Winner Pays Table Time - Limitations?

[FeelDaShot]

If you win a few bucks gambling, and the table time costs significantly reduce your winnings, is it ever acceptable to split the time? (assuming no agreements were made before or during the match)

A few examples:

Win $50, table time is $30

Win $100, table time is $40

Win $20, table time is $15

 

[RiverCity]

If you win a few bucks gambling, and the table time costs significantly reduce your winnings, is it ever acceptable to split the time? (assuming no agreements were made before or during the match)

A few examples:

Win $50, table time is $30

Win $100, table time is $40

Win $20, table time is $15

In any of those situations, the players should just pay their own time IMO. If the earnings are high enough, the class move is to cover the time.

Theres also nothing wrong with making it part of the bet to begin with, as in 9 for $50 and time.

 

[Maniac]

Theres also nothing wrong with making it part of the bet to begin with, as in 9 for $50 and time.

This^^^^^

If you have to, make the game for a little less cash and have the losing player pay the table time. I've played before where the only bet WAS the table time.

If the match is going to be a marathon and the players know that beforehand, then the agreed upon actual cash bet can be adjusted as needed.

Maniac

 

[mikeyfrost]

If it's your buddy you pay the time no matter what. I don't recommend gambling cheap enough to run into these situations though personally. Time is too expensive nowadays to be playing $20 and $50 sets.

 

[RiverCity]

If it's your buddy you pay the time no matter what. I don't recommend gambling cheap enough to run into these situations though personally. Time is too expensive nowadays to be playing $20 and $50 sets.

20 maybe, but 50?

Whats the going rate back east nowadays?

 

[franko]

Always

If you win a few bucks gambling, and the table time costs significantly reduce your winnings, is it ever acceptable to split the time? (assuming no agreements were made before or during the match)

A few examples:

Win $50, table time is $30

Win $100, table time is $40

Win $20, table time is $15

I never played like that it was always the bet plus time . You lose the bet you pay the time.

 

[MattPoland]

It’s so tricky. My pool hall has a per person billing. If someone rents the table, they have a meter running. If you join them, you’re supposed get added to the table and you have your own personal meter running. In that scenario I think both players should just pay their own time unless the winner is feeling charitable.

In other scenarios, I think whoever rents the table should be responsible for it. Whoever joins them should always offer to chip in something. And whoever wins “big” should offer to cover the full time.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)

 

[mikeyfrost]

20 maybe, but 50?

Whats the going rate back east nowadays?

Cheapest you will find is $8/hr per person. If you play 4 sets with someone for $50 and win 3 sets you get a $100 profit however the time will easily be in the $60 range if you're paying both. Not many owners around cutting deals for regulars anymore. In turn no one has home rooms anymore. It's sad really.

 

[Maniac]

It’s so tricky. My pool hall has a per person billing. If someone rents the table, they have a meter running. If you join them, you’re supposed get added to the table and you have your own personal meter running.

Just my opinion, but I don't like it when pool halls do this. You pay the time for the table to be used, whether it's for 1 person or 6.

Last I checked only 1 person at a time can shoot, so it really shouldn't matter to the proprietor how many play, the table is going to be rented for the same amount of time regardless.

That said, I can see the argument from the pool hall owner being that if one person rented the table and several played on it, he/she would not be gaining any revenue from the extra players not having to rent tables of their own.

Double-edged sword.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

Cheapest you will find is $8/hr per person. If you play 4 sets with someone for $50 and win 3 sets you get a $100 profit however the time will easily be in the $60 range if you're paying both. Not many owners around cutting deals for regulars anymore. In turn no one has home rooms anymore. It's sad really.

At some of our pool halls in the area you can pay a flat rate fee (@ $6.50) and play all morning and afternoon until they make you turn in your rack of balls when it gets around 5 or 6 o'clock. It's a real bargain for us old retired fogies.

That said, I've seen table time as high as $14-an-hour in some halls around here.

Maniac

 

[Icon of Sin]

I mainly split time with my opponents. I came out 200 ahead a couple weeks ago. Time was 40 for the both of us. I picked it up in this instance... but I prefer to just split unless the bet includes table time.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Cheapest you will find is $8/hr per person. If you play 4 sets with someone for $50 and win 3 sets you get a $100 profit however the time will easily be in the $60 range if you're paying both. Not many owners around cutting deals for regulars anymore. In turn no one has home rooms anymore. It's sad really.

This comment doesn't speak for all of the East Coast. Best poolhall in Maryland, time is 6.50, and a few other decent rooms it's even cheaper.

 

[King T]

Your right, but...,

Cheapest you will find is $8/hr per person. If you play 4 sets with someone for $50 and win 3 sets you get a $100 profit however the time will easily be in the $60 range if you're paying both. Not many owners around cutting deals for regulars anymore. In turn no one has home rooms anymore. It's sad really.

Hey Mikey - You make a good point, but the easy way to reduce your hourly rate is to join a league. My league cost me $15 a week BCA or $10 for APA and that gets you free table time all week or a reduced rate on the weekend or when they know your in action.

 

[garczar]

In any of those situations, the players should just pay their own time IMO. If the earnings are high enough, the class move is to cover the time.

Theres also nothing wrong with making it part of the bet to begin with, as in 9 for $50 and time.

Totally agree. Get that straight before you start. Some of the biggest arguments i've ever seen have been over this. Dude wins $300 and time is $225. Crap like that. Can get ugly quick.

 

[Maniac]

I just thought of another minor snag that occurs when two players split time.

Often, a player has been already playing on a table for a good length of time before he/she is asked to match up. If you don't keep track of the time, you can only estimate how much the incoming challenger needs to pay.

Maniac

 

[garczar]

I just thought of another minor snag that occurs when two players split time.

Often, a player has been already playing on a table for a good length of time before he/she is asked to match up. If you don't keep track of the time, you can only estimate how much the incoming challenger needs to pay.

Maniac[/QUOTEPay-up and then match-up to avoid this very thing. That way both start from same spot. Stops a lot of crap.

 

[MattPoland]

Just my opinion, but I don't like it when pool halls do this. You pay the time for the table to be used, whether it's for 1 person or 6.



Last I checked only 1 person at a time can shoot, so it really shouldn't matter to the proprietor how many play, the table is going to be rented for the same amount of time regardless.



That said, I can see the argument from the pool hall owner being that if one person rented the table and several played on it, he/she would not be gaining any revenue from the extra players not having to rent tables of their own.



Double-edged sword.



Maniac

I think it works in this case because the rates are favorable. $5/hr per person capped at $10 in the afternoon and capped per person at $15 if into the evening. Literally you can play open to close for no more than $15.


Respectfully, Matt
(I don’t take myself too seriously. I hope you can return the favor.)

 

[jasonlaus]

Just my opinion, but I don't like it when pool halls do this. You pay the time for the table to be used, whether it's for 1 person or 6.

Last I checked only 1 person at a time can shoot, so it really shouldn't matter to the proprietor how many play, the table is going to be rented for the same amount of time regardless.

That said, I can see the argument from the pool hall owner being that if one person rented the table and several played on it, he/she would not be gaining any revenue from the extra players not having to rent tables of their own.

Double-edged sword.

Maniac

This is the reason I've always played alone, simple math wouldnt let me play for "practice" with anybody else. Why would I want to pay the same price for half the time?

The one pool room forced you to either give up the table or play with somebody else, didnt play there much.
Jason

 

[hang-the-9]

If you win a few bucks gambling, and the table time costs significantly reduce your winnings, is it ever acceptable to split the time? (assuming no agreements were made before or during the match)

A few examples:

Win $50, table time is $30

Win $100, table time is $40

Win $20, table time is $15

I don't think I have ever seen a winner pays for table time arrangement before the match, it's either split or loser pays. I have seen winners offer to pay for the time after the match. Would be odd if there was no agreement to not split the time at the end. I would never assume the winner would pay.

 

[Runner]

Gambling, I split the time... if I'm joining someone at a table, they gotta clear the time
before we start. I've never covered all of the table time.
Especially long sessions like 1P you have to be clear about the time... I've seen some
doozy arguments on that... with 1P the time CAN be the bet!

I'll split the time with a friend if we're just banging around, a little workout.