Player Purchased in a Player Auction Rights to Concede a Game / Match

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
In a weekly handicapped 9-ball tournament, in addition to an entry fee purse, a player auction is held just before the tournament where players are auctioned off to anyone willing to bid on them. As is standard in player auctions, if someone other than the player being auctioned buys that player, the player has the option to purchase back half of themselves, which they usually, but not always do.

The auction purse payouts are generally a number of multiples more lucrative than the entry fee purse payouts.

My question is, should a player that has been purchased by someone else in the auction, either 50% or 100%, have the right to concede a game during the match on 9-ball shots, regardless of the difficulty of the shot or the runout? Particularly if it's the match deciding shot, but really this pertains to any game during the match. I would like to hear some opinions on this.

My feeling is, unless the player has purchased 100% of himself in the auction, it is not cool to ever concede any shots during the match, since a 3rd party has a financial stake in the match outcome. A number of players in our tournaments don't really seem to understand this rather obvious concept, but it seems to me as the only policy to have, and it must be followed for all shots in all situations.

A tournament director can make this policy clear at the start of each week's auction, but if a player fails to follow this rule, what can you really do about it, other than suspending them from future tournaments for a stipulated time period?
 

captainjko

Kirk
Silver Member
In a weekly handicapped 9-ball tournament, in addition to an entry fee purse, a player auction is held just before the tournament where players are auctioned off to anyone willing to bid on them. As is standard in player auctions, if someone other than the player being auctioned buys that player, the player has the option to purchase back half of themselves, which they usually, but not always do.

The auction purse payouts are generally a number of multiples more lucrative than the entry fee purse payouts.

My question is, should a player that has been purchased by someone else in the auction, either 50% or 100%, have the right to concede a game during the match on 9-ball shots, regardless of the difficulty of the shot or the runout? Particularly if it's the match deciding shot, but really this pertains to any game during the match. I would like to hear some opinions on this.

My feeling is, unless the player has purchased 100% of himself in the auction, it is not cool to ever concede any shots during the match, since a 3rd party has a financial stake in the match outcome. A number of players in our tournaments don't really seem to understand this rather obvious concept, but it seems to me as the only policy to have, and it must be followed for all shots in all situations.

A tournament director can make this policy clear at the start of each week's auction, but if a player fails to follow this rule, what can you really do about it, other than suspending them from future tournaments for a stipulated time period?

The played can do what they want. as they are the ones playing in the tournament... The buyer took a risk bidding on that player.. I have seen some good players quit a tournament early and go home because they get tired of others buying them in the auction. They hope that the next time they play there, no one will bid on them based on their last "forfeiting ....... I play to win the tourney.... And not worry so much about the auction part of it... Also.. If someone wants me to NOT concede any shots and play harder than ever, they better put some cash in my pocket and a patch on my shirt... lol
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
The played can do what they want. as they are the ones playing in the tournament... The buyer took a risk bidding on that player.. I have seen some good players quit a tournament early and go home because they get tired of others buying them in the auction. They hope that the next time they play there, no one will bid on them based on their last "forfeiting ....... I play to win the tourney.... And not worry so much about the auction part of it...

If I ran a tournament with an auction...and a player who was bought by someone else
didn’t play his match.....I would bar him.
 

ChrisinNC

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If I ran a tournament with an auction...and a player who was bought by someone else
didn’t play his match.....I would bar him.
I'm not referring to not playing the match. I'm just referring to situations where a player is conceding 9-ball shots or easy run-outs to their opponent. as opposed to having them shoot the rack out.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The played can do what they want. as they are the ones playing in the tournament... The buyer took a risk bidding on that player.. I have seen some good players quit a tournament early and go home because they get tired of others buying them in the auction. They hope that the next time they play there, no one will bid on them based on their last "forfeiting ....... I play to win the tourney.... And not worry so much about the auction part of it... Also.. If someone wants me to NOT concede any shots and play harder than ever, they better put some cash in my pocket and a patch on my shirt... lol
Yep. You don't have a personal services contract with the guy. You've just gotta deal with whatever they do, good or bad. I've seen guys dog it on purpose just because they don't like whoever bought 'em. Like horse racing, all you can do is pick one and watch him run. Buyer beware.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I'm not referring to not playing the match. I'm just referring to situations where a player is conceding 9-ball shots or easy run-outs to their opponent. as opposed to having them shoot the rack out.

I was responding to the other poster’s scenario where he goes home.

Personally, I don’t concede anything in a calcutta tournament...I feel I only have that
right if I bought all of myself.
I like Zuglan’s policy of not conceding any thing.
I would like streamed matches to adopt that policy also.....
...it must get confusing for a complete newby spectator when a player doesn’t have to
shoot the last ball...or the balls get raked.
Not everybody is “with it”.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I was responding to the other poster’s scenario where he goes home.

Personally, I don’t concede anything in a calcutta tournament...I feel I only have that
right if I bought all of myself.
I like Zuglan’s policy of not conceding any thing.
I would like streamed matches to adopt that policy also.....
...it must get confusing for a complete newby spectator when a player doesn’t have to
shoot the last ball...or the balls get raked.
Not everybody is “with it”.
I like the "no concession" idea.Hell, shoot 'em all. Anybody can miss.
 

Jon Manning

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I completely understand the "no concession" point y'all are making, but the player can do as they wish. It's gambling, that's part of it. Sports teams don't cover spreads all the time. Although it can be very frustrating.
We just had this discussion in league, I never concede, period. But like I said, I support the players right to do as they wish (inside the rules) without repercussions. When you buy someone in a Calcutta, they are not your employee.
 
Last edited:

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I completely understand the "no concession" point y'all are making, but the player can do as they wish. It's gambling, that's part of it. Sports teams don't cover spreads all the time. Although it can be very frustrating.

The players can do anything they wish?....that goes for the spectators also in that kind
of world.
 

maha

from way back when
Silver Member
i look at it as the same as if i am gambling with someone and two players make a bet on the side between themselves. i dont have to change anything i want to do because of their bet.

and in an auction if they want the player to protect their interest give him a free piece of it.
 

Straightpool_99

I see dead balls
Silver Member
Don't bet on any pool player!

I was recently told by someone I know, and trust, who is extremely well informed, about MASSIVE dumping and collusion on the Eurotour and even the WPC. If I wasn't disillusioned before, I am now. I'm NEVER betting on any pool game I am not playing in.

As far as calcuttas go: You guys are treating it like it's some sort of labour contract! I get it, it's not ethical not to give your best, I certainly wouldn't concede frames if someone was betting on me, but that's not the point, is it? Are you expecting the pool player to "work for you", to answer to you as an employee, because you bet on them? I'm sorry, but you are going to be very disappointed (and possibly poor).

I wanted to become a psychologist once upon a time. I learned just enough to realize that most people are pretty boring, predictable, selfish and they lie A LOT. You want to be depressed? Read 1000 personality questionnaires! First you realize that everyone is lying. Then you realize that they are too stupid to realize that the questionaires are explicitly made to detect those lies. :rolleyes: Then the third strike: You realize that you are probably just as bad as them, even worse because you have a superiority complex as well as those other traits.

When someone is dependable and act accordding to principles, people call them boring, yet those are the exceptional ones. Most people act according to their animal instincts, then rationalize it afterwards. But those stories are oh so beautiful and logical. They bring tears to ones eyes:rolleyes:.

If you must bet on a pool player or indeed any "athlete" in a individual sport with few monetary rewards, always ask yourself:
"What would a greedy, short sighted idiot with no other marketable skills or prospects do in this situation?" The situation being one where it is close to impossible to detect cheating, no proper way to make any kind of sanction that sticks and highly lucrative to cheat. If they are in a slightly different situation where the outcome is more or less indifferent to the player, then expect them to act indifferently.

I'd place the bet in one of those directions, however, you need them to be unaware that you placed the bet as well, that's where it gets tricky.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:

Jon Manning

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The players can do anything they wish?....that goes for the spectators also in that kind
of world.

I don't follow, did edit and state "inside of the rules". But, that should go without saying.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be frowned upon, but how can you punish the player when no rules were broken.
 

pt109

WO double hemlock
Silver Member
I don't follow, did edit and state "inside of the rules". But, that should go without saying.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be frowned upon, but how can you punish the player when no rules were broken.

We’ve had many threads about what’s wrong with pool....
....players that are not honorable is one of those problems.
 

JohnnyOzone

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If the player you bought is playing against the player that the player you bought bought, you can consider yourself royally screwed

Makes sense to me, anyway.....
 

Jon Manning

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
We’ve had many threads about what’s wrong with pool....
....players that are not honorable is one of those problems.

Oh! I got you! No doubt finding honorable players in this sport, is... well, good luck. Not saying they don't exist (for sure they do). Hell for that matter finding honorable people in this life is tricky
 

Buckzapper

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I once saw the Canadian Champion dump in the finals of a big tournament for $3,000 in bets vrs $1,500 he would have won for first place. People bet on him, but his backer bet on his opponent.

Or, we can remember the Buddy Hall match in Vegas against Mike LeBron. That was another good move by the pro players. The casinos really don't like to be cheated.
 

bradsh98

Bradshaw Billiard Service
Silver Member
When buying a player in an auction, you have to understand that they are human. Everyone has a personality, with his own set of values. Just because you feel that you could make money from that person's talent, does not mean that he now works for you. You are simply a bystander, with a potential to gain from this person's efforts. You should have ZERO influence over how that person conducts himself. If it's his typical practice, out of respect to his fellow players, to concede easy outs, why should he deviate from his own set of values, just to appease those who may have purchased him in an auction?
 

Low500

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Yep. You don't have a personal services contract with the guy. You've just gotta deal with whatever they do, good or bad. I've seen guys dog it on purpose just because they don't like whoever bought 'em. Like horse racing, all you can do is pick one and watch him run. Buyer beware.
Best comment of all.
:thumbup:
 

kor b

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A lot of pool players spent their teens and beyond in the pool hall, avoided education and work. The good money in the big league is concentrated to a hand full of players and then the people that want to gain monetarily on the talents of the house favorite or the long shot wants everyone to be on the up and up? Lol...
 
Top