h a l f b a k e r yOK, we're here. Now what?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Usually, when people go to shoot some pool they elect to play the tried and trusted "winner stays on" rule, it has come to attention that this favours the better players allowing them to amass more practice over their weaker opponents - re-enforcing the status quo. What I suggest is the "loser stays
on" rule. Not only does this let the weaker players get much needed practice, but also conversely the winner gets less practice, closing the skill gap (over time).
Playing to lose would in itself be a pointless exercise. Weak players would get booted off only by players needing the practice even more, and they can at least leave the table with their head held high knowing they'd won a game....
I think devoting all the tables in a pool hall to this wouldn't be a good idea, but a couple of tables with this rule applied would make everyone a little more competative, and there skills more evenly matched (which makes for a better game I reckon...).
[link]
|
| |
Maybe the rules could be subtly changed such that you can't leave until you win... |
|
| |
Oops, I banked the 8 ball into the corner pocket again. I've suffered through watching Bad Billiards. Sorry folks, but the best thing to do if you want to improve is practice, but not in primetime hours on primetime tables while primed. |
|
| |
Yeah, I know, but I'm only suggesting you have this rule on a couple of tables, If someone was diliberately playing ultra crap simply to stay on you could always 'Oops...' - pot black thus forcing him/her to win and hense ensuring he's (or she's) off the table... |
|
| |
The only people who'd want to play would be the ones who suck at pool. |
|
| |
There was an episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Francis had to lose to the Captain. The two tried to outdo each other sinking the 8-ball with some pretty decent trick shots. |
|
| |
Perhaps you could refine this idea by making the loser pay for the next game aswell as staying on? This would mean that each new challenger in the queue gets their first game for free, and if they win, they walk away. The loser could walk away after any game, if they wished (provided they pay for the next one), in which case the next two people in the queue get to play each other for free. |
|
| |
I like that change lemon... I think the croissant is starting to rise.... |
|
| |
...or the next two people split the cost. If it's a free game, then losers are going to be *strongly* encouraged to vacate the table by the serious players. |
|
| |
I don't follow that, bookworm. If there's a loser on the table for a long time, they'll pay for *all* the games, and serious players could wait in the queue for a quick free game. If the serious players wanted to play each other, they could use another table where this system is not in force. |
|
| |
Real players wouldn't want to play against someone like that seriously. A real player would want a real opponent to make the game fun, not a bit of masturbation <Playing with the balls...> |
|
| |
Yep. This would ensure the table stays as a beginner's table. Surely that was Solomungus's original intention? |
|
| |
I bet "hand solo" has spent many a quarter due to the stick-handling capabilities of ?his? friends/associates.
Alas, there is a loser in every crowd. Another way to combat this problem is by having two tables and splitting the cost of games. Then, people can switch tables/opponents as they like and everyone pays the same amount. However, there is nothing quite as satisfying as saying, "Rack'em" and watching the loser place his/her quarters in the slots. |
|
| |
Might be interesting to apply this idea to some other games as well. |
|
| |
That's why I pay by the hour (real pool hall), not by the game (pub or bar) |
|
| |
The flaw here is that people will not get better, they will get worse. Which is the problem with communism. Which is maybe what you [solomungus] are satirically pointing out. |
|
| |
I'm great at pool, I can play all evening and never lose one of those balls down those little holes. |
|
| |
[Zircon], I think you are on to something. Pocketless pool. Same rules as 8-ball, but without pockets the game never ends. (Hummmm, don’t the English already do this?) |
|
| |
I'm not sure what I thought this would be, but whatever it was was wildly different than the reality of this probably-baked idea. |
|
| |
Back when I was a teenager, my friends and I actually used this method when playing fighting video games (Street Fighter 2 Turbo, I believe it was at the time). Communism was the fad back then, and we actually called it "the Communist method." |
|
| |
I was thinking of pool as in swimming. This makes a lot more sense but does not contain the concept of Stalin in a speedo. |
|
| |
Just like regular Communism, this idea has a flaw - and that flaw is the ingenius nature of humanity. A really good player would be able to knock down all of his own balls, but *accidentally* allow his white to go in off the black, thus forfeiting the game, and remaining on the table to play the next person.... |
|
| |
//the concept of Stalin in a speedo//
A bun for that! But I guess I'll have to give it to long-gone solomungus... |
|
| |
I thought communist pool would be the green felt being replaced by a red felt with a hammer and sickle in the center. |
|
| |
Yeah, it turns out that that's what happens. Luckily, it's very, very obvious when the good player is doing this, and in my experience (when we did this as Communist Soul Calibur tournaments), he is rapidly identified and ejected for his antisocial tendencies. |
|
| |
I like this idea, particularly when the tables
are free (as they are most weeknights at
our local bar), so the question of who pays
doesn't enter into it. |
|
| |
This game would contribute to the entropy of the pool hall were everybody is equal and nobody is any better or worse than anybody else. While, perhaps the average person at the communist pool table would be better than the average person at the capitalist pool table, there would still be no great stars or losers among them. Have a commie bun! [+Oy+] |
|
| |
Note: Perhaps the combination of the two systems would lead to some sort of necessary pool hall hypercycle. One thing is for sure, and that is that it would take a constant supply of fresh new talent to hone the overall talent at the "losers" table. |
|
| |
Winner pays for the next game, which he is of course forbidden to play. Enjoy a full 2-1/2 buns. [+] |
|
| |