Yes. Its not about the calcutta. If the player has to leave early they should not be banned. Play as if there is no calcutta. I do feel obligated to at least get the sweaters money back but thats just my guilt trip kicking in.
Player Purchased in a Player Auction Rights to Concede a Game / Match
- Thread starter ChrisinNC
- Start date
Yes. Its not about the calcutta. If the player has to leave early they should not be banned. Play as if there is no calcutta. I do feel obligated to at least get the sweaters money back but thats just my guilt trip kicking in.
I recall one time being bought in the calcutta in a handicapped tournament in NYC, one that included players at levels like Frankie H, A players, as well as just decent "B & C" players like me.
When I went over to him in order to buy back half of myself for half of what he paid, he refused unless I paid 3/4 of what he paid. The tournament rules were very clear and I was pretty sure that he was joking...but, low and behold he stood his ground until the TD intervened. I don't recall whether I finished in the money that night.
I still wonder whether he knew the rules, or not, was joking, or was just another jerk.
When I went over to him in order to buy back half of myself for half of what he paid, he refused unless I paid 3/4 of what he paid. The tournament rules were very clear and I was pretty sure that he was joking...but, low and behold he stood his ground until the TD intervened. I don't recall whether I finished in the money that night.
I still wonder whether he knew the rules, or not, was joking, or was just another jerk.
Calcutta's are a gamble, never know how players are going to play. If possible, and I feel I got a good chance, I just buy myself. Rather gamble on myself than others.
As far as conceding a shot, or even a few shots, that has nothing to do with the calcutta in my mind. I will concede a 9 ball, but very rarely will I concede more than that. I don't care if someone I buy in a calcutta does it, I'm not the one playing after all.
Calcuttas are generally illegal to begin with, and it isn't a employment contract.
As far as conceding a shot, or even a few shots, that has nothing to do with the calcutta in my mind. I will concede a 9 ball, but very rarely will I concede more than that. I don't care if someone I buy in a calcutta does it, I'm not the one playing after all.
Calcuttas are generally illegal to begin with, and it isn't a employment contract.
I know of more than one player that has done that, one was very popular player at one time on the national scene.
If he came up to play you can I buy half your action?
It makes me think of Cornbread if he had lived longer and got into computers...
...I can just imagine him typing..."That guy wouldn't bet vcash...shiiiit."
pt...misses Cornpone
So, adding more money to the payouts for the players is a bad thing, huh, thanks for letting us all know.
Dumbest thing I’ve read on here. Why not beat the first guy then dump to the guy he bought?
I'm the Flooring guy that played at your place every Monday tournament for a year or so !!! I'll come see ya in February when work slows down!!! Glad to hear pool room still running strong Chris ! See ya soon bud !!!!!
A: Calcuttas don't add more money to the payouts. They are a separate prize fund, generally open to even non-players.
B: It's a HANDICAPPED tourney, which means that if the handicap system is done correctly, people are basically betting on a random event.
I'm not 'letting you know' anything. I'm just pointing out how stupid a calcutta is for a handicapped tourney.
It isn't a slave block. That was made illegal a long time ago.
Taking a chance....
I think any time some one buys another player they are taking a chance. I am pretty sure I have watched a player "loose" because he wanted a player he bought to win so he would have a Calcutta pay off.
I am aware of another player "loosing" because a guy that was a suspected drug dealer would buy him in a tournament. He had strong principals and winning at pool was not the most important thing to him compared to enriching a drug dealer.
I did have the pleasure of watching a guy buy the "pick of the litter" for several hundred dollars only to find out his pick was not entered in the tournament. The place roared with laughter when he made his pick.
So I am left with the opinion that buying a player is always a risk and I think the "Calcutta" can effect an out come of a pool tournament in a negative way.
I also think a player should have the option of not participating in the "Calcutta" and if a player chooses that option no one else should be allowed to "buy" him.
I think any time some one buys another player they are taking a chance. I am pretty sure I have watched a player "loose" because he wanted a player he bought to win so he would have a Calcutta pay off.
I am aware of another player "loosing" because a guy that was a suspected drug dealer would buy him in a tournament. He had strong principals and winning at pool was not the most important thing to him compared to enriching a drug dealer.
I did have the pleasure of watching a guy buy the "pick of the litter" for several hundred dollars only to find out his pick was not entered in the tournament. The place roared with laughter when he made his pick.
So I am left with the opinion that buying a player is always a risk and I think the "Calcutta" can effect an out come of a pool tournament in a negative way.
I also think a player should have the option of not participating in the "Calcutta" and if a player chooses that option no one else should be allowed to "buy" him.
Yes, it adds more money. Since most good players buy half of themselves, and others buy others because they are cheap, the bottom line is it adds more money to the OVERALL tournament payout structure, but you knew that already.
yes, "betting on a random event", you mean like all forms of gambling. Have you been to a casino, race track or a sports book in the last 50 years or so ?
Don't be obtuse. The tournament payout is the tournament payout. The calcutta is a different payout, regardless of how many people buy themselves.
Casinos have games of chance based on random outcomes. I have never gambled in one and never will.
Sports betting (including dog/horse racing) is not random. The outcome can go either way, but there are past performances on which odds are figured.
A calcutta for a properly handicapped pool tourney...might as well play bingo.
Calcutta has nothing to do with tournament pay-out and vice versa. Not sure what you meant by your statement. You mean there's just more total $$ to be had regardless of which fund pool it comes from? I can see that side to it.
Yes, its a tournament, and the guy running it is holding the CASH for the tourney and the Calcutta. So, call it what anyone wants, it's more money in the "prize pool".
Most of the time,yes. I've been to tournaments where the calcutta was run by someone other than tournament host/director. Quite a few actually.
The tournament director is holding all the CASH. he is going to pay everyone at the end of the tourney. Thus, all the money is essence part of the tourney. If someone hands me $500 do I care if it came from the Calcutta or the tourney prize fund, nope.
IT provides a LOT more money to the tournament, that is a fact which cannot be disputed.
Last edited:
Is the statement below true or false:
It is possible for all of the calcutta money to go to people who didn't enter the tourney.
Possible.....bit highly unlikely in a local handicapped tournament.
Pro tournaments ? yea a lot of people that are not entrants will buy players in the Calcutta.
Open tournament ? Yea i can see a few min entrants coming out and buying a player or 2
Local handicapped tournament ? Who the hell goes around to these small handicapped tournaments buying local yokels ? I just dont see a bunch of guys coming in off the street .... Just to buy up some players. Maybe a guy or 2 will buy somebody who is a lock to win but I just don't see a bunch of guys coming in and buying up every player in the tournament...bit of a stretch in your example dont you think ?