Would you rather?

[jsp]

I guess some people are taking my wording a bit too literal, my fault. This wasn't meant to be a philosophical debate. How about this:

Get a ball from a guy who plays a ball better than you?

OR

Give a ball to a guy who plays a ball worse than you?

I actually think the wording of your original post was just fine.

This second version is different, because you never mention anything about the evenness of the match. If money is at stake and the match is tilted to one side, of course I'd pick the option that would fill my pockets in the long run, regardless of me giving or getting weight.

So the matches being even is an important requirement. To reiterate my previous post, if the matches are set up to be perfectly even, then I'd rather reap all the psychological benefits knowing that I'm the superior player.

But having thought of it some more and reading other posts, there is a benefit to being the inferior player provided that you could learn from playing a superior opponent and improve your overall play in the future. But the amount you could learn would be based on the differences in skill level. The bigger the skill gap, the greater potential for improvement by the inferior player. If your opponent is the same as you but simply a much better potter, then there wouldn't be much learning you can get out of the match.

So to sum things up, given that money is at stake (it's a gambling match and not a friendly match up)...

1) If the matches are set up to be perfectly even and the difference in skill is small such that the inferior player won't improve substantially by playing the marginally better player, I would rather be the superior player and get all the psychological benefits knowing I'm the better player.

2) If the matches are set up to be perfectly even and the difference in skill is large such that the inferior player could improve his play by playing the superior player, then I would rather be the inferior player and improve my play in the future.

3) If the matches are NOT set up to be perfectly even such that one has a slight edge, then I would rather be the player with the edge and come out richer in the end.

I think I got most of the bases covered.

 

[jasonlaus]

Yup. I find I will play better if I'm giving the weight. Knowing I am the better player gives me a little more confidence. Kinda surprised so many responses lean the other way.

Im with ya
Jason

 

[jasonlaus]

I'm actually amazed at all the people who think they learn by getting pounded on by a better player - it's simply not true.

Jason<------not really amazed by anything on here anymore

 

[cubswin]

Cheap the better player
For more cash the lesser player

 

[Get_A_Grip]

For money = B. While I prefer to practice with a better player, when I'm playing for money, I would rather be the more skilled and seasoned of the two of us....for obvious reasons.

 

[HaroldWilson]

All things being equal, would you rather:

A) Play a better player getting the appropriate weight to make it even.

B) Play a lesser player giving the appropriate weight to make it even.

I would rather play a better player off of evens and for money. A and B just seem pointless if you are considering improving your game in any way.

 

[HaroldWilson]

All things being equal, would you rather:

A) Play a better player getting the appropriate weight to make it even.

B) Play a lesser player giving the appropriate weight to make it even.

I have played some of the best players and never take handicaps except if it is in a tournament and it is out of my hands. I remember taking a 35 start from Judd trump in a snooker tournament after he knocked in a 135 in the previous match. I played very well and missed a long green which would have given me a 3 - 0 win. He then won the next 3 and i just lost the match on the hill.

Afterwards I remember feeling so what if I had won the match 3-0 or 3-2 etc, he was giving me a big head start and I wouldn't have won on merit because i wasn't good enough, so what would it have meant? The game was distorted because I took a start without potting a ball, so it wasn't a real game in my mind and i shouldn't have been in the same room as him.

In recent years I lost 7-6 after leading 6-5 in a 9ball tournament with Denis Grabe off of levels when he was winning everything in Europe. Now that meant something and gave me a reason to try and continually improve my game rather than sit back and look for hand outs from players who work harder than I do like a lot of players do who ask for starts.....

However, in saying that, I won't play lesser players unless I give them starts and generally unless there is an incentive, be it for money or if the player genuinely wants to become a good player. Playing lower players without a start brings my game down and I tend to stopping trying and lose interest quickly because you don't get punished for your mistakes. I also feel this is how the top players may feel if they play me in a handicap event so i no longer enter them and will instead challenge them to even money games.

 

[easy-e]

I would rather play a better player off of evens and for money. A and B just seem pointless if you are considering improving your game in any way.

I have no interest in improving my game through this scenario. Simply want to know if you prefer giving weight over getting it.

 

[HaroldWilson]

I have no interest in improving my game through this scenario. Simply want to know if you prefer giving weight over getting it.

Sorry I have missed the point, that doesn't make any sense to me.

Can you explain what would motivate you to:

A) Play a better player getting the appropriate weight to make it even.

B) Play a lesser player giving the appropriate weight to make it even.why

If improving your game isn't a factor? Is it to do with leagues or scores or something? I come from Australia and honestly don't know where you are coming from.

 

[fastone371]

I think I would rather be the weaker player, I have a bad tendency to play to the level of the player I am facing. Thats good if I am playing a stronger player but really bad if I am playing a weaker player.

 

[pt109]

Sorry I have missed the point, that doesn't make any sense to me.

Can you explain what would motivate you to:

A) Play a better player getting the appropriate weight to make it even.

B) Play a lesser player giving the appropriate weight to make it even.why

If improving your game isn't a factor? Is it to do with leagues or scores or something? I come from Australia and honestly don't know where you are coming from.

I think it's more of an 'action' question, Harold.
If players were playing for a lot of money...bet on the guy giving the weight...
...you'll come out ahead.

The more weight a player is giving up....the more I want to bet on him.

 

[easy-e]

Sorry I have missed the point, that doesn't make any sense to me.

Can you explain what would motivate you to:

A) Play a better player getting the appropriate weight to make it even.

B) Play a lesser player giving the appropriate weight to make it even.why

If improving your game isn't a factor? Is it to do with leagues or scores or something? I come from Australia and honestly don't know where you are coming from.

If you're going to gamble with someone, say $100 sets, would you rather be giving up some weight to a lesser player, or getting some weight from a better player?

 

[Tramp Steamer]

I'll pick (A). It would make me work harder.
No, wait. I'll take (B). It would make me work harder.
Hold on. Gimme (A).
No, dammit! Give me (B).
Oh crap, Give me...............

 

[KRJ]

I'd give the weight. Going to be a lot easier for me to determine what his weaknesses are during the match. Is he weak at banking, kicking, safeties, whatever. Then, ensure I leave him those shots when there are no lock up safeties to come up with.

Just keep giving him everything he dislikes or can't do, and let the odds catch up. No guarantee, but how you gonna stop someone better than you from running racks on your for the money

 

[jackpot]

Gtw

the weaker the players the more a spot means. If one is C, or D player he can;t
give much weight at all to a lesser player, because he is not a threat to run out
every time he gets a shot, and then put 2 or 3 more on him. The guy getting the
weight gets to shoot every game, usually a few times every game. So he may
win. But jump to A player and better and it's a different story, even giving another
very good player weight. Just look at the utube of Shane playing Cory, and years
ago Buddy gave a bunch of Champions weight and shot their n--- off.Playing a world
beater I want to take the break away and games on the wire, balls don;t mean
much if you don't get to shoot. Unless the guy giving the weight is a weak player
I will take the giver every time.
jack

 

[easy-e]

I'd give the weight. Going to be a lot easier for me to determine what his weaknesses are during the match. Is he weak at banking, kicking, safeties, whatever. Then, ensure I leave him those shots when there are no lock up safeties to come up with.

Just keep giving him everything he dislikes or can't do, and let the odds catch up. No guarantee, but how you gonna stop someone better than you from running racks on your for the money

This is exactly what I was trying to say. I like it!

 

[maha]

even means each will have no advantage over the other during the whole match. so it doesnt matter.

same question, as should you call heads or tails if the coin is even.

for those that dont understand this they should never gamble as they are most certainly suckers if they gamble smarter if they dont/.

 

[pt109]

even means each will have no advantage over the other during the whole match. so it doesnt matter.

same question, as should you call heads or tails if the coin is even.

for those that dont understand this they should never gamble as they are most certainly suckers if they gamble smarter if they dont/.

A pool game is not like flipping a coin, where the odds are immutable.

...I'm talking nine ball here now...
...the better player can have times where the spot is meaningless....
...that's why I like to bet on the guy giving the weight.

And that has stood up in a lifetime of gambling....
...I figure if I bet on a hundred matches with this thinking....
...my worst case scenario is I win 55 times out of the 100.

 

[easy-e]

even means each will have no advantage over the other during the whole match. so it doesnt matter.

same question, as should you call heads or tails if the coin is even.

for those that dont understand this they should never gamble as they are most certainly suckers if they gamble smarter if they dont/.

Every game will have a winner and a loser, even if the weight makes it "even". Don't take things too literally.

 

[KRJ]

even means each will have no advantage over the other during the whole match. so it doesnt matter.

same question, as should you call heads or tails if the coin is even.

for those that dont understand this they should never gamble as they are most certainly suckers if they gamble smarter if they dont/.

Going to respectfully disagree. It's never "even" when humans are playing, there are many variables involved. A coin flip has no such variable. I'll always bet on talent out running lesser talent, always. I'll win more times than I lose, that I know for a fact.

In your world, a 5 should beat a 7 half the time. Sorry, that does not happen even with the handicap. I've never lost to a 2 or 3, EVER, in 10 years. It might happen one day, but don't bet on it And a 5 does not beat me 50% of the time, maybe 25%. If this was just a coin flip why do good 6's and 7's have win percentages of 70 to 85% ???