"Winner stays on" social custom in public places

In My Humble Opinion
1

I was listening to one of the old Ricky Gervais/Stephen Merchant/Karl Pilkington XFM radio shows and Gervais went on a mini-rant about “winner stays on” customs in certain public places. For example, at a pub with a pool table, the person who wins the current game gets to stay for the next game against the next person waiting to play. Presumably, if he keeps winning, he can play as long as he wants, and everyone else who wants to play has to play him

Gervais said something to the effect of “I hate that. If I’m at a pub, I want to play with my friends, not some stranger.” I totally agree with him. I would hate to have to line up to play someone whose only relationship to me is that he wants to beat me so he can keep playing. For me the major fun of playing games is interacting with my friends, not just competing with a stranger whom I don’t have anything else in common with.

Is this “winner stays on” rule common in your neck of the woods? How do you feel about it? Do you agree with me and Gervais that winner stays on sucks balls and you’d rather that once two (or more) people have finished their game (be it pool, darts, or whatever) that they should both yield to the next group waiting?

Or if you don’t agree, what do you like about “winner stays on”?

2

“Winner stays on” is the way it works around here. Personally, I don’t have an issue with it. I think it’s more democratic than “next in line” because “next in line” could be you, and each of your six mates.

3

You are looking at it from the wrong direction. You say that you don’t want to have to play against some stranger, but don’t forget that that stranger is on the table right now, and actually has no obligation to let you on the table at all. If I am playing with my mate, why shouldn’t we both just play on all day, we have possession of the table don’t we?

Winner stays on is a compromise between recognising current ownership* of the table and allowing other people access to the same table. Its a social convention which developed for a reason.

(Yeay yeah, they probably dont own the table itself, but they are in control of it)

4

Democratic? That would be letting everyone in the pub vote for who plays next. Winner stays on is clearly authoritarian. :slight_smile:

So what? So long as no one person gets to play a second round until everyone else in line has played, everyone gets a chance.

There’s no ownership principle here. It’s a public accommodation that is meant to be shared by the patrons of the establishment.

Because it’s not your table and the table has been put there for everyone to enjoy, so you take turns. It’s basic kindergarten ethics.

But it’s not a universal compromise. “Next in line” is very common as well, and it’s also a valid compromise. This argument boils down to “that’s just the way it’s done here,” which would apply equally to whatever convention was used at any particular place. This discussion is about the merits of any particular convention, independent of whether “it’s done that way here.”

5

Yeah Ascenray. Pub rules rule.

6

That’s all you have to say? What about pubs with different rules? You’re basically not offering anything to discuss.

7

Says who?

8

Come on, you can do better than that. I’m offering a common social value/ethic in order to justify a particular social custom. “Says who?” is nothing more than .“Rusts the way it is.” That’s useless because obviouslt that’s not the way it is everywhere.

You can’t come up with countering justifications based on either advantages/disadvantages or even personal preferences?

9

I’m just not sure what you are trying to achieve here? The use of pool tables was often a cause of friction in bars, and over time a social convention developed that offered a compromise between those currently on the table and those hoping for a game themselves. What is the question here?

Why don’t the players currently on the table stay as long as they like?

  • Because not having an established finish time caused friction with other patrons.

Why should I have to leave the table at all?

  • Maybe you shouldn’t, but we need a compromise, we need to let somebody else play.

How do we decide who has to make way for somebody else?

  • How about the winner stays, and the loser has to make way, it even adds a bit of spice to the game and a reward for the winner.

Well that seems fair enough, lets do that.

Whats the question here?

10

The question is why is that better than another compromise – no one gets to play a second round until everyone waiting have played. This is also a common social convention. You’re acting as if winner stays on is the sole compromise solution mankind has ever come up with in these situations. It’s not. As I’ve said before, at some places the rule is your group gets to play one game and then the next group gets to play one game. The advantage of this is that everyone gets to play, they get to play with the people they came with, and everyone spends equal time waiting to play. This compromise was reached in the same way that winner stays on was reached. Why isn’t it better?

11

Who is gonna keep track of all this? And what if I come alone? Who decides who my opponent is? Even if we defer to the winner of the previous game in that case, we’d need two rules. What if there are 3 of us who all want to play one another. Do we get to play 3 or more games to see who is the best? Besides, most of the time, the person on the table will allow others to play if they have been on, or others have been waiting, for a while. The point is that your method is convoluted and problematic. A convoluted system is not something best left to people drinking heavily.

Regardless, the NEED to play with your friends has rightfully been deemed less important than having a clear system for establishing who plays next, while rewarding the winner (challenger often pays). If you can’t stand to compete with strangers, then either stay home, or be better at whatever game you are playing (the rules apply in pickup basketball among other things). Plus, I think you are missing the point of a bar. It’s largely a place to interact with strangers whether they be people in whom you are romantically interested, or others. Most people don’t find that too onerous.

12

Because the pool of waiting players is fluid? Because who is monitoring to ensure everyone waiting got a game? Does a man who just walked into the bar get a game before somebody who had a game a few hours ago?

Who said it was? Some places play winner stays on, and some don’t. What the hell is your point?

What if there are two people in your group, but ten people in another? What if there is a guy in the bar on his own but who fancies a game? Who does he play against? What if one group decides they don’t like this system and ignores it? Wouldn’t it be better to have an established bar rule?

Even with these questions the point remains, what are you getting at here? If people in a bar want to use that system instead they will just use it, who says they can’t? Or won’t?

Better? Worse? Who cares? People will use whatever system they want. It just so happens that the winner stays on system is an easily understood system that accommodates different groups of people, and so it is often used. It just is.

13

Aside from pool, I think it depends on the game. Games such as Pool or basketball would almost always rather be played against friends than a random stranger. On the other hand, I would rather play an arcade fighting game against a stranger than against a good friend (I’ve had some fights/arguments with friends because of this very thing).

I think it boils down to whether the point of the game is to win, or whether there’s fun to be had in playing the game itself.

14

If you don’t like it, you should get better at pool.

The point is not to allow you and your six mates to stay on the table all night monopolizing it. “Winner stays on” usually comes with a sequential sign-up board so that EVERYONE gets a chance to play at least once.

If you want to play with six friends all night , go to Dave & Busters and rent a table for a few hours.

15

There are already commonly understood rules of waiting in line. You get behind whoever is the last one there.

I want to compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of different ways that people have come up with to deal with a social situation. I am looking for opinions and arguments regarding why one is better than the other. Why is that so baffling to you?

They pair up into five groups of two or 4+4+2. This isn’t rocket science.

He finds someone in the bar who’s willing to partner with him. It’s not that hard. He looks at the group of people waiting and asks, “Anyone fancy a round?” Usually someone will step forward.

It gets enforced the same way “winner stays on” gets enforced? How is it any different?

It is a bar rule.

I’m asking a question about social dynamics, decision making, and the advantages and disadvantages, and opinions/personal preferences regarding different ways of dealing with a social situation.

Again, why is this baffling? You don’t ever look around that the world and think “Why does X do things A way and Y do things B way? Which way is better? Which way do I like more? Which way do other people like more? Are there any arguments I’m missing?”

Who cares about any opinion offered on the internet? Do you not express opinions about the choices people make, in Cafe Society, or in IMHO, or in the BBQ Pit?

Gervais expressed an opinion that he has less fun when he goes to a bar where the rules require him to play with a stranger instead of his mates. That’s an opinion like any other. Apparently you have a different opinion. What’s so crazy about discussing it? It’s not like this conversation is going to force a change on you.

It just is? No, it isn’t just is. Someone make a choice, someone made a decision, either individually or in groups. Other individuals and groups made different decisions or choices. These are not genetically ingrained characteristics. These are the results of societal interaction and decision-making.

Seriously, your reaction to this is bizarre. Have I in asking these questions offended your ethnicity? Your religion? Your football club? Your mother? (If so, that’s an even more interesting question I’d love to see explored.)

16

No. Wrong.

Because when people play pool like this in a bar it means they’re just fooling around and flirting with their girlfriend for hours when they should be taking their shot.

With that method, hardly anyone gets to play before the bar closes because these “social games” (which are more about talking then playing) take hours to finish.

So it only makes sense to establish the rule that-- if you want to keep playing, you need to win. You need to actually take the game seriously and not just play grab-ass for an hour or two. If you can’t handle it, go rent a table by the hour at a pool hall.

There is NOTHING more annoying than some chumps coming up and trying to tie up your local’s table with a silly game of doubles and “who can miss the ball more”. Fuck that noise. Take it to your daddy’s basement table or a rent the table by the hour joint. Some of us are trying to play pool here. If you can’t hack it, go home.

17

Finally, an argument.

This made me laugh out loud. I’m imagining the po-faced pool fanatic grumping next to the pool table in a bar, the ultimate casual hangout. The people who are serious about pool are playing it on the piece-of-shit free table in the corner of a bar where people are drinking, listening to music, farting around? Shouldn’t the “some of us are trying to play pool here” people be the ones going to a serious pool hall and putting up money to play their serious game? Isn’t that a bit funny?

18

I do not mean to come across as overly aggressive in this thread, and I apologise for that.

However, all that you have written strongly gives the impression of somebody who does not frequent the types of bars where the serious drinkers play some serious pool. Some of the points in the post above sound like they might work for a scout camp, but would get you laughed out of my local.

(Guess I have to add that I am crap at pool, and don’t play it, but I am aware of the dynamics at work)

But who is organising this? There ain’t no scout leader here, who is telling all these disparate characters who they are playing and when? “Winner plays on” organises itself without outside control, yet you want to add completely unnecessary levels of complexity to the process.

Why complicate things? With “winner plays on” he knows without asking where he stands. Now if he wants a game he has to actively find a playing partner, how is that better for him? Once again, an unneeded complication.

Ricky Gervais has never had an opinion worth hearing

Yeah, thanks. I asked a lot of questions above relating to points you made but lets just ignore them shall we.

Yeah, you don’t go to my type of bars very often.

19

That’s how it was in bars when I was in college in the 1980s. It was just the known, accepted convention there.

Really, it doesn’t matter what you or I think, it’s the bar’s table, they get to set the rules. And generally, they are going to go along with whatever the local convention is.

The only time I had a problem with it was when I went to an open table to play, and someone came up and said it was “her table”. I don’t remember what happened, I think I just left (it was kind of a seedy looking place, and that was the first (and only) time I went there, so I didn’t want to argue.) To me, if you aren’t actively playing, it’s not your table any more.

20

It’s annoying sometimes, because it means you basically have to not talk to your friends if you want a game of pool. OTOH, it can be a way of getting to know the other people at your local. Often I compromise by asking if it’s OK if we play doubles (if that’s doable, of course).

I generally prefer the ‘put a couple of coins down’ queuing method. I’m surprised nobody else has mentioned that - it’s not ‘winner stays on’ or ‘one person might stay on ALL night’ with no other option.