When is it ok to "quit winner"?

[catpool9]

Ok to quit winner/loser

I played a buddy of mine last week, and after 2 sets, he quit winner on me. I wasn't playing that bad, he was leading by only a small margin. He had no excuse as to why he quit, just seemed like he won, and wanted to leave without letting me give him a good match and win my money back.

This has happened before, and I gave a few guys some serious flak about it. When I am in the lead, I always give my opponent the chance to either even up the sets, or win back his money. I believe this is an "unwritten rule", but how many of you follow this?

It is Ok to quit winner whenever you choose unless there is a stipulation about the amount of games, sets or time limit to be played which should /sometimes is agreed upon by the players.

Unless your playing a Real pool player that does have some HONOR about them they may never quit, but you may as well get used to players quiting you winner.

Whenever I play someone and they quit me winner after a short time, there is no complaint, but the person may Never get Action from me again!, unless he's a fish, I'll play them forever!

All I can say is get winner from the start and let them chase the money, or just play one set and be done.

You will learn who to play after trial and error over many times of playing at the tables with whom to gamble with and who not to, who will play all night and who won't, who has money and who don't, you learn this after much playing/gambling at the tables.

It is ok to quit a player winner whenever you like but your action may Dry up if you are doing it to be NITTY!


David Harcrow

 

[LAlouie]

I played a buddy of mine last week, and after 2 sets, he quit winner on me. I wasn't playing that bad, he was leading by only a small margin. He had no excuse as to why he quit, just seemed like he won, and wanted to leave without letting me give him a good match and win my money back.

This has happened before, and I gave a few guys some serious flak about it. When I am in the lead, I always give my opponent the chance to either even up the sets, or win back his money. I believe this is an "unwritten rule", but how many of you follow this?

Stop crying. Why should you get a chance to win your money back.

 

[fast&loose designs]

Some great replies here, for both sides of the argument. I am surprised that the discussion didn't get out of hand, and that people actually presented valid, thought-out, backed-up arguments.

This thread isn't about money. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the bet is, EVER. It is about the percentage of your income you are betting. Is it high stakes pool if a millionaire is playing $3k a rack? Shit no. Is it high stakes if a guy has $50 to his name, no money in the bank, and is playing $50 a rack? You bet your ass.

It isn't about money, it's about how much of yourself you are willing to put up above the lights. Someone argued that these threads are always about $20-100 or something. So what? I've played sets for $20 (usually), but that's not because I'm not "good enough" to play for more, it's because I don't have the kind of income at the moment to play for more. If I had a six-figure salary, you bet your ass I'd be playing for $2k a set, which, by the way, ALSO doesn't make you a better player. It just means the more money you have, the more you are able to afford to lose.

Now, addressing the "quit winner" scenario, I have heard some arguments here that make me want to change my mentality. Almost. If a guy quits winner on me, before 4 sets at least, I don't call him a nit, but I do consider him bad action, and I won't play him again. I do agree that setting the rules and the length of the set prior to a match is smart, and is probably the best solution to the dilemma.

Also, it isn't always as simple as 2 guys who happen to be in the same pool room at the time of the set. The action I had was against a guy who phoned me and asked for the action. Because we're buddies, I obliged, and drove from Los Angeles to Orange County (about 35 miles) to play. After losing 2 sets, in about 45 minutes, he quit. Sure, he gave me a chance to beat him once, but does that justify?

To make things even clearer, for those of you who think you are "making a living" playing pool, I don't gamble to pay bills. I don't do it to pay rent or to buy dinner. I do it because it improves my game, it makes me focus, try harder, and challenge myself. It has zero to do with money and all of it to do with character. If you're playing pool for a living, you are a god and should be winning everything on the pro circuit. Let's not pretend we are that good, people, and let's not assume that everyone gambles for the same reason.

In the end, he will not be getting any more action from me. Neither will anyone else who quits winner. If you are only willing to win, you are a loser in the long run. Losing is part of the learning process, and again, if you think you are through with that learning process, you are a god and should be winning everything on the pro circuit. Therefore, quitting winner means you are not willing to give your heart to the game, only your wallet.

 

[master9baller]

Some great replies here, for both sides of the argument. I am surprised that the discussion didn't get out of hand, and that people actually presented valid, thought-out, backed-up arguments.

This thread isn't about money. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the bet is, EVER. It is about the percentage of your income you are betting. Is it high stakes pool if a millionaire is playing $3k a rack? Shit no. Is it high stakes if a guy has $50 to his name, no money in the bank, and is playing $50 a rack? You bet your ass.

It isn't about money, it's about how much of yourself you are willing to put up above the lights. Someone argued that these threads are always about $20-100 or something. So what? I've played sets for $20 (usually), but that's not because I'm not "good enough" to play for more, it's because I don't have the kind of income at the moment to play for more. If I had a six-figure salary, you bet your ass I'd be playing for $2k a set, which, by the way, ALSO doesn't make you a better player. It just means the more money you have, the more you are able to afford to lose.

Now, addressing the "quit winner" scenario, I have heard some arguments here that make me want to change my mentality. Almost. If a guy quits winner on me, before 4 sets at least, I don't call him a nit, but I do consider him bad action, and I won't play him again. I do agree that setting the rules and the length of the set prior to a match is smart, and is probably the best solution to the dilemma.

Also, it isn't always as simple as 2 guys who happen to be in the same pool room at the time of the set. The action I had was against a guy who phoned me and asked for the action. Because we're buddies, I obliged, and drove from Los Angeles to Orange County (about 35 miles) to play. After losing 2 sets, in about 45 minutes, he quit. Sure, he gave me a chance to beat him once, but does that justify?

To make things even clearer, for those of you who think you are "making a living" playing pool, I don't gamble to pay bills. I don't do it to pay rent or to buy dinner. I do it because it improves my game, it makes me focus, try harder, and challenge myself. It has zero to do with money and all of it to do with character. If you're playing pool for a living, you are a god and should be winning everything on the pro circuit. Let's not pretend we are that good, people, and let's not assume that everyone gambles for the same reason.

In the end, he will not be getting any more action from me. Neither will anyone else who quits winner. If you are only willing to win, you are a loser in the long run. Losing is part of the learning process, and again, if you think you are through with that learning process, you are a god and should be winning everything on the pro circuit. Therefore, quitting winner means you are not willing to give your heart to the game, only your wallet.

Hold the phone! He called you to come out and play and quit up 2 sets? Then you have a nit on your hands there.

I would increase the bets a bit the next time you play and tell him 3 sets minimum. If he won't do that he's just trying to do a hit and run job again and not worth your time. Surely he'll brag to someone else about his winning 2 in a row, consider it advertising and "feeding the fishes".

 

[Sam Waltz]

Woot!

Loved the extra details about him calling and you drivin' 35 miles for this intense 45 minute session...the Orange County A$$ Bandit is now most definately, abso-frickin'-lutely, 110%, verifiably classified as....... SUPERNIT!

 

[HawaiianEye]

I played a buddy of mine last week, and after 2 sets, he quit winner on me. I wasn't playing that bad, he was leading by only a small margin. He had no excuse as to why he quit, just seemed like he won, and wanted to leave without letting me give him a good match and win my money back.

This has happened before, and I gave a few guys some serious flak about it. When I am in the lead, I always give my opponent the chance to either even up the sets, or win back his money. I believe this is an "unwritten rule", but how many of you follow this?

I've played pool for numerous years and in my younger days I thought pool without gambling wasn't fun and I rarely played anyone for fun unless there were no money players around who would play me.

The WHOLE purpose of gambling, in ANY form, is to WIN. I am proud to report that during all the years of gambling playing pool I have probably a 95% winning rate and left with more money than I started with.

I never hustled anybody in my life...I played everybody in the place who wanted to play and still managed to come out winner. I've played "X" amount a game, "X" amount per set, or played for a set time limit. Since my winning percentage was so high and I loved playing, I would play until either the other guy quit or the place closed. I've played for two days straight...day and night...without a break. I've also played where somebody won the first game or two and quit and it never bothered me too much because I knew I would get that money back, plus more if we ever played again. Unless you have some preset rules before you start the session, then anything is fair.

The use of the term "buddy" kind of made me smile...when I played for money, I had no "buddies" unless they were staking me. Anybody opposing me was the "enemy" and I played like it was war...take no prisoners. I tend to know my buddies and their personalities, so I knew beforehand if they would get a case of the ass if they lost or if they couldn't afford losing, so I avoided playing them. The only way I played my buddies for money was if they had a stakehorse...then I didn't care...I would attempt to take every dollar their backer had.


The only persons I've ever heard complaining about someone quitting while winning on them were "losers". I don't mean losers in life, I mean people who probably shouldn't have been betting in the first place.

 

[jason]

It has zero to do with money and all of it to do with character.

I believe you answered your own question.

The problem with todays generation and my generation is the lack of character, class and integrity. Are there good people in every generation? Sure, but not to the degree of the WWII generation and prior in my opinion. I think people are a lot more self-centered and corrupt then previous generations.

Always remember respect must be earned.

 

[Black-Balled]

I would be inclined to agree that the nit factor has raised, as a result of the fact that you were invited to play.

 

[Mt. Cheverest]

Just use common sense

Quitting winner is OK if:

1. You give a time limit. If you say 3 hours or a specific time and you are up, by all means, get out with the cash.

2. The spot changes. Let's say you start even and are winning then adjust the game and it's out of line. You refuse to keep playing with the new game. If he won't go back to even, quit, who cares if you are up.

3. Your opponent cheats/sharks or does something extreme to warrant quitting them.

4. You post up a certain amount. If you post 2 sets and you win, I don't feel you obligated to post another 2 sets.

5. Emergency (duh)

HOWEVER.....

If you walk in, match-up, give no time limit or any indication of having to leave anytime soon, and then quit winner after a couple of sets, you sir, will NEVER get action from me (or many people for that matter) again.

For all of you who say it's ok to quit up anytime with no notice.....I just don't see you getting much action doing that.

 

[Neil]

............

 

[Systim6]

I have a story about me quitting winner.... so I'm playing sets 5 for $50 I get up four sets and its getting late. I tell him ill play you 2 more sets for $100 each if you want so you have a chance to get back to even. He's cool with that so the first one I win then the next set I let up on him and dumped the set so he wouldn't lose any more money. U gotta understand my friend is the type of player that wont stop playing. Anyway I said ok well I gotta go home it was almost 2am. And he gets mad and says "oh so now that I start playing good you want to quit" ohhhhhhh that pissed me off cause I wasn't trying to break my friend but he asked for it. I told ok so u think your all bad now huh, "last set race to 9 for all of it, for $300 race to 9 since your playing so good." Well I let loose and stomped his ass 9-2. Then I told him He can pay me the rest when he gets it and I went home.

So just because someone quits winner don't mean they were scared, maybe they were trying to be nice.

 

[DallasHopps]

#3 especially...

Quitting winner is OK if:

1. You give a time limit. If you say 3 hours or a specific time and you are up, by all means, get out with the cash.

2. The spot changes. Let's say you start even and are winning then adjust the game and it's out of line. You refuse to keep playing with the new game. If he won't go back to even, quit, who cares if you are up.

3. Your opponent cheats/sharks or does something extreme to warrant quitting them.

4. You post up a certain amount. If you post 2 sets and you win, I don't feel you obligated to post another 2 sets.

5. Emergency (duh)

HOWEVER.....

If you walk in, match-up, give no time limit or any indication of having to leave anytime soon, and then quit winner after a couple of sets, you sir, will NEVER get action from me (or many people for that matter) again.

For all of you who say it's ok to quit up anytime with no notice.....I just don't see you getting much action doing that.

I particularly agree with #3... like it seems a lot of others do, I gamble to make myself a better player, and to have a good time. I don't need $20-$40 so bad that I'll listen to a bunch of crying from a grown man because I'm playing "better than I'm supposed to" or some other nonsense. I tried to quit after one set before because of this exact reason, and was told I wasn't getting paid. I reluctantly doubled my winnings on the agreed upon "chance to get his money back". He's an otherwise decent guy, but I learned that day that there are some people that I refuse to gamble with.

 

[BRKNRUN]

5 pages an you all missed the obvious answer...

It is OK to quit a winner when the other guy runs out of money...:wink:

Actually I have heard stories of road players that bust someone letting the guy play a set on air (to be paid at a later date)....or floating him some kickback cash to get him re-started in other action.

The reality is....if you pull up without notice on someone.....you will probably end up on a bad action list.

If you just use common sense you can get through this....give a set or two notice that you will be quitting....or if you do have to pull up...simply say hey...I have to go...but when can set something up for a later date.

It is really not that hard to figure out.

 

[Otterman]

The voice of reason!

I've played pool for numerous years and in my younger days I thought pool without gambling wasn't fun and I rarely played anyone for fun unless there were no money players around who would play me.

The WHOLE purpose of gambling, in ANY form, is to WIN. I am proud to report that during all the years of gambling playing pool I have probably a 95% winning rate and left with more money than I started with.

I never hustled anybody in my life...I played everybody in the place who wanted to play and still managed to come out winner. I've played "X" amount a game, "X" amount per set, or played for a set time limit. Since my winning percentage was so high and I loved playing, I would play until either the other guy quit or the place closed. I've played for two days straight...day and night...without a break. I've also played where somebody won the first game or two and quit and it never bothered me too much because I knew I would get that money back, plus more if we ever played again. Unless you have some preset rules before you start the session, then anything is fair.

The use of the term "buddy" kind of made me smile...when I played for money, I had no "buddies" unless they were staking me. Anybody opposing me was the "enemy" and I played like it was war...take no prisoners. I tend to know my buddies and their personalities, so I knew beforehand if they would get a case of the ass if they lost or if they couldn't afford losing, so I avoided playing them. The only way I played my buddies for money was if they had a stakehorse...then I didn't care...I would attempt to take every dollar their backer had.


The only persons I've ever heard complaining about someone quitting while winning on them were "losers". I don't mean losers in life, I mean people who probably shouldn't have been betting in the first place.

Awesome! Your point of view, frankly, is the only one here I've been able to completely agree with. I understand almost all the views expressed, but disagree with many. I particuarly like the fact that you didn't "hustle" people. I have no problem with playing pool for money, and it can really teach you to play under pressure; I have no problem with gambling, either. I just don't see them as the same thing.

 

[BumpnRun]

When matching up for decent money you need to have that as part of the rules. Best way IMO is to post up 2 or 3 sets. After those sets if both want to play more then re post money for the amount of sets going to be played. Guys that won't do that are the ones that are looking to bail winners or only have one barrel in their pocket. Johnnyt

There have been expanded variations throughout this thread but, here it is, plain and simple, in the second response, page 1. :thumbup:

 

[danquixote]

Is it really an unwritten rule that you don't quit winner?? Simple answer, yes! Unfortunately, that is where most people stop, and then they end up distorting WHY that is the rule.

It is NOT a rule to make anything fair. That is just loser mentality. The reason it is a rule is because the whole idea is to make money. If you quit winner, how much money did you just throw away?? I say that, because of how much more would he have lost that you now won't get?? Quitting winner USUALLY, but not ALWAYS means that you just robbed yourself.

Now, if the game is much closer than you liked, and you feel you just played your best, and suspect that he is just warming up, then you are a loser if you DON'T quit winner!

Guys, the whole purpose of gambling is to make some money! You have to know when to hold them, and when to fold them.

Now, if you are trying to string some guy along, and he gets the first set or two and then quits, well, too darn bad. You took a gamble on what he would do, and you were wrong! Own it and face it. It happens. That's why it's called gambling. Some people you can string along, some are smarter than that and quit when they should. It's all part of the "game".

Damn fine post and excellent rationale. Not one thing you said can be disputed IMHO.......tap tap tap......Dan

 

[risky biz]

Why don't you just enlighten us?? After all, I've only been playing for 37 years, and only spent 3 consecutive years making a living only playing pool. What would I know about gambling??

"What would I know about gambling??" Your inability to grasp how that statement has no place in this thread explains it all. When did you start to perceive a pool table as a slot machine?

 

[risky biz]

This is really not complicated.

You and I play $20/game.
You win two games and then you remember that you have to go to work.
You quit.
You are a nit.

You and I play $20/game.
We go back and forth for several hours.
You say, "I must leave in an hour."
I say, "Okay."
This is perfectly acceptable.

You and I play $20/game.
You win 3 games.
You say, "I must leave in an hour."
I say, "Let's play a race to 3 for $60."
You say, "No. Let's just play $20/game."
This is perfectly acceptable.

You and I play $50/set.
You win 3 sets and I say, "That's it. I'm done."
This is perfectly acceptable.

You and I play $50/set.
You win 3 sets.
I ask for a spot.
You oblige.
You lose 2 sets and say, "Let's play even again."
I say, "No."
You quit.
This is perfectly acceptable. You are winner playing even, I am winner with the spot.

You and I play for $5.
You win.
I say, "Double the bet."
You say, "Okay."
You win again.
I say, "Play for $20."
You say, "No."
I quit.
This is perfectly acceptable.


Do you notice how the loser quits each time? When you start playing, you should assume that you will keep playing forever or until one of you is broke. If you cannot play forever, then give sufficient notice, as in, "I have to leave in 3 hours."

This doesn't mean you have to let the guy get even to get quit. It means you have to keep beating him until he's had enough. I suppose this is the difference in mentality between winners and pussies. When the bet changes, the game starts over. When the spot changes, the game starts over. But you gotta keep playing the same way until the loser quits.

I've quit winner before. Usually, it is because better action just walked in the room. I always forfeit out the last set. I'm buying my way out of the game.

In the end, you probably shouldn't gamble if you're going to be a nit.

Excellent post. The only way you could top it would be to get Neil to understand it. Good luck.

 

[risky biz]

When matching up for decent money you need to have that as part of the rules. Best way IMO is to post up 2 or 3 sets. After those sets if both want to play more then re post money for the amount of sets going to be played. Guys that won't do that are the ones that are looking to bail winners or only have one barrel in their pocket. Johnnyt

There have been expanded variations throughout this thread but, here it is, plain and simple, in the second response, page 1. :thumbup:

That's a reasonable concept when playing someone you don't know at all or someone you rarely play but it's not a relevant concept when playing someone the OP described as a friend who used that acquaintance to be a dipshit and run when the variation went two sets in his favor in as little as possibly two three game sets. The unspoken expectation in that situation is that you will get a decent run for your money. If he didn't give the OP a decent run for his then he isn't a nit or a winner. He's just a dipshit.

 

[richiebalto]

Heres how i stopped all that talk about quitting winners,i like to play 1 set and 1set only,win or lose,i will play a fairly long set of 1pocket a race to 5,6 or7 and i usually bet all i have in my pocket on that 1set that way i put every ounce of energy i have and everything else into that 1 long set,and even know i say before i play that iam only playing 1 set ,some people will still try and get me to play another and i tell them iam not quitting winners ,iam in this pool room everyday and you can come back tomorrow and all the next days and we can play 1 more set each and every day,i just like playing 1 set a day that way i know i will put everything i have in that 1 set and probably win,if i matched up the rite way for me!