😂

You missed the golden words of the great Earl in between those gaps. IMO, you benefit more from his experience than the game itself

@@arcyeo8111 I think you may be onto something, here. (Especially, in light of the bad camera coverage -- and i *do not* agree with Earl about the overhead camera shots.)

He’s commentating on the video that we see. There are no ‘pearls of wisdom’ being missed.

Me too! Good call

😅

...how?? In this episode though? 😒

He's such a mental case. He sucks at pool. Stevie Wonder could beat him!

Only reason I'm watching this The Pearl great knowledge of the game

They're a little bit less consistent which actually makes it more interesting

Yeah, that was hilarious.

Absolutely! Outlaw the jump cue, bring back the safety and snooker play to pocket billiards.

I notice that thoo😀😀

and Margaret always looks like she's holding back at best... a frown... LOL.

@@THE_CHOAS_ENGINE They're both gassy from all of the Borscht and they are trying to hold back something else........lol

Chris, right when he said that she missed the next shot by half a diamond! Love Earl!

Pool is awesome 🎱

Pool is wonderful 🎱🎱

Pool is fantastic 🎱🎱🎱

Pool is amazing 🎱🎱🎱🎱

Pool is great 🎱🎱🎱🎱🎱

and player :)

@@billiardnetwork no question

Three points rule

Well she uses different versions, russian, western

Every tournament should be alternate breaks, it is ridiculous to make it winner breaks in a tournament. You pay your hard earned money to play, so you should at least get your chances at the table with the same number of breaks as the other player. With winner breaks you could lose the lag and watch a guy run 9 racks in a row and you never even get to shoot. I played a guy in a tournament at Big Dogs in Iowa one time, it was race to 7, he won the lag and run 5 racks in a row. So I am down 5-0 and I had not even shot yet, then he finally missed the 6 ball, and I was hooked, so I kicked it and got a hit, and he ran out. Now I am down 6-0, he breaks and runs out and beat me 7-0, and the only shot I got in the whole match was a kick shot. How is that fair, I lost 7-0 and only had one shot in the whole match. I basically paid my $30 to watch a guy break and run 7 tables on me.

@@stevestewart6287 The counterargument to yours is that you had a better chance of catching up when you finally got to shoot in that sixth rack because of the "winner breaks" format. People on both sides of the argument have good points about the advantages of "winner breaks" and "alternate breaks" formats. "Winner breaks" makes 'packages' possible. "Alternating breaks" makes sure that both players get, at least, a fair chance at the table. Lately, i've been contemplating if some hybrid of the two could be the best of both worlds. Something like, say, alternating _every _*_two_*_ or _*_three_* breaks. I haven't reached a definite conclusion yet.

@@marginality270 Your counterargument makes no sense, because the winner breaks format had nothing to do with me getting a shot in game 6. I only got a shot because he missed, and that had nothing to do with who had the break . My counterargument to you would be if it was alternate break, I would not have been down 5-0 without getting a shot. If it was alternate break I would have had some breaks and got some shots. So your arguments dont make a lot of sense. If you pay money to play in a tournament, you should get to play. No other sport has you pay to play and possibly lose two times and be knocked out of the tournament and never get a shot, or maybe one or two shots. I have played in a thousand pool tournaments over the last 35 years and I have decided the only fair way to play a tournament is have them be alternate break. That way when you pay your money at least you get some breaks and have some chances to shoot and win some games and matches. I lost to Danny Olsen one time 7-1 and I only got 2 shots in the whole match. I won one game and the other shot was a kick shot. He broke and run every game but one, and that was the game I won. I paid the same money he did, so how is that fair for me to have to just watch him break and run every rack. He won the coin flip then I sat and watched him run 6 racks in a row, in game 7 he finally missed a shot and I won that game. Then I broke dry and he run out, beating me 7-1 and I only got 1 shot and a break in the whole match.

@@stevestewart6287 I didn't say that 'winner breaks' _got you a shot._ I said it _gave you a better chance of catching up._ (Maybe, a clearer way for me to say it would've been: 'The counterargument to yours is that, when you finally got to shoot in that sixth rack, you had a better chance of catching up because of the 'winner breaks' format.) If a chance to break and shoot some shots is ALL you're in it for, then, yes, 'alternate break' will guarantee you at least part of that. But, most people who enter a tournament want a chance to break and shoot some shots because they want a chance to WIN. You could end up down 5-0 in a race to 7 with 'winner breaks'; you could end up down 5-0 in a race to 7 with 'alternate breaks', too. In the first case, any and every time you get to the table you have a chance of winning that depends mainly on how good _you_ are. But, whether or not you even get to the table depends on things you have no say in. In the second case, you definitely would've had some breaks and probably some shots by then; but no matter how good you are, the best you can do is win at most TWO racks in a row before your opponent is back at the table breaking again, at least making it harder for you even to catch up. And, you have no say in _that_ either. I don't think either case is good enough. So, i'm definitely not saying that what happened to you in your two situations is fair. Because, i don't think it _was._ That's why i'm trying to figure out what _would be_ fair.

@@marginality270 they already figured it out, it's called an alternate break. And I will not play in any tournaments that are not alternate breaks. It might work if only pros are in it, but for the rest of us it is only fair to have alternate breaks.

Couldnt you say whats the point of safety play if you can just curve it, or if you can just bounce off walls? Also, if your opponent can get around your safety, it's not a safety, so there is no point.

@@juseschrustfush what you said is dumb. If an opponent can get around a safety it's not a safety? NO if an opponent gets around a good safety it means they made a great maneuver to hit the ball without just jacking up and going airborne without any thought process whatsoever.

@@bobo5299 k cool, have fun yelling at clouds about how pool shouldn't involve a third dimension. And how thoughtless jumpers should respect your safety that's defs a safety because you call it a safety.

@@juseschrustfush why do you think no jumping is allowed in snooker?

@@bobo5299 no idea, not super interested in knowing. I dont play or watch snooker, we weren't talking about snooker, and pool isn't snooker.

Oh, but "Fee Fee Lava" is ok?

I like it when Earl commentates women's matches. Exactly why shouldn't he? There is no shortage of top Men's matches that he does. So why not do the top women as well?

@@JeffKernsTheArtist I think Steve is trying to say the women suck in comparison to the men. Completely different game and that Earl is above commenting on this. But I believe your right that he should because it's great for amatuers to hear what works and what doesn't.

@@breakingballswithtony6897 I did think that he was making a negative remark about the quality of women's play. Actually the top women players are not that far behind the top men. You should watch Siming Chen vs Shane Van Boening. Men still have the edge but the gap is closing. In my opinion Earl questions the play of the men more often than he does the women. People watch college football even though most college players never make the NFL. But the games are exciting and competitive. I feel the same way about women's pool.

@@JeffKernsTheArtist Well, he is not wrong in his remark, the quality of this particular match is quite low and Earl deserves better, no matter how you feel about women's pool in general.

@@Krushard "Earl deserves better"? Based on what? He's just commentating on a pool match. If sees a good shot he call it. If he sees a bad shot he calls it. In between he teaches us the finer points of the game. Any way we all have our opinions. Good luck and good shooting.

...Or, at least _sisters._

Thicker the better for me.

No, lol. This series is all about Earl commentating.That's why it's called "Earl Strickland Presents!".

No other commentator gives a play by play better than Earl.. I personally love hearing him quarterback each shot.. so much to learn from listening to what he’s saying.

@@adamfrank2141 like how good his tennis game is, or how much harder pool is on his table at home? I agree he's great to learn from, but jfc he gets on my nerves 🤣

Amateur matches lmao. Kristina could give you the 7 🤡

@@derekdeese6130 the 7 and a pool lesson hahahaha

It's fun to watch for a change but strictly speaking yes, making him commentate these easy misses is a bit disrespectful.