Almost never has anyone other than a tournament player purchased a player in the calcutta. As far as random chance, I can't agree. "A" players always are auctioned off at a higher price than "B" players, and "C" players for even less. Even with a rather generous handicap system (A,B,C players, either a 1 game in a race to 4 spot or a 2 game in a race to 4 spot) more than likely an "A" player is still going to win, very rarely a "C" player will win, but it did happen this past week.
Player Purchased in a Player Auction Rights to Concede a Game / Match
- Thread starter ChrisinNC
- Start date
Obviously true....but is it a bad thing?
Golf got it's first taste of big money from calcutta tournament in Nevada....60 or 70 years ago
..where it was legal.
Movie stars and biz tzars would fly in to buy a golfer...the tip was always generous.
Golf was producing the equivalent of $ million calcuttas in today's money...
...no wonder the game took off.
My beef with pool players is...if they don't play honorably...the big $ can't happen.
I am the one who started this post, and I appreciate all the responses I've received the past few days. Reading all your opinions has given me a new perspective.
I've made the decision to stay out of dictating to players whether they can or can't concede games or even concede a match, if that's what they decide to do, regardless of whether someone has purchased all or half of them in the calcutta.
Those players that develop a reputation of giving up in matches will likely not be purchased at a high price. It just seems ironic that they may be rewarded for that behavior, by having the opportunity to purchase themselves in future tournament auctions at a lower price than they may otherwise go for based on their skill level.
I've made the decision to stay out of dictating to players whether they can or can't concede games or even concede a match, if that's what they decide to do, regardless of whether someone has purchased all or half of them in the calcutta.
Those players that develop a reputation of giving up in matches will likely not be purchased at a high price. It just seems ironic that they may be rewarded for that behavior, by having the opportunity to purchase themselves in future tournament auctions at a lower price than they may otherwise go for based on their skill level.
That's why those players should be barred...at least for one tournament.
...it's like running a poker game that gets a reputation for cheating....
...they lose all their players.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing. I'm arguing against RJ saying that calcutta money is tourney money.
Is the statement below true or false:
Is is possible for all tournament money not to be paid to the folks who actually "cashed" in the tournament.
anything else I can help you with ?
I’m of mind that a player can play however they want, whenever they want....but it should never be forgotten that the player gives up easily. And the next time there’s a player auction you know who to steer clear of.
Feel free to bid on me in a calcutta if you want. Ill certainly wish you luck on that, and depending on price, i will probably buy half of myself. But, please dont think that buying me in the calcutta gives you some sort of right to make choices for me in a match (you wont like that conversation).
No, you do not have the right to decide if/when i can decide to concede a game, or a match.
Nor do you any right to decide what position i play on a shot, where i break from, or anything else of the sort.
As the winning bid on a player in the calcutta, you are a spectator who has placed a wager. Please dont get confused and think you are something other than that.
No, you do not have the right to decide if/when i can decide to concede a game, or a match.
Nor do you any right to decide what position i play on a shot, where i break from, or anything else of the sort.
As the winning bid on a player in the calcutta, you are a spectator who has placed a wager. Please dont get confused and think you are something other than that.
BOOM. You said it brother. End of story.
We've seen players here, usually "A" ranked players, that have gotten so ticked off because a certain bidder (who by the way is not a good player) who has a reputation to drive the price up too high on the better players, has paid a ridiculous amount to buy that player.
That player then does NOT purchase half of themselves back, and may go 2-and-out in the tournament on purpose, even though they realize they are wasting their $15 entry fee, just to teach that person a lesson who has paid a high price to purchase them, in hopes that they won't do it next time.
In this case, I stay out of it and stay nothing, as that bidder in my opinion, needs to learn their lesson the hard way, that there is a reasonable price to bid for a better player, and then there's a point where they cross the line and continue to overbid for that player - in which case they need to pay the price and learn that's not OK.
But you gotta think that a player that concedes an easy 9 or even a hanging 7-9 balls isn't really hurting his chances in any manner that is really going to influence the outcome. Presuming the shooter is b level or greater.
99%+ chance of loss vs 100% isn't really a difference. Anyone who wants to play a few game$ from there, just to prove a point can get played.
Conceding after the break or purposely not winning are different matters...
99%+ chance of loss vs 100% isn't really a difference. Anyone who wants to play a few game$ from there, just to prove a point can get played.
Conceding after the break or purposely not winning are different matters...
He was putting up 6-packs on a regular basis back then.
I believe he did this so his opponent could never get in stroke..... He spent time sitting and watching...
Its always been my opinion that Calcuttas were to enhance the spectator experience. They, then were expanded to players to have the opportunity to purchase 1/2 of themselves, this would encourage all out participation and to give an honest attempt at actually winning. (To prevent the OP's situation)
My only belief with calcuttas is that the room owner, and tournament director should refrain from participation.
JV
My only belief with calcuttas is that the room owner, and tournament director should refrain from participation.
JV
Yes, certainly a huge conflict of interest if the TD participates in the calcutta. If it does happen, anytime he/she is asked to judge a shot, there can be an obvious problem, even if the player they've purchased a stake in is not directly involved in that match.
Your inability to make a logical argument is astounding.