Tournament Players Poll Ii

TOURNAMENT PLAYER WISHES

  • I prefer tournament entry fees less than $25.

    Votes: 11 15.9%

  • I prefer tournament entry fees less than $50.

    Votes: 23 33.3%

  • I prefer tournament entry fees less than $100.

    Votes: 19 27.5%

  • I PREFER pool tournaments with higher entry fees paying 25% of the field and NO CALCUTTA.

    Votes: 9 13.0%

  • I PREFER pool tournaments with higher entry fees paying 25% of the field WITH A CALCUTTA.

    Votes: 31 44.9%

  • I would prefer a Calcutta if it pays 12.5% of the field.

    Votes: 10 14.5%

  • I would prefer a Calcutta if it pays 25% of the field.

    Votes: 19 27.5%

  • I think the payouts percentages should be advertised in the tournament flyer.

    Votes: 28 40.6%

  • I PREFER tournament & Calcutta entry fee percentages per place be advertised.

    Votes: 17 24.6%

  • All fees including how much to play one game (If coin operated) should be on the flyer.

    Votes: 36 52.2%
  • Total voters
    69
  • Poll closed .
JoeyA

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
Primarily, this is a poll for the people who actually play in pool tournaments, not for backers, promoters, directors, sweaters or Calcutta buyers.

I'm open to input from everyone but I would really like to see only the people who regularly try to play in pool tournaments.


No offense intended. My target audience is simply the people who play in the tournaments.

THANKS!

JoeyA
 
Last edited:
And A Player That Buys HALF Of Himself

I prefer a tournament with $100 or less Entry fee, that pays the top 3 or 4 players.
Doug
 
ironman said:
I think we are old school>
Click to expand...

Lewis,
This poll was primarily aimed at the people who play in pool tournaments. Smorg likes to buy players in the Calcutta and he likes the player's to buy half of themselves to reduce the chances of them dumping but Smorg doesn't play in the tournaments.

The purpose is the find out from the people who actually play in the tournaments what they would prefer. I should have made myself clearer. My apology.


Lewis, you direct and promote pool tournaments. I don't know how many pool tournament that you play in yourself.

More than likely you enjoy seeing the BIG pay days for a few so that the flash is brighter.

I understand both of your perspectives. Apologies if you regularly play in pool tournaments.
JoeyA
 
JoeyA said:
Lewis,
This poll was primarily aimed at the people who play in pool tournaments. Smorg likes to buy players in the Calcutta and he likes the player's to buy half of themselves to reduce the chances of them dumping but Smorg doesn't play in the tournaments.

The purpose is the find out from the people who actually play in the tournaments what they would prefer. I should have made myself clearer. My apology.


Lewis, you direct and promote pool tournaments. I don't know how many pool tournament that you play in yourself.

More than likely you enjoy seeing the BIG pay days for a few so that the flash is brighter.

I understand both of your perspectives. Apologies if you regularly play in pool tournaments.
JoeyA
Click to expand...

I still play and still fairly competitive, though not what I was, but I understand that isn't the point.

Decisions haveto be made and I try my very hardest to make those decisions on what is best for theTour as a whole, andthat is not easy.

The flash as you put it is not nearly as important to me as the number entries. That in my mind is the determining factor or end result.

Our participation has risen steadily over the past 5 years and that is a good feeling which indicates we are doing something right and I don't feel a need to repair the payout formula. I've had one compaint in 5 plus years wanting to payout more places and feel that that in itself is pretty amazing.

We have some good players who are regulars and I am grateful to them and loyal as I can be. Theyare though, no more important than anyone else who ponies up their entry.

I look forward to seeing you again someday.
 
ironman said:
I still play and still fairly competitive, though not what I was, but I understand that isn't the point.

Decisions haveto be made and I try my very hardest to make those decisions on what is best for theTour as a whole, andthat is not easy.

The flash as you put it is not nearly as important to me as the number entries. That in my mind is the determining factor or end result.

Our participation has risen steadily over the past 5 years and that is a good feeling which indicates we are doing something right and I don't feel a need to repair the payout formula. I've had one compaint in 5 plus years wanting to payout more places and feel that that in itself is pretty amazing.

We have some good players who are regulars and I am grateful to them and loyal as I can be. Theyare though, no more important than anyone else who ponies up their entry.

I look forward to seeing you again someday.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we'll cross paths at one of your well run tournaments in the future.

In the meantime, let's see what the rest of the AZ tournament players have to say.

Thanks for your input.

JoeyA
 
I think it should be like poker tournies. You should have a fee 20+2, 30+3, etc.. the first number goes to the players, and I dont mind paying a small green fee for the house as long as the tournament is ran correctly. And the added money should go straight into the pot for the players. This is not hard.
 
I Think I'll Just Stop Bidding In Calcuttas & Attending Tournaments Altogether

JoeyA said:
Lewis,
This poll was primarily aimed at the people who play in pool tournaments. Smorg likes to buy players in the Calcutta and he likes the player's to buy half of themselves to reduce the chances of them dumping but Smorg doesn't play in the tournaments.
I understand both of your perspectives. Apologies if you regularly play in pool tournaments.
JoeyA
Click to expand...


I played in tournaments at:
Corner Pocket in Kenner
Buffalo's in Chalmette (I played Buffalo & Mark Cavalier)
Fast Frankie's in Slidell
Two Sisters (or is it 3 sisters) in Slidell
The barbox 9-ball tournament at Breaker's in Mobile (I drew John Schmidt)
Grady's 1 Pocket Tournament in Gulfport (I drew GulfportDoc & Larry Charbonnet)
The Inter-Galactic tournament at P-9-Ball (I drew Tommy Kennedy & Claude Marrier)

At Breaker's in Mobile, I opened the bidding on almost EVERY player (over 100 players) and went deep on a number of them. I got part of Jamie Farrel and paid $500 for Buddy in the 2nd calcutta. I paid $300 for James Walden and he didn't want a part of himself. (I broke even overall)

I see that you went back and Edited your original post to exclude some 'players'..... :)

Doug
( in the future, please post your list of who you don't want voting in your Polls at the very beginning and i can spend more time reading other threads.... imo ) :)

Edited to add: And the RSB Tournaments at Pickles in N.O., Planet 9-Ball and Racks in Titusville,FL.

And, the tournament off Stumpf Blvd on the Westbank, the Sunday tournament at Triple Play and the midnight tournament at Kenny Vincent's Southside.

And, the tournaments at Strokers, Capones and DJ's.
 
Last edited:
Smorgass Bored said:
I played in tournaments at:
Corner Pocket in Kenner
Buffalo's in Chalmette (I played Buffalo & Mark Cavalier)
Fast Frankie's in Slidell
Two Sisters (or is it 3 sisters) in Slidell
The barbox 9-ball tournament at Breaker's in Mobile (I drew John Schmidt)
Grady's 1 Pocket Tournament in Gulfport (I drew GulfportDoc & Larry Charbonnet)
The Inter-Galactic tournament at P-9-Ball (I drew Tommy Kennedy & Claude Marrier)

At Breaker's in Mobile, I opened the bidding on almost EVERY player (over 100 players) and went deep on a number of them. I got part of Jamie Farrel and paid $500 for Buddy in the 2nd calcutta. I paid $300 for James Walden and he didn't want a part of himself. (I broke even overall)

I see that you went back and Edited your original post to exclude some 'players'..... :)

Doug
( in the future, please post your list of who you don't want voting in your Polls at the very beginning and i can spend more time reading other threads.... imo ) :)

Edited to add: And the RSB Tournaments at Pickles in N.O., Planet 9-Ball and Racks in Titusville,FL.

And, the tournament off Stumpf Blvd on the Westbank, the Sunday tournament at Triple Play and the midnight tournament at Kenny Vincent's Southside.

And, the tournaments at Strokers, Capones and DJ's.
Click to expand...
----------------

Don't go to pouting as you will make me feel sad.

I appreciate everyone that plays in pool tournaments voting.JoeyA
 
It really depends on my expectations. If it's a weekly tournament at my local room, I would prefer a lower entry fee, short races, single elimination. Just let me stay sharp, possibly win some cash and go home.

If I travel to get there, I want a high entry fee, calcutta, big pay-outs. I don't rent hotel rooms for $50 buy-ins and $400 prizes. My expectations are a little higher. Long races, double-elimination, the works.
 
When I started playing tourneys, the norm for me was little weekly 8 ball bar tourneys that were $5 entry fee, single game, double elimination and no add on.

Then, I found weekly and monthly tourneys at pool rooms with $10-25 entry fees, 5-7 game races, double elimination with an occasional auction with $50-100 add on.

Next was the start of the regional tours such as the Southwest Tour which finally became the Mcdermott National Tour. It had a $50-$60 entry fee, races to 9-7, double elimination with an auction with $1000-2000 add on.

Finally, I played in a few large tourneys like Red's in Houstion with a entry fee of $250-350, race to 11-9, double elimination and an auction with $10,000-$25,000 add on.

Each time I "graduated" to the next level, I was slightly intimidated by the increased entry fee, larger add on and the increase in the level of play. In time, after playing enough at each level, the nerves came under control and I was in my comfort zone.

It's really pretty simple. The higher the entry fee, add on, an auction will bring the better players from a longer distance away.

Stones
 
When I play tournaments, I can usually beat the locals who play, but lose to the road players. They fall out of the truck running out, and I have a job and a somewhat normal life, so I can't compete with the pro-level players that attend.

I don't feel like I'm alone in that group of players. It's difficult for us to pay to drive to a tournament, usually have to rent a room because we make it till Sunday, and eat for 2 days, then find that the payouts are top heavy, and we don't even get our entry fees back (if we get paid at all). And I definitely think that if is a 2 day tournament, that the TD should play it down till everyone who makes it back on Sunday is in the money. For those financial reasons, quite a few players I know don't attend tournaments if they don't post the payouts on the flyers.

Bar table tournaments are worst. I usually last long enough to put $40 worth of quarters in the tables, but I usually don't play well enough to finish above 5-6 or 7-8, and don't even make the quarters back in prize money. Let alone my entry fees. I love the game and I really enjoy tournaments. And I have played under these circumstances for 20 years, so I'll continue to play, but it would be nice to have the optimum advantage for a player my speed to at least break even, and have a fun weekend.

For those reasons, I like to play tournaments that pay a little deeper in the field, both tournament and calcutta. And for tournament directors, I think there is alot more participation if other mid-level players see that there will be payouts a little deeper. Some say that this deters the top notch players from attending, but I still see the same, top names at the tournaments that pay all different ways.

This is a good thread, Joey.
 
JoeyA said:
[...] My target audience is simply the people who play in the tournaments.

THANKS!

JoeyA
Click to expand...
If it's a weekly evening thing, $15 - $20 entry is fun.

If it's a fifteen hour weekend day&night thing, I prefer $30 - $50 entry.

And if I have a hotel charge or have to go back for a second day, I 'd like $75 - $100 entry.

And Joey, I love ya man... But you're off base on these deep-paying calcuttas.

Suppose we had a tournament with 16 players, one of whom was a top horse like we heard recently with Charlie Bryant showing up at that tournament.

Suppose the calcutta bids on the 16 players were as follows, with everybody participating (and suppose Smorg bought the Hillbilly)

500, 100, 100, 100, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

So that's $1220 in the pot. If it's paid out to 25% of the field at 40/30/20/10,

that's $488, $366, $244, $122

So where is Smorg sitting here? He loses no matter what happens!

If tournaments start doing deep calcutta like this, then unless they are confident there are a number of top horses in the race, the bidders will start getting shy about bidding on the top players. They will become less exciting and less fun.

If you pay fewer places in the calcutta, then fewer *players* will finish i the payspots. But as *bidders* we are all in a sense equal. Any small group of C players or railbirds can pool their resources and bid up the big horse if they want to.
 
mikepage said:
If you pay fewer places in the calcutta, then fewer *players* will finish i the payspots. But as *bidders* we are all in a sense equal. Any small group of C players or railbirds can pool their resources and bid up the big horse if they want to.
Click to expand...

Hey Mike,

This is a good idea about several lower players pooling their resources to buy a quality player in the calcutta.

I'd like to add one thing. There are mostly bar table tournaments around here, and for a smaller weekly tournament I don't mind paying quarters.

I know that room owners need to make money, but on larger monthly or regional events, please charge a green fee. It's a pain having to walk around with a roll of quarters ion your pocket. And someone always runs out in the middle, so it really disrupts the flow of the match. It's much easier on the players to pay a green fee.

Mike
 
Although I do prefer tournaments where the entry fee is less that $50, I don't restrict myself to that.

Take for example the westerns coming up at the end of April where I'm forking out $150 plus table fees of $1.50 a rack. To me this seems reasonable because of the caliber of players I'm up against and the prize pool.

On the other hand forking out $25 for a local weekly tournament is out of the question.

It's all reletive.

That being said, the tournament flyer should clearly spell out all the expenses I'm going to have to pay out and at least post the payout percentages and estimate the prize pool based on a full field.
 
Mike Templeton said:
When I play tournaments, I can usually beat the locals who play, but lose to the road players. They fall out of the truck running out, and I have a job and a somewhat normal life, so I can't compete with the pro-level players that attend.

I don't feel like I'm alone in that group of players. It's difficult for us to pay to drive to a tournament, usually have to rent a room because we make it till Sunday, and eat for 2 days, then find that the payouts are top heavy, and we don't even get our entry fees back (if we get paid at all). And I definitely think that if is a 2 day tournament, that the TD should play it down till everyone who makes it back on Sunday is in the money. For those financial reasons, quite a few players I know don't attend tournaments if they don't post the payouts on the flyers.

Bar table tournaments are worst. I usually last long enough to put $40 worth of quarters in the tables, but I usually don't play well enough to finish above 5-6 or 7-8, and don't even make the quarters back in prize money. Let alone my entry fees. I love the game and I really enjoy tournaments. And I have played under these circumstances for 20 years, so I'll continue to play, but it would be nice to have the optimum advantage for a player my speed to at least break even, and have a fun weekend.

For those reasons, I like to play tournaments that pay a little deeper in the field, both tournament and calcutta. And for tournament directors, I think there is alot more participation if other mid-level players see that there will be payouts a little deeper. Some say that this deters the top notch players from attending, but I still see the same, top names at the tournaments that pay all different ways.

This is a good thread, Joey.
Click to expand...

You are SO RIGHT ON, Mike. I think you are in the majority with your thinking. I'm hoping that Lewis and other pool directors/promoters will see your post, THE POLL and the comments of MOST OF THE TOURNAMENT PLAYERS.

Your thoughts so mirror my thoughts and while you and I don't mind sticking our neck out, there is the other silent majority who just don't want to take the heat for their opinion but my conversations with the majority of the tournament players, mirror what you said.

The number of participants in pool tournaments would grow if the Calcutta payouts were deepened according to the poll, at least so far. Sure, there would be a lot of LOUD wheeping and wailing from the minority (those who come to monopolize the Calcutta by buying all or most of the top players).

I see the Calcutta with the short payouts as a system to remove monies from the player's pocket and put it into the pockets of the ones who monopolize the Calcutta. I don't mind the gamblers who don't play in the tournament to buy players in the Calcutta (or not) but I do think that the deeper payouts in the Calcutta would be more fair to the rest of the players who are the backbone of the tournament.

REP to you for stating the truth from your perspective and many others.
JoeyA
 
I usually place pretty good in regional type events, but only paying the top 3 or 4 players in a tourney, is nuts. Within a few tourneys, you won't have any of the weaker players showing up. A lot of players show up at tourneys because, 1. they know what it will cost them to play, 2. they may think they have a chance to get into money, at least enough to cover part of their expenses, 3. they get a chance to play better players, without risking their whole bankroll.
I used to run tournaments and I don't remember how many times someone told me they were just happy to get some of their money back. Just placing in the money at all was a thrill for them. It's like the first time you run a rack out.
Now, calcutta money is a little different. It should always pay back fewer spots. Maybe with 64 players, paying 16 on the tourney, and top 6 or sometimes 8 in the calcutta.
 
mikepage said:
If it's a weekly evening thing, $15 - $20 entry is fun.

If it's a fifteen hour weekend day&night thing, I prefer $30 - $50 entry.

And if I have a hotel charge or have to go back for a second day, I 'd like $75 - $100 entry.

And Joey, I love ya man... But you're off base on these deep-paying calcuttas.

Suppose we had a tournament with 16 players, one of whom was a top horse like we heard recently with Charlie Bryant showing up at that tournament.

Suppose the calcutta bids on the 16 players were as follows, with everybody participating (and suppose Smorg bought the Hillbilly)

500, 100, 100, 100, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20

So that's $1220 in the pot. If it's paid out to 25% of the field at 40/30/20/10,

that's $488, $366, $244, $122

So where is Smorg sitting here? He loses no matter what happens!

If tournaments start doing deep calcutta like this, then unless they are confident there are a number of top horses in the race, the bidders will start getting shy about bidding on the top players. They will become less exciting and less fun.

If you pay fewer places in the calcutta, then fewer *players* will finish i the payspots. But as *bidders* we are all in a sense equal. Any small group of C players or railbirds can pool their resources and bid up the big horse if they want to.
Click to expand...


While I put you on a pedestal up there with Apollo, http://www.stimex-trade.ru/eng/Portfolio/monuments/apollon.php
you are mistaken about who should benefit from the pool tournaments and why.

The "bidders" or "monopolizers" are not interested in making the tournament exciting and fun for anyone but themselves. You might be an exception and there may be others, but you are in the minority.

I really don't care about the "bidders" / "monopolizers of the Caluctta. They do very little for the tournaments. In fact, according to the poll, the shallower payouts are not desirable by most of the participants.

The majority of the player wishes are what shoudl be catered to, not the minority. You are just off base on this.

Often times, like I have said in other threads, it just depends on whose ox is getting gored. Your motivation or perspective for shallower payouts in the Calcutta is different than mine, Mike's and the majority of the tournament players. You also have a slightly different financial perspective than most of the tournament players.........

Smorg and any of the Calcutta buyers can still come to the party and partake from the labors of the players. He just has to learn not to bid so high when the Calcutta pays 25% of the field. If he can't be happy with a smaller portion of a bigger pie, then he maybe he shouldn't participate.

Look, I don't have any problem with non-players coming to the tournaments and bidding in the Calcuttas. I like them all, except for the fact that the monopolizers of the Calcutta, vacuum out money from the players that should be going to them. And puleeeeze don't give me the argument about the players don't have to buy themselves in the Calcutta. The pool tournaments aren't about the Calcutta Monopolizers who capitalize on an opportunity to make money off of the players. It's about the players who belly up to the table and take their chances and do the deed.

It is obvious to anyone who looks at the poll and who talks to the TOURNAMENT players that MOST OF THE PLAYERS would prefer deeper paying Calcuttas.

And just for the record, with that recent Hillbilly story, how much money do you think Hillbilly made off of the Calcutta?

JoeyA (and the majority of tournament players believe that Calcuttas should pay 25% of the field)

It's about time for the tournament promoters to open their eyes and support what the majority of the tournament players want.
 
JoeyA said:
While I put you on a pedestal up there with Apollo, http://www.stimex-trade.ru/eng/Portfolio/monuments/apollon.php
you are mistaken about who should benefit from the pool tournaments and why.

The "bidders" or "monopolizers" are not interested in making the tournament exciting and fun for anyone but themselves. You might be an exception and there may be others, but you are in the minority.

I really don't care about the "bidders" / "monopolizers of the Caluctta. They do very little for the tournaments. In fact, according to the poll, the shallower payouts are not desirable by most of the participants.

The majority of the player wishes are what shoudl be catered to, not the minority. You are just off base on this.

Often times, like I have said in other threads, it just depends on whose ox is getting gored. Your motivation or perspective for shallower payouts in the Calcutta is different than mine, Mike's and the majority of the tournament players. You also have a slightly different financial perspective than most of the tournament players.........

Smorg and any of the Calcutta buyers can still come to the party and partake from the labors of the players. He just has to learn not to bid so high when the Calcutta pays 25% of the field. If he can't be happy with a smaller portion of a bigger pie, then he maybe he shouldn't participate.

Look, I don't have any problem with non-players coming to the tournaments and bidding in the Calcuttas. I like them all, except for the fact that the monopolizers of the Calcutta, vacuum out money from the players that should be going to them. And puleeeeze don't give me the argument about the players don't have to buy themselves in the Calcutta. The pool tournaments aren't about the Calcutta Monopolizers who capitalize on an opportunity to make money off of the players. It's about the players who belly up to the table and take their chances and do the deed.

It is obvious to anyone who looks at the poll and who talks to the TOURNAMENT players that MOST OF THE PLAYERS would prefer deeper paying Calcuttas.

And just for the record, with that recent Hillbilly story, how much money do you think Hillbilly made off of the Calcutta?

JoeyA (and the majority of tournament players believe that Calcuttas should pay 25% of the field)

It's about time for the tournament promoters to open their eyes and support what the majority of the tournament players want.
Click to expand...

I'm trying with difficulty to understand why you call buyers, "monopolizers". I just don't see it.

Calcuttas probably could pay a little deeper if the players were involved in the Calcuttas. Few are and few have been in the past.

For the record, Hillbilly made zero on the calcutta because he chose not to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top