View Full Version : 3 Ahead Wager, Pro & Cons
10-26-2002, 06:28 PM
I was presented with this game today for a cash amount, what are the nuts and bolts about this kind of event? Thanks...sid
In nine-ball, three ahead would be a crap-shoot, and you would not want it with a weaker player. It can be over in a hurry. In one-pocket it would be more reasonable, but still a bit risky. Four or five ahead would be more likely to produce the better player, but bear in mind that it can become a marathon. Decide, in advance, what will be done if it comes time to close the joint. I have seen such matches literally go on for days.
Just a gamble, you need to get off to a quick start. A guy could win a game, make the 9 on the snap and be on the hill. Works the same for either player and a mistake gets magnified in a short race. Are you a sprinter or more of a long distant runner?
Just means you agree to play till one player has gotten up three games. It could go quick or could take as long as it takes. I have played 10 ahead that have lasted 8 or more hours. Once played 25 ahead lasted two days. No pros or cons, just a style of wagering. Unlike a set though there are no hill hill games. The loser has in fact lost decisively. Best part is you can make a comeback, although three is pretty short.
Last week McCready refused to play a 3 ahead against Sambajon. He insisted on 4 ahead. They were alternating one pooket and banks. McCready won in about an hour.
He then played a 10 ahead against Al Lepena in 9 ball. He won in about 6 hours. They played another and he won in around 45 minutes.
Approx. 9k weekend for Keith. Not too bad for playing a game.
10-27-2002, 12:13 AM
I prefer this method of betting,
Local short stop (known to air the last game) comes up to me "Jimbo, lets play some $20 nine-ball."
Me "No, lets play some 5 ahead for a $100"
Him "What the hell is the difference?"
Me "Difference is...
1. I know I have a shot at at least $100
2. I know I won't get aired for the last $20"
If you are not sure if the guy you are playing has any real money, bet this way. Nothing worse than losing a couple of C's to some fool who only has $40 in his pocket.
The race is too short to be viable.
Minimum 4, better yet 5.
Raise the stakes, and raise the race to 5, then if you are the better player, you will also be the player at the end with the money.
Race to 3 is at least a game too short
The number does not matter, it is not a race but playing by the game. It goes back and forth till someone is ahead three, they payoff and then the play continues. A higher number has no more or less advantage to the better player like it would in a race. It is just game by game and when the payoff takes place does not matter with two willing players. It would matter if one player got up three, was paid and then quit.
10-27-2002, 08:20 PM
If the game is 9-ball, the race is way too short; if it's one-pocket, banks, or even 8-ball, the bet is more viable. The upside of this type of bet is that it freezes up a certain amount of cash that is sure to change hands. The downside is that it may reward the player who gets off to a quick start.
Sid, for me, it depends on the game and the size of the bet. When playing 9ball for large money I prefer 10 ahead. This gives us both enough time to air out the stroke a bit and then see what happens. If it's small money 9ball a shorter race is my preference.
I have a different strategy for 1 hole. I usually agree to whatever $$ is proposed and then just hand my money to the opponent! This could explain why everyone lined up to play me 1P when I walked into the Cue Club today. Only one guy was smart enough to ask for a rematch! Go figure, Rip
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Sid_Vicious:</font><hr> I was presented with this game today for a cash amount, what are the nuts and bolts about this kind of event? Thanks...sid <hr></blockquote>
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.