doesn't, or prefers "B".

- Sometimes the 'similar belief' is a real stretch. For example - I like CTE. CTE is a system. David matlock likes systems. Therefore, if david matlock beats some random AZB poster, that poster is wrong to bash CTE and CTE is legit.

- One guy beating another doesn't prove much except that the guy plays better. Like if lou figueroa beats jb in a pool match, would JB automatically abandon CTE and praise lou for being right? Of course not. Deep down he will still feel his aiming system is sound and lou just plain outplayed him.

Getting beat isn't going to convince the loser of the match about anything, so why should it convince anyone else on the planet?

- a lot of the guys saying "I will let so and so play you" are not in touch with the people they're talking about, and know those people have no interest or awareness of our forum squabbling. Basically they know the match will never happen. So it's perfectly safe for them to say "I will mortgage the house on such-and-such playing against you."
 
??????

CreeDo said:
That also bothers me. It's a way of someone taking another person's skill and accomplishment and somehow trying to make it their own, or use it to back forum arguments that have NOTHING to do that player. The logic chain goes something like:

"I have a certain belief"
"Some top level player somewhere has a similar belief"
"I will let that top player demolish you and this proves my belief is right"

Where it breaks down is:

- For every high level player who uses or supports "A" you can find another high level player who doesn't, or prefers "B".

- Sometimes the 'similar belief' is a real stretch. For example - I like CTE. CTE is a system. David matlock likes systems. Therefore, if david matlock beats some random AZB poster, that poster is wrong to bash CTE and CTE is legit.

- One guy beating another doesn't prove much except that the guy plays better. Like if lou figueroa beats jb in a pool match, would JB automatically abandon CTE and praise lou for being right? Of course not. Deep down he will still feel his aiming system is sound and lou just plain outplayed him.

Getting beat isn't going to convince the loser of the match about anything, so why should it convince anyone else on the planet?

- a lot of the guys saying "I will let so and so play you" are not in touch with the people they're talking about, and know those people have no interest or awareness of our forum squabbling. Basically they know the match will never happen. So it's perfectly safe for them to say "I will mortgage the house on such-and-such playing against you."
Click to expand...

?????????????
 
CreeDo said:
That also bothers me. It's a way of someone taking another person's skill and accomplishment and somehow trying to make it their own, or use it to back forum arguments that have NOTHING to do that player. The logic chain goes something like:

"I have a certain belief"
"Some top level player somewhere has a similar belief"
"I will let that top player demolish you and this proves my belief is right"

Where it breaks down is:

- For every high level player who uses or supports "A" you can find another high level player who doesn't, or prefers "B".

- Sometimes the 'similar belief' is a real stretch. For example - I like CTE. CTE is a system. David matlock likes systems. Therefore, if david matlock beats some random AZB poster, that poster is wrong to bash CTE and CTE is legit.

- One guy beating another doesn't prove much except that the guy plays better. Like if lou figueroa beats jb in a pool match, would JB automatically abandon CTE and praise lou for being right? Of course not. Deep down he will still feel his aiming system is sound and lou just plain outplayed him.

Getting beat isn't going to convince the loser of the match about anything, so why should it convince anyone else on the planet?

- a lot of the guys saying "I will let so and so play you" are not in touch with the people they're talking about, and know those people have no interest or awareness of our forum squabbling. Basically they know the match will never happen. So it's perfectly safe for them to say "I will mortgage the house on such-and-such playing against you."
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?

The guy asked about people in the pool room who say this.

As for me you can bet your ass that I can be "in touch" with anyone I say I will "let" play within an hour at best.

This must really be bothering you to bring CTE into this thread.
 
I only speak for players that I have permission to speak for. Makes it much simplier.
 
watchez said:
I only speak for players that I have permission to speak for. Makes it much simplier.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's the way it should be done, if done at all. Personally my latest of revelations tells me if the match can't get much rail action then it probably ain't worth staking. If it can get the rail action, you can sidebet dead nuts even and jelly off afterwards, so it still aint worth staking. Soooo, why would anyone want to stake a match anymore...
 
JB Cases said:
WTF are you talking about?

The guy asked about people in the pool room who say this.

As for me you can bet your ass that I can be "in touch" with anyone I say I will "let" play within an hour at best.

This must really be bothering you to bring CTE into this thread.
Click to expand...

My bad. I was just reading the thread where you used the "I will let you play" phrase. Thought this thread was a reference to that. Went on autopilot I guess... scored zero on my reading comp. today. Feel free to insert barb about how I must do that all the time.
 
Wonder if the time will come when one of the rail-birds pipes up and says " I will let so and so play you for xyz" trying to be all tough and draw attention to themselves and the player says you don't speak for me be quiet, I can make my own games.

Rail-bird slowly puts head down and crawls out of pool hall totally embarrassed.
 
How 'bout looking at it from a different side...as in meaning ' I won't do/ say anything to prevent him from playing you'?
 
I think you're reading too much into the words! I used to stake Gary Spaeth. I didn't use that particular terminology, but I understand it to mean "I will let him play on my money" which I don't look at as being disrespectful to the player. If anything, just the opposite, it shows confidence in the player IMHO. Find another nit to pick, this one is insignificant!
 
u12armresl said:
Does it make people who stake others feel gigantic by saying "I will let this guy or that guy play you" like they have some ownership over the person.

Is it because they can't play and want to be able to hold up a hand and say I will be the power who says if you can play or not, and I have not raised my hand to say you can play.

They sit around the pool hall and will call someone, or will let someone play, wonder if the player knows they are on a leash.
Click to expand...

it means he's a pimp and if you want he'll let his bottom bi*ch in the box with you. if she/he's feeling up to it.


put your skirt on and go make me some cash! i've always been a fan of people betting their own cash
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top