Winner stays on AND challenger pays (coin op, obviously). I’ve never seen it any other way (U.S.). If its busy you have to keep track of where in line your quarters are. Putting a penny on top or something helps.
Not to hijack, but…
At a WSO table, does the challenger break? The custom in every other town I’ve lived in was the “owner” of the table broke. In the town where I now live, the money breaks. The reasoning being that it is possible for the challenger to never get a shot.
You stick with the rules we figured out in kindergarten. WTO is inherently unfair as it means that one person gets to play forever if they are good. The more unfair something is, the more likely people are going to become upset. The only reason WTO works is because it is custom. If letting everyone play (with a maximum allotted time) was the custom, people would do that, too. But then the not-so good pool players wouldn’t be upset.
As for people who won’t follow the rules? If you have an establishment, it is your right to kick out anyone, and that’s exactly what should be done. Just like I’m sure you’d get kicked out if you made a big fuss about the current WTO rules. You don’t leave, and you are trespassing, and you spend the night in jail.
And, no, the fact that I have no experience in bars means absolutely nothing in this. The question is about which system I would prefer. I would prefer one where one guy doesn’t get to monopolize the table forever. There’s always someone who’s the best in any group. Even if someone manages to beat him by chance, he’ll be right back on as soon as he makes the rounds again.
The only thing that is relevant is whether or not there is usually one guy who can monopolize the table. But I personally would not even like the idea of the possibility. It’s like playing Mario Bros 1 and not every being able to play because the first player never dies.
Save that sort of crap for a tournament that everyone agrees to be in, not just some free tables at a bar. It sure as hell wouldn’t work anywhere else I’ve been that has a table.
I often see chalkboard lists of players. When you enter with five friends, write all six names up, strongest player first. When it’s his turn, and if he wins, you’ll have five games in a row among friends. Of seven games, the 1st and 7th will be one of you versus a stranger. Is that so bad? Maybe you’ll make a new friend.
If there are two of you, wait until your names are at the top of the list and ask if you can play each other, giving the table back to its champion after one game. Since you lose two slots with one game, this compromise is good for everyone, and likely to be accepted.
Yes, approaches other than King-of-the-Table are possible, but this simple one avoids complications.
If it’s not good enough for you, find a bar with more tables.
King-of-the-table is taking turns, you just get one player-slot at a turn instead of two.
Any pubs I go to have at least three tables, sometimes 8. If they’re all full then the “winner stays” custom is the rule. If you don’t love it, get another table or show up earlier next week.
Some of the best times I’ve had at pubs were playing with strangers. After all, it IS a social place. Sure, sometimes there’s a bunch of hot-shots on the tables but they don’t usually stick around when people unspokenly agree not to engage them.
Every bar I’ve ever been to has been WSO, challenger pays, generally with a money-on-the-table or chalkboard sign-up for the queue.
Every pool hall I’ve ever been to (defined as “multiple tables, alcohol is secondary”) has been as Ascenray describes.
I imagine it’s very easy, depending on your preference for establishment, to believe the nigh-universal typical ruleset for that establishment type is universal.
(for reference, I PREFER WSO when there are a small number of tables compared to players, as it cycles players faster.)
If I’m playing pool, I prefer to play someone near my own skill level (i.e. lousy), so WSO is not for me. I don’t have a problem with it, though; I’d be perfectly happy just not playing.