Whenever this issue comes up, there is an implicit flaw in reasoning that permeates the whole discussion.
Suppose tip A costs $30 and tip B costs $3. Does that mean tip A needs to be MUCH better than tip B to justify the bigger cost?
Does tip A need to be 10 times better?
What if tip B was free? Does that mean everybody should switch to tip B? How about if somebody offered to pay you $3 to install tip B on your cue? Would you jump at it?
My point is that it really doesn't matter what tip B costs. $30/year or so is about what most of us pay for the perreroni that goes on top of our pizza. It really is trivial. Whether you put on tip A rather than tip B should depend on whether you think tip A is better, even just marginally better, than tip B.
Your pool tip is in the same category as your toothbrush and your pillow, imo. Just buy the best one and ignore the cost.
:thumbup: people only replace their tips one or two times a year. if it makes you more consistent both with how it plays and how it affects you mentally, then go for it. I think that matters the most.
however I am as frugal as one can get so I will go for 50c tip if it plays comparably to a $20+ Moori. If I play for 5 years, replacing twice a year, that's $200 vs $10. but that is 5 years. *wants to try a milkdud*
Last edited: