Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Viva los semi-panaderos!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                           

Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

Communist Pool Hierarchy

How to make everyone good at pool...
  (+28, -3)(+28, -3)(+28, -3)
(+28, -3)
  [vote for,
against]

Usually, when people go to shoot some pool they elect to play the tried and trusted "winner stays on" rule, it has come to attention that this favours the better players allowing them to amass more practice over their weaker opponents - re-enforcing the status quo. What I suggest is the "loser stays on" rule. Not only does this let the weaker players get much needed practice, but also conversely the winner gets less practice, closing the skill gap (over time).

Playing to lose would in itself be a pointless exercise. Weak players would get booted off only by players needing the practice even more, and they can at least leave the table with their head held high knowing they'd won a game....

I think devoting all the tables in a pool hall to this wouldn't be a good idea, but a couple of tables with this rule applied would make everyone a little more competative, and there skills more evenly matched (which makes for a better game I reckon...).

solomungus, Apr 04 2001

[link]






       Maybe the rules could be subtly changed such that you can't leave until you win...
jutta, Apr 04 2001
  

       Oops, I banked the 8 ball into the corner pocket again. I've suffered through watching Bad Billiards. Sorry folks, but the best thing to do if you want to improve is practice, but not in primetime hours on primetime tables while primed.
thumbwax, Apr 04 2001
  

       Yeah, I know, but I'm only suggesting you have this rule on a couple of tables, If someone was diliberately playing ultra crap simply to stay on you could always 'Oops...' - pot black thus forcing him/her to win and hense ensuring he's (or she's) off the table...
solomungus, Apr 04 2001
  

       ok, it's half-unbaked?
solomungus, Apr 04 2001
  

       The only people who'd want to play would be the ones who suck at pool.
drbubonic, Apr 04 2001
  

       There was an episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Francis had to lose to the Captain. The two tried to outdo each other sinking the 8-ball with some pretty decent trick shots.
nick_n_uit, Apr 05 2001
  

       Perhaps you could refine this idea by making the loser pay for the next game aswell as staying on? This would mean that each new challenger in the queue gets their first game for free, and if they win, they walk away. The loser could walk away after any game, if they wished (provided they pay for the next one), in which case the next two people in the queue get to play each other for free.
Lemon, Apr 05 2001
  

       I like that change lemon... I think the croissant is starting to rise....
solomungus, Apr 05 2001
  

       ...or the next two people split the cost. If it's a free game, then losers are going to be *strongly* encouraged to vacate the table by the serious players.
bookworm, Apr 05 2001
  

       I don't follow that, bookworm. If there's a loser on the table for a long time, they'll pay for *all* the games, and serious players could wait in the queue for a quick free game. If the serious players wanted to play each other, they could use another table where this system is not in force.
Lemon, Apr 05 2001
  

       Real players wouldn't want to play against someone like that seriously. A real player would want a real opponent to make the game fun, not a bit of masturbation <Playing with the balls...>
StarChaser, Apr 07 2001
  

       Yep. This would ensure the table stays as a beginner's table. Surely that was Solomungus's original intention?
Lemon, Apr 09 2001
  

       I bet "hand solo" has spent many a quarter due to the stick-handling capabilities of ?his? friends/associates. Alas, there is a loser in every crowd. Another way to combat this problem is by having two tables and splitting the cost of games. Then, people can switch tables/opponents as they like and everyone pays the same amount. However, there is nothing quite as satisfying as saying, "Rack'em" and watching the loser place his/her quarters in the slots.
zaphod12, Nov 14 2001
  

       Might be interesting to apply this idea to some other games as well.
phoenix, Nov 14 2001
  

       That's why I pay by the hour (real pool hall), not by the game (pub or bar)
DemolitionMan, Mar 03 2003
  

       The flaw here is that people will not get better, they will get worse. Which is the problem with communism. Which is maybe what you [solomungus] are satirically pointing out.
pluterday, Mar 03 2003
  

       I'm great at pool, I can play all evening and never lose one of those balls down those little holes.
Zircon, Mar 04 2003
  

       [Zircon], I think you are on to something. Pocketless pool. Same rules as 8-ball, but without pockets the game never ends. (Hummmm, don’t the English already do this?)
pluterday, Mar 04 2003
  

       I'm not sure what I thought this would be, but whatever it was was wildly different than the reality of this probably-baked idea.
disbomber, Apr 16 2005
  

       Back when I was a teenager, my friends and I actually used this method when playing fighting video games (Street Fighter 2 Turbo, I believe it was at the time). Communism was the fad back then, and we actually called it "the Communist method."
ywong, Apr 18 2005
  

       I was thinking of pool as in swimming. This makes a lot more sense but does not contain the concept of Stalin in a speedo.
hidden truths, Apr 18 2005
  

       Just like regular Communism, this idea has a flaw - and that flaw is the ingenius nature of humanity. A really good player would be able to knock down all of his own balls, but *accidentally* allow his white to go in off the black, thus forfeiting the game, and remaining on the table to play the next person....
zen_tom, Apr 18 2005
  

       //the concept of Stalin in a speedo//
A bun for that! But I guess I'll have to give it to long-gone solomungus...
ldischler, Apr 18 2005
  

       Brilliant anno, [ED2].
disbomber, Apr 18 2005
  

       I thought communist pool would be the green felt being replaced by a red felt with a hammer and sickle in the center.
MrDaliLlama, Apr 19 2005
  

       [zen_tom]   

       Yeah, it turns out that that's what happens. Luckily, it's very, very obvious when the good player is doing this, and in my experience (when we did this as Communist Soul Calibur tournaments), he is rapidly identified and ejected for his antisocial tendencies.
ywong, Apr 20 2005
  

       I like this idea, particularly when the tables are free (as they are most weeknights at our local bar), so the question of who pays doesn't enter into it.
figmeant, May 27 2007
  

       This game would contribute to the entropy of the pool hall were everybody is equal and nobody is any better or worse than anybody else. While, perhaps the average person at the communist pool table would be better than the average person at the capitalist pool table, there would still be no great stars or losers among them. Have a commie bun! [+Oy+]   

       Note: Perhaps the combination of the two systems would lead to some sort of necessary pool hall hypercycle. One thing is for sure, and that is that it would take a constant supply of fresh new talent to hone the overall talent at the "losers" table.
quantum_flux, May 29 2007
  

       Winner pays for the next game, which he is of course forbidden to play. Enjoy a full 2-1/2 buns. [+]
nuclear hobo, Jun 01 2007
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle