This directly contradicts your earlier supposition that everyone should play once before people play twice.
Those reasons have been explained to you in detail. Your proposed solutions only complicate things, proposing vague guidelines that are largely reliant on the judgment and honesty of people who have no incentive to exercise good judgment or be honest.
That’s not the point. If one group of two comes arrives the same time as a group of 10. Who gets to go first? Assuming it’s the group of 10, do you really think it’s fair for the smaller group to wait indefinitely? They could be playing all night.
And what if he can’t find someone? Or what if the people waiting refuse so that they can play with their friends instead?
It’s different because it’s infinitely more complicated. Rather than something simple like winner stays on, your method is something akin to first come first serve until and unless one person deigns to only play with their friends upon which the more numerous group sets the order will be set contingent upon even numbers of people showing up… You really think this is easier just so you can play with your buddies. More importantly, you can always ASK the winner if you can play a quick game, and more than likely, they will let you.
Then why doesn’t he just play pool at home with his friends in his mansion? Honestly, what’s the point in going to a bar if you are so against basic interaction with strangers? It’s not like he doesn’t have the means to have his own table where he can set his own rules. More importantly, there are plenty of places you can go where you can rent a table by the hour if you doesn’t like bar rules. Perhaps he is having less fun because he is going to the wrong places.
I would say in most places the two concepts are combined. Putting the coins down states your place in the queue, while your opponent will be the winner from the previous game.
Maybe this is the difference. I live in a society in which I expect that people for the most part will behave in good faith and will be friendly and accommodating, seeking not to make life needlessly difficult or unpleasant for the people standing right in front of them.
You pose these “problems” as if strangers are incapable of negotiating such social encounters without a strict rule to enforce. I don’t see society as working that way. Strangers are always interacting in these ways and I don’t consider them “complicated,” not to mention “infinitely complicated.”
No camp counselor is needed to “organize” this system. All it takes is the friendly cooperation of people with good will, who, after all, have come to this place of leisure to enjoy themselves, not to create animosity and conflict. The rare occasions in which some bad apple starts making trouble, the people around, particularly barkeeps and bouncers, can usually deal with it swiftly.
You yourself said a bar is a place where people go to interact with strangers, but you make it sound like interacting with strangers requires an immense degree of control with a strict set of unambiguous rules to appeal to. It shouldn’t be that hard to negotiate the ambiguities.
Yes, you’re right. The type of bar in which the patrons take themselves this seriously would likely not appeal to me. The very idea that a bar requires this degree of seriousness in order to get along sounds ridiculous to me.
People go to bars to relax, to interact casually, to fart around, to have fun, not to be serious. Certainly not to be so deadly serious about a fucking game of pool at a table crammed into a dark corner.
I’m reminded of Neil Simon’s Odd Couple, in which there’s one guy at the weekly poker game who’s the stick in the mud constantly grumbling “are we playing poker or what?” whenever others start conversing. Playing poker on the weekends with friends or playing pool in a bar is not a professional sport. It’s a fucking game, and the primary purpose of a game in a casual social setting is social interaction, not to “play a serious game of pool.”
So when you’re in the “winner stays on” situation, and you’re playing with a stranger, and you have friends around, are you really expected not to interact, chat, gossip, joke around with your pals, who are standing right there? You’re expected to keep your head down and your mouth shut and fucking play pool as if your life depended on it? In a fucking bar? Seriously?
Unfortunately, real life isn’t like that; especially when people are under the influence. I am not sure what gives you such “faith” in society considering chaos exists in even highly regulated environments. By your logic, we wouldn’t need regulations under most circumstances. No need for insider trading laws, just don’t try to be fair. Why have parking meters, just try to not to hog a spot for too long. No need for speed limits, just try to be safe. Why should a store have lines, people will just take turns fairly. The problem is that people have vastly different interpretations of fairness and good faith. Rules generally arise in situations where the expectation that people act in good faith has proved unreasonable. I think you are forgetting that.
You are wrong. It’s really that simple. As much as you think it’s easy to negotiate things amongst strangers, you are wrong. Why do you think they made the rules in the first place? Do you honestly think some guy just didn’t want people to play with their buddies? Any system that relies on multiple, varied negotiations amongst strangers, with no clear cut guidelines, in order to function, is doomed to fail.
Even more galling than your insistence that things should change is, that the current system can be be more reflective of your concerns without amending the rules at all. All the standard bar rules say is that winner has the OPTION to stay on. They don’t have to. In situations where I really wanted to challenge a friend of mine, I have asked the previous winner if we could, and I have found that all it takes is a request and a (maybe) a drink. The current rules also don’t say you can’t play with your friends, it just say you need to WIN to stay on. Get better if it bothers you.
There is a reason the term “bar fight” is as well know as it is. Even putting that aside, people have different opinions on what is fair and what’s not.
It actually does. This is what separates first world countries from hellholes like Somalia. It’s because we have clear rules, and the ability to enforce them, that interactions between strangers can work.
Not at all, you can interact all your little heart desires, when it’s not your shot.
I’ve never been in a bar where the pool table is not “winner plays next”.
I have been in places where if you fart around with your friends too long when it’s your shot, the balls get swept in, and the person whose turn it is next starts sticking in quarters.
As has already frequently been mentioned, if you want to play a social, fart-around type of pool game, go to a place where you can rent a table all your own. Most of them serve beer.
How much bar pool have you played? If you’re in a “winner stays” situation (which is the only thing I’ve ever seen, if there is a line to play), it’s easy enough to chat with your friends while the other person takes their shot. You hear the crack of the balls, glance up to see if he sank something (or even listen to hear if a ball drops), and take your shot if it’s your turn.
And, particularly if you and friends are hoping to control the table (meaning you need to win) - I imagine you’d all be paying attention, and planning out shots depending on how your opponent is doing. Or they’d be giving you crap about how bad your are, depending on your actual skill level and how you and your buddies interact.
Actually it is, or it is sometimes, or it is in places where you don’t live. That’s why “winner stays on” is not the exclusive way that people interact in the entire Western world in these situations.
Why are you behaving as if I’m describing a fantasy world? There are places and people that don’t go by the “winner stays on” rule and it works just fine. What I am proposing is that the “take turns to play” rule actually results in people enjoying themselves more while they’re playing. I can understand if you disagree and think that people overall enjoy themselves more under a “winner stays on” regime, but you’re going all red in the face as if the alternatives are entirely the result of my fevered imagination.
No, I’m not forgetting that. I’m saying that in very large parts of the human world, bars handle games like pool with rules that are different from “winner stays on,” and it works just as smoothly.
I can see with my eyes that I’m not wrong. Because I’ve been to places that don’t have the “winner stays on” rule, and adult humans generally deal with that situation just fine.
You’re starting to sound hysterical. I’m pointing out two ways of negotiating social interaction that already exist in our world and asking opinions about which one people here prefer and why. You’re behaving as I’m personally threatening your way of life. What’s up with that?
Yes, and one of those ways that works is a “take turns to play” rule, which works just fucking great in places where I’ve seen it, even though, according to you, the system is “infinitely” too complicated for adult humans to handle.
Um, I’ve been to enough bars to say that it varies and both ways of doing things have their merits. That suggests to me that in places that are “winner stays on” that is generally how most of the patrons of that establishment want it to be, places where it isn’t like that, it is generally how most of those patrons want it to be.
I spend a lot of time in bars but don’t play pool at all really, but what I’ve seen is if pool tables are in high demand and the patrons really like the game, it tends to be winner stays on because winner stays on has an atmosphere that is more about taking your shots and getting a lot of games in very quickly.
Other places I’ve been there might be 2-3 pool tables and never more than a single one is in use at a time, or some nights they will get a lot of activity and other nights none. The places where the pool tables don’t seem to be a big part of the bar’s personality and not a big focus of its patrons tend to be ones where I see groups of buddies shooting the breeze while playing a very leisurely game. In the other bars I’ve been at where people want to play a serious game of pool it would be considered extremely rude for a group of friends to hog a table with slow paced pool.
The only thing I find super weird about this discussion is you’re talking about it like it is some great thing, with some objective measure of which way is the better system. Since both systems developed naturally and were developed by the collective desire of people wanting to have fun, I think it far more likely the two systems are akin to the pie versus cake argument. There is no right answer, only preference. Persons like you and Ricky Gervais shouldn’t go to a place to play pool that is winner stays on, but to a place that has a more leisurely pool atmosphere. People that want to play a bunch of games against a bunch of different people in a semi-serious competitive atmosphere should go to bars that feature winner stays on and fast games.
I first ran into this in Dutch Harbor. Apparantly, my putting my quarters on the table meant I ante’d up 200 bucks to play. (I had no idea.)
Lost in about .8 minutes.
Ran like hell <from drunk and cranky Inuit> for the next 20.
In any serious place, it pretty much is. If there is a scarcity of opportunities to play, or if the stakes are high, then rules are usually needed. There is a reason why this is the case.
Again, what you are describing is clearly not the preferred way of doing things. Do people get by with less than ideal setups? Of course, but that doesn’t make it less than ideal. More importantly, my response was to your assertion that, “[you] live in a society in which I expect that people for the most part will behave in good faith and will be friendly and accommodating”. I don’t think you do considering we both live in the same society. As a general statement, that is hopelessly naive absent some pretty well-defined rules of conduct and means of enforcing them. It wasn’t my intention to imply that an unregulated pool table in a bar will immediately devolve into fighting and chaos, just that your system makes things far more complicated with exactly zero upside. As it stands in most places, you can play your friends if you wait long enough, beat the person on the table, or just ask. If the fraternity amongst men is as great as you say it is, then asking will convince most to accommodate your requests anyway.
My issue is that you seem to think that negotiations amongst strangers will result in a system that is, in aggregate, more enjoyable to the players. This will likely not be the case as all participants have different value systems and desires. Additionally, your system is catering to people who value competition amongst friends above actually playing pool. If the topic of discussion is who gets to play pool, whose opinion should matter more, people who actual want to play the game, or those that want to bullshit with their friends?
Please tell when I said it’s too tough for people to handle it? What I said was that it’s infinitely more complicated, and far more subject to disagreements than a winner stays on system is. I stick by that.
Either way, please try to actually outline what you are proposing. You started by saying you dislike the fact that you can’t automatically play with all your friends. You say that is a problem. You proposed that a person should yield to the next person waiting. Once it was pointed out to you that that is incredible vague, you stated that no one can play twice before everyone in line plays once. Again, it was pointed out that the “line” is pretty fluid, you backed off that. Around the same time, you ignored the comment that “social” games involving unskilled players take far more time, and would likely result in fewer games being played (among several other valid points). So please detail for me exactly what your proposal is, how it would be better, and how it would resolve disagreements beyond “people will figure it out”.
In my experience, a bar is not a serious place and a game of pool in a bar is not a high stakes situation, by definition. It’s a fucking bar game. People wander in for some fun and leave. If you’re saying that the bars you go to are different, then say so, but you are speaking in absolutes when it’s not warranted.
Again, what gives you the authority to speak in absolutes? You prefer not to do things that way. I don’t see how my way is “clearly not the preferred way.” Have you done some kind of study of bar games? Is there a bar games rules authority. An International Winner Stays On Association? If there are any high stakes around here, they seem to be only in your posts.
Again, the voice of Bar Games Expertise. You prefer your way. Other people prefer another way. We’re obviously balancing different kinds of social values – interactions with friends being one of them. How did some of these social values get promoted to “ideal”?
I’m speaking from experience the same way you are. From my experience, people don’t make a big fucking deal about playing pool in a bar.
What, now this is a moral issue? From what I’ve seen in bars, people who are “serious about pool” don’t hang around in a bar waiting for just anyone to come play them. A pool table in a bar is a side-event, an appurtenance to the bar, just one of many little mechanisms to aid casual social interaction. It isn’t a professional tournament. Again, this describes the situation in bars that I’ve seen. If that’s different from the bars you go to, fine, say so, but it’s ridiculous to label it in absolutes as “less than ideal” or ranking the moral value of different people’s opinions about what the rules should be. The rules should be whatever results in the most pleasure overall. That one guy with a serious pool cue up his ass can go enter a tournament if he’s so serious.
“Infinitely more complicated” implies impossibility. Or perhaps you were engaging in hyperbole.
Fine, and I stick by my observation that in the situations I’ve seen, people are able to handle it with no trouble at all.
Why should I? Again, you’re acting as if I’m trying to impose something on your life or as if I’m describing some kind of pipe dream. All I need to say is that I’ve been to a lot of places that don’t have a “winner stays on” rule and people enjoy themselves with no problem at all, no infinite complexities, no moral ambiguities, no ethical unfairness. What does it matter exactly what the rules are in any particular bar? People work them out, just like they work out how to pass each other in a corridor, or take turns using the urinal in the office men’s room.
Why do you say I “ignored” this? Your point was made. That’s fair enough. Are you expecting that I should make some sort of concession? This isn’t a United Nations resolution we’re talking about. I’m soliciting opinions. Are you demanding that every single opinion you offer must be graded in some way?
No, I stick by “people will figure it out,” because that’s what people do every day of their lives when they interact with other people. They figure it out. Especially in such a low stakes situation as playing pool in a bar.
Not, by definition. Plenty of people who play at bars take the game seriously enough to play on a regular basis. Those people would rather not wait for people to dick around on the table with their friends.
Are you honestly contending that winners stays on is not the preferred way of doing things whether it’s pickup basketball, darts, or pool? By this, I mean that most people seem to be fine with those rules? If not, why do you think most games operate this way?
Where did I inject morality in to this?
I am sure he does. Similarly, you should stick to playing in your friend’s basement. That said, I agree people should do whatever they want. However, a system with so many holes, and logical inconsistencies is unlikely to result in more overall pleasure.
No it doesn’t
Because you posed the question. Clearly if we are having a discussion, there should be some basis as to what we are discussing. Not some moving goalpost that anyone who disagrees with your vague notions has to keep aiming for.
I think you should acknowledge when someone says something if you find it is objectionable, or is disruptive to your supposition.
But people did figure it out, and they largely decided that “winner stays on” is preferable. Do you think the rules is mandates by some deity? No, people collectively figured out what works best, and what was preferable and reliable. In general though, it’s funny to me when somebody thinks they figured out how to do something better than everyone else despite not actually having even thought things through. Instead, they propose some half-baked solution, then move the goalposts when they get cornered. It’s been explained why people like the current system, and why your system will result in more problems and less pleasure. You respond by ignoring any comment that you feel you cannot talk your way out of, or just say people will figure it out. Sorry, but that’s asinine.
This further backs up something I suspected from your earlier posts: that you are not a “regular” patron of a particular bar. You sound more as though “going to a bar” involves calling up your buddies on Friday or Saturday night and saying, “Hey, let’s all go to a bar! Where should we go this time?” There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it overlooks one basic thing: a typical corner bar is not a restaurant/theater/amusement park where “people wander in for some fun [or eat a meal or watch a movie] and leave” as a general rule. Most bars (and I’ve both been a patron of and worked in quite a few) operate on the idea that people are going to come in and stay a while. There’s a reason some people refer to their favorite bar as “my second home”.
So you and your buddies walk into a bar intending to “have some fun and leave”, not to “interact with strangers”. And you’re overlooking the fact that in this situation, you and your buddies are the strangers. That guy holding the pool table is there every day, probably for a few hours each day. And so are probably most of the people sitting at nearby tables and at the bar. You may not see them all laughing and joking and having fun with each other, but they’re all friends, or at least friendly with each other. Include the bartender(s) in that as well. And these people all spend a lot of time together almost every day. Like the Cheers theme song — “You wanna go where everybody knows your name.” They’re almost family.
You and your buddies walking in and wanting to change the way they do things is almost on par with walking into somebody else’s house and telling them how to run their household.
As for “a game of pool in a bar is not a high stakes situation, by definition” … You’ve heard of pool leagues? Pool teams are sponsored by bars, and a particular bar’s team is usually comprised of people who regularly play pool in that bar. And yeah, those guys do take it quite seriously. If you’re not a regular at that bar, you’re gonna lose any argument about who controls the table. Those tables are where the guys on the team practice their skills, since your average Joe probably can’t afford or doesn’t have room for his own private pool table at home. And not every town has a dedicated pool hall where you can rent a table.
I’m confident, though, that if you look around at a lot of different bars you’ll eventually find one where pool isn’t a big thing with the regular crowd or where the owners cater to to the more casual crowd. And that’s the place to go.
In my experience, most games do not operate this way in casual public settings. People take turns playing. That’s the whole point of this thread. I’m noticing (at least) two ways that things are done and asking why people might prefer one or the other. I really don’t get the attitude that I’m proposing some kind of social revolution. I’m not. People – apparently not where you live – do routinely behave this way.
I’m not moving goalposts, because, as I said, I’m not proposing that you personally must do things a different way. I’m simply describing the world as I see it and asking opinions about it. I am not obligated to describe in detail and then defend point-by-point how a non “winner stays on” system works, because I am not the inventor of such a system, and it doesn’t exist in exactly the same form everywhere in the world. I am simply saying that A and B exist and I prefer A. This is not a courtroom. This is not a science lab. It’s simply an opinion.
But they didn’t “largely” decide it, because – I don’t know why I have to keep repeating this – it’s not some universal law of nature. People don’t always organize things this way. It’s one of at least two things that exist in the world.
Why should I have to defend every jot and tittle of the alternative as if I’m the one who’s creating it from scratch? Taking turns is not something I’ve made up from whole cloth. People actually do behave this way in the world.
Why are you acting as if I’m proposing some kind of novelty here? I’m not inventing a new way of doing things that no one has ever heard of before. I’m simply describing the world as I see it.
It’s as if I had said “I like chocolate ice cream and some people prefer vanilla ice cream. Which do you prefer and why?” and you came back with a list of question asking me how chocolate ice cream is made and where it comes from and why I’m trying to force you to eat chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla ice cream, which is what you prefer. Seriously, what’s your emotional damage over this?
I don’t know what you mean by a “typical corner bar” but the vast majority of bars I’ve been to are more or less like restaurants. People plan a night out, pick a place, meet and spend some portion of their evening there.
No one has ever said that to me and I would consider it highly unusual if they did.
If this is what the bar you go to is like, then say so, but don’t act like it’s some universal truth.
Why are you writing fiction? Who ever said anything about me and my buddies walking into anyplace and telling anyone anything?
Again, if this is what things are like at your corner bar, then say so. “At my bar, the pool table is the venue for a serious pool league and everyone who plays is either playing in a competitive tournament or preparing for one and they don’t welcome casual drop-ins.” Fine, that’s an argument.
What makes you think I have to look around for anything? How did this thread become a tirade on my personal behavior in your “second home”? Why are you unable to discuss this question without getting personal?
Not to mention that with this system, its fair, easy to understand and manage even in the face of alcohol fueled testosterone stupidity that will sometimes happen in bars that any other system I can think of for sharing a table would only aggravate
So there’s only one pool table? Most places we’ve gone to have at least two or three. And it seems like one of them is just understood to be the “date” table, where those who only want to play each other go.
If there’s only one table then by all means, “winner stays on.” People are playing POOL, not sharing their favorite Bible quotes at Sunday School. Pool can be serious business, considering the skill it takes to play really well. And the person who’s busting everybodys chops has every right to control the table and feel like “king of the hill.”
If you don’t like competitive games, make them put in a “real” pinball machine and play that. Then I’ll be the one breathing down your neck, groaning and squealing with each crash of the ball. Waiting for you to go get another beer or have to go pee so “I” can play. Cheers.
If you’re not good enough to take at least ONE game off the local pub shark, go find another place to play pool. I’ve been to tons of pool halls where you can rent a table by an hourly fee. In fact, the only place I can THINK OF that plays “winner stays on” is a pair of coin-op pool tables in a real sketch bar in town, and if you’re going in there, you’re putting cash on the games anyhow. Guy’s paying for his beer hustling rookies!
Frankly, I think it adds a level of excitement to see if anyone can unseat the King of the Hill, rather than kowtowing to impatient losers.
“Winner stays on” - for pool, not darts - is the norm in the majority of the pubs in Scotland.
So, technically one person could play all night for the cost of one game. However, in practice, either he or she will eventually get beaten, or, after a few games, he or she would “retire undefeated” - stepping aside and letting other people play. Someone who was clearly much better than the other patrons, was winning every game, and didn’t step aside after a handful of games, would be considered a bit of a douchebag.
The system is flexible. Commonly you’ll see a group of five or six friends playing amongst themselves, without the WSO rule. In pubs, as opposed to pool halls, it’s acceptable for a person outside their circle to approach them, politely ask for a game, put a coin down on the table, and wait his or her turn to play the winner.
