That was billiard player Walter Lindrum and his technique of cradle cannons. At 2 points per canon he was able to score breaks in the multiple thousands at a second a shot. Pretty much killed billiards as entertainment. IIRC you can now make just 10 cannons in a row before you play an in-off or pot.
Excellent!
I feel much better now about my exploiting the rules. They’re still calling me cheats for it. Good to see that others also enjoy this great card game.
How about this…
I was playing chess online against some “pro’s” with very high rankings. They laughed at me saying they would be able to crush me, so I took them on.
What they didn’t know, was that I had a chess program sitting in another window. So when they made their move, I would mimmick(sp?) that move against my grand chess master opponent in the other chess game 
. I would then simply do what the grand chess master did against me.
Suffice to say it was the easiest chess win I have had, and now my ranking is pretty sweet.
Cheating?
I’d say that is cheating. You were not actually playing the game; the computer was.
[slight hijack]
I also play a variation of this, called Shanghai Rummy. In case you’re interested in the variation, we play with books (a set of three or more) and runs (four or more sequential cards in the same suit). Two decks, 11 cards per person, two buys (or may-i’s) per person per hand, each buy gets you two extra cards from the pile, four jokers (the only wild cards), only one wild card per book or run, aces high or low (but not both in the same run). 2-9 is 5 pts, 10-K is 10 pts, aces are 15 pts and jokers are 50 pts.
2 books
2 runs
1 book 1 run
2 books 1 run
2 runs 1 book
3 books
3 runs
Do the rest of you play it pretty much the same way?
[/slight hijack]
Back to the OP, when playing this game, I will stick to all 5 pointers if my hand doesn’t look promising. This is smart, and I can’t even imagine my friends getting mad at me for it. My ex used to pick cards that I wanted to buy just to keep them away from me. While technically not against the rules, it did sap some of the fun away.
As for exploiting rules in general, my sister won’t play Scrabble with me anymore because she says that I hog all of the triple point squares, and often won’t use a high scoring letter unless it’s for triple, or at least double points.
I thought that winning within the rules of the game was the point.
You are a hustler, in much the same way that a pool shark lures opponents into games when they believe they are playing against a player who is not as skilled as his prior games would lead any observer to believe. Basically, you were playing postal chess, mailing your opponent’s moves to the chess master and then mailing the master’s move back to your opponents.
The best application of postal chess I can think of is something I read a while back in some con artist book:
You wager that you can play any number of chess games simultaneously and win at least half of the games, not counting draws. Say you get 12 takers. Line them up in two rows of six so you can walk up & down the middle. Table 1 is opposite table 2, table 3 is opposite table 4, and so on. Whatever move the player at table 1 makes against you, you make the exact same move against the player at table 2. You effectively pit table 1 against table 2, table 3 against tale 4, and so on. All you do is relay or “mail” the moves back & forth between each opposing table. Since the person at table 1 is essentially playing against the person at table 2, there has to be a winner between the two of them, hence the guarantee that you will win half the games (You say “at least half” when you make your bold claim, so that it sounds like you could probably even do better than half).
It’s a scam, and if a scam is cheating, then it’s cheating.
No, what you were doing wasn’t cheating. It’s called gamesmanship, and in most cases, it is frowned upon. But NOT if it’s a legitimate gambit or stratagem (which this case seems to be), and not a rules exploitation.
I have a kind of example that my fellow historical wargamers may understand:
A rules set for ancient combat stated that a certain type of combat unit MUST charge if there was a visible enemy unit with its back turned. One of our club’s worst rules lawyers attempted to about-face one of his low-value units to draw enemy units out of a fine defensive position, even though that was not the intent of the rule, and it didn’t conform to historical realities. Even though ole Perry Mason could quote chapter and verse out of the rulebook, the game’s umpire told him to knock it off, he wasn’t about to let a cheesy legalistic argument make a mockery of history.
It’s fun to win, but it’s better to keep your friends.
A gamer that I knew many years ago and respected used to call it a “scorched earth” victory: nothing of value left standing. His disdain was something you could feel in the room, but it was not the pettishness of a sore loser. REAL righteous indignation.
If the opinions of the people you were playing with matter to you (as they seem to), you may want a “house rule” to cover your type of play. Personally, I think your play was just fine.
Playing within the rules of the game is not cheating, others may not like it, but thats too bad for them.
Exploiting the rules of a game, is much like finding loop holes in the tax laws, others may not like it, but they also have the same opportunity to exploit them and use them to thier advantage.
Gamesmanship? Maybe, but it’s a strategy you have found that works for you, the other players in the game can adopt the same strategy, that’s up to them, but they shouldn’t call you a cheater, since you’re not.
Stick to your guns,…er…cards, just win with grace and style, and you will keep your friends.
Just as nobody likes a sore loser, nobody likes a pompous, obnoxiuos overly boastful winner.
So if your winning gestures consist of you standing up and yelling I’m da man! I’m da man! You all suck!, then an ass whuppin’ may be in order.
Good Luck.
I’d say that the chess example is definitely cheating.
As to the OP, no. It’s gamesmanship, possibly abrasive, possibly inappropriately competitive/cutthroat (and possibly not–without knowing how competitive the others are, there’s no way to know). No way is it “cheating”.
Re bluesman’s point re rules exploitation: the example he gives is pretty clearly a loophole which should be closed, but interpreting a particularly strategy as “against the spirit of the rules/game” is often problematic.
Not only is that cheating, but it’s also specifically banned by most online chess services. Not that they’d know - but sooner or later it’s possible someone who plays a lot of chess will notice you’re playing the same way his Chessmaster 7000 plays.
With respect to your card game, I don 't even think it’s cutthroat; it’s merely cautious play. Your friends are asses.