PDA

View Full Version : John Schmidt BANNED from Viking Tour


Pages : [1] 2

Southpaw
02-05-2006, 06:00 PM
I was at the Viking Tournament in Atlanta this weekend where the tourney director, Mike Janis, made an announcement. He said that John Schmidt was banned from the Viking Tour because he went for $400 in a calcutta and instead of playing his match....he went to play golf. Janis said that Schmidt has to pay the guy that bought him in the calcutta the $400 back if he wants to be allowed to play on this tour again. It seems that evey time I turn around this guy (Schmidt) is having to defend his credibility. Just seems kind of funny to me.

Southpaw

thebestpoolroom
02-05-2006, 06:07 PM
I was at the Viking Tournament in Atlanta this weekend where the tourney director, Mike Janis, made an announcement. He said that John Schmidt was banned from the Viking Tour because he went for $400 in a calcutta and instead of playing his match....he went to play golf. Janis said that Schmidt has to pay the guy that bought him in the calcutta the $400 back if he wants to be allowed to play on this tour again. It seems that evey time I turn around this guy (Schmidt) is having to defend his credibility. Just seems kind of funny to me.

Southpaw

WHEN SOMEONE IS SUPPORTING YOU AND THE GAME, YOU GO OUT AND PLAY GOLF TO MISS YOUR SCHEDULED MATCH, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

MIKE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT IN TRYING TO MAKE JOHN S. REFUNDING THE FAN'S MONEY. WE SUPPORT IT 100%.

JOHN

billfishhead
02-05-2006, 06:08 PM
has gambling been legalized in Georgia?

banning someone for not committing an illegal act appears odd to me

Southpaw
02-05-2006, 06:13 PM
has gambling been legalized in Georgia?

banning someone for not committing an illegal act appears odd to me

banning is a little different from arresting....you can be banned from any establishment or organization if the owner sees fit. Big difference CLOWN!

Southpaw

kyle
02-05-2006, 06:15 PM
Makes it harder to run a calcutta next time, does the viking tour charge admission for fans? Its not fair to someone who travels or pays to watch a player and have them not show, the player should be fined calcutta or not.

gulfportdoc
02-05-2006, 06:16 PM
I was at the Viking Tournament in Atlanta this weekend where the tourney director, Mike Janis, made an announcement. He said that John Schmidt was banned from the Viking Tour because he went for $400 in a calcutta and instead of playing his match....he went to play golf. Janis said that Schmidt has to pay the guy that bought him in the calcutta the $400 back if he wants to be allowed to play on this tour again. It seems that evey time I turn around this guy (Schmidt) is having to defend his credibility. Just seems kind of funny to me.

Southpaw
I don't understand what the calcutta has to do with the tournament. Why are they linked together? That was an idiotic thing that Schmidt did, and I feel sorry for the guy(s) who wasted the $400. But if Schmidt didn't show up for his match, it's a simple forfeit-- presumably not a banning offense. The calcutta activity should have no influence on the tour officiating.

Doc

Southpaw
02-05-2006, 06:30 PM
as the director, janis probably feels that for his tour to be successful for players and spectators he has to enforce such rules and penalties. makes perfect sense to me.

Southpaw

Barbara
02-05-2006, 06:33 PM
Calcuttas ln -s /black/eye/on/the/pool/scene/reputation

Isn't this sh*t illegal in most states?! I have to find that 4 page legal paper that the late John McChesney had a full lawyers department do on this matter. It is illegal in most states!

Barbara

SUPERSTAR
02-05-2006, 06:37 PM
Personally, i have never been a fan of the calcutta.

I don't think it reflects on a tournament except to show that there are people who want to make a buck off of other peoples talents.

I have stated before that i have seen instances where people that have made purchases in calcuttas have blatantly interfered with tournament play so that their "horse" might have a better chance, and as a result, feel that players have no obligation to people that might purchase them in any way shape or form.

As far as i'm concerned, a player shows up to play, and if he pays his entry fee, and decides to forfeit, that is his decision to make, as it is his money that is being spent.
If the players weren't there, people woudn't have anything to bid on in the first place.

Unless there are strict calcutta rules that stipulate the if you are going to play on the tour, you will be kicked off the tour if you are purchased for not playing a match, there should be no action that can be taken in my mind.

Maybe a "you know that was a mean thing to do", but that might be it.

If there ARE rules pertaining to this, then obviously, rules were broken, and penaties should be given out, but they should have been stated before the tournament started so that all players involved would know.

THAT WAY, he could have just played a bad match, lost and left it at that.

but i highly doubt that there are calcutta laws in any tour, and if there WERE rules governing players being obligated to whatever person might buy them, that is a tour that i wouldn't play on.

NO ONE OWNS ME OR MY ABILITY, and unless the player in question was put INTO the tournament BY the person who then proceeded to purchase him, i do not see any conflict in ethics at all.
While it might be an unfortunate turn of events for the fellow that purchased him, that is the risk one takes.

John is free to do what he wants.

Southpaw
02-05-2006, 06:38 PM
GROW UP people!!!! Its a calcutta....not a rooster fight! Im sure the players who win money in these tournies report them as taxable income too. the calcutta isnt the issue here.

Southpaw

enzo
02-05-2006, 06:40 PM
It seems that evey time I turn around this guy (Schmidt) is having to defend his credibility. Just seems kind of funny to me.

Southpaw

This is a cunningly worded statement, and I hope people realize that this has put John in a situation where he looks bad if he responds or not. I think it would be prudent for all to hear John's side of the story and then make your judgement about the situation.

I must add, players like John receive so much more bad press because they play good and people want to play like him which results in a need to bring him down one way or another (consciously or subconsciously). Take a player like Efren and everyone thinks he's a god and so they don't feel as threatened by his playing ability because he's at a supposedly unattainable level. He seems to get much less of this type of attention in spite of the fact that he is no perfect angel.

CaptiveBred
02-05-2006, 07:05 PM
Calcuta is a gamble? Right?

I feel bad for the poor fellow but JS owes him nothing and should not be obligated to perform for him. Its not like he reniged on a business deal or anything.

I understand MJs point since he is promoting the entire "show"... but I think he is wrong to ban him and should just chalk it up to - sh.it happens... If MJ wants to link the two (tour and Calc) then maybe he should set aside some funds to cover such things instead of putting it on the shoulders of the players...

Just my opinion

macguy
02-05-2006, 07:30 PM
I was at the Viking Tournament in Atlanta this weekend where the tourney director, Mike Janis, made an announcement. He said that John Schmidt was banned from the Viking Tour because he went for $400 in a calcutta and instead of playing his match....he went to play golf. Janis said that Schmidt has to pay the guy that bought him in the calcutta the $400 back if he wants to be allowed to play on this tour again. It seems that evey time I turn around this guy (Schmidt) is having to defend his credibility. Just seems kind of funny to me.

Southpaw

I am trying to see this completely objectively and from where I see it if anyone owes the money it is Mike Janis, he should pay the $400. What are the players a bunch of prostitutes? They show up and pay their entry and play pool, if for some reason they decide not to play it should be no ones business, they just forfit. Let the guy who ran the calcutta pay the money back. The players should just request their names not be part of the calcutta if this is the case and leave it at that. By the way, does anyone take a cut from the calcutta or is a 100% pay back?

In a vague sense with the advent of the IPT Mr. Schmitt may be able to consider himself a professional pool player and have an action against Mr. Janis if he tries to prevent him from earning a living at his profession. I am sure there is precedent to support such a case. Better watch it Mr. Janis, you can find real trouble messing with a persons ability to earn a living, not to mention the questionable legalities of the calcutta it's self.

highrun55
02-05-2006, 07:36 PM
Why can`t they just take the $400.00 out of the calcutta fund and give the buyer his money back ?

CaptiveBred
02-05-2006, 07:38 PM
Better watch it Mr. Janis, you can find real trouble messing with a persons ability to earn a living, not to mention the questionable legalities of the calcutta it's self.

The gaming commission could also shut him down. Pool is considered a game of skill, in most states, so it is legal to have tournaments and side pots (for players only to buy themselves). However, it is illegal (in most states) to wager on the outcome of pool games that you do not play in...

If they caught wind of a player being banned from the tour because he failed to participate in illegal gambling, MJ could be in some trouble.

dogginda9
02-05-2006, 07:44 PM
The owners of these private institutions can do as they see fit. FWIW.... I think Mike did the wrong thing in this case. JMO..If I ever play in a Viking tournament, I will inform Mike to keep me out of the calcutta in case I decide to drop out for whatever reason. Once I have paid all of my entry fees, it should be my choice whether I participate or not.

macguy
02-05-2006, 07:55 PM
The gaming commission could also shut him down. Pool is considered a game of skill, in most states, so it is legal to have tournaments and side pots (for players only to buy themselves). However, it is illegal (in most states) to wager on the outcome of pool games that you do not play in...

If they caught wind of a player being banned from the tour because he failed to participate in illegal gambling, MJ could be in some trouble.
I played, (almost), once in a tournament that got shut down by the cops. They came in and said if the tournament started they would arrest the promoter. As far as they were concerned it was gambling with the players competing for a pot they had put up, (Gambling). IF the money was a prize with no entry fee it would be OK. (Not gambling). By the strictest sense most local pool tournaments are not legal. They even said something about the pool room owner not being a licensed sports promoter. They had all kinds of reasons why the tournament couldn't be played and most sounded pretty solid. We all just left. That is why you always see when a place like Burger King is having a contest it says, "No purchase necessary". If they require you to buy something to play it is a lottery, gambling.

Timberly
02-05-2006, 08:16 PM
if Schmidt didn't show up for his match, it's a simple forfeit-- presumably not a banning offense. The calcutta activity should have no influence on the tour officiating.

Doc
The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

arbyfreely
02-05-2006, 08:19 PM
The money should stay in the calcutta. There's no way that the money should be refunded. If they refunded the money, a player who bought half of himself may find himself in a tough match early in a trny. Then he could simply leave and get his dough back. It would be a bad thing to start doing.

My advise is, DON"T BUY A PLAYER WHO MAY NOT SHOW UP!!! It's pretty simple, really. The player only has reponsibility to himself and his sponsors. If some clown buys a man he doesn't know, then that is his risk to take.

Janis is a clown. He oughta consider banning himself.

john schmidt
02-05-2006, 08:28 PM
i did not know i would be banned if they would have told me that when i asked them if i could show up late after i golfed i would have showed,and to the guy who bought me im sorry but how much of that would i have got if i won thats right nothing so what makes you and mike janis think you own me because you put up 400.what if you bought me for 4000 would my lovedones be kidnapped or me be killed if i dont show up. furthermore a real easy way to get me to show up to matches would be if the tours paid decent money. well anyway take it easy everybody john schmidt

pooltchr
02-05-2006, 08:29 PM
Mike,
You may want to reconsider. As a tournament director, I think you have a greater obligation to the players than to the railbirds. If this had been a side bet, and a player forfieted, would you have made the same decision? The calcutta shouldn't be part of the tour...it should be a completely separate issue.
If I go to the US Open, and put some money on a player, and he decides to go over to Q-Masters to play a money match and misses his match in the tourney, do you think someone is going to do anything about my loss?
A Calcutta is nothing more than a wager, and if you place the bet on someone who may or may not be dependable, that's your choice, and you need to be prepared to live with the results, whatever they may be.
You should support your players, not the fans. Who ultimately generates income for your tour?
Just another way of looking at things.
Steve

macguy
02-05-2006, 08:32 PM
The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

I don't understand the incredible obligation Mr. Janis thinks the players owe him? Does he provide free entry for some players or cover their expenses? They don't owe him anything other then their entry fee. If a player feel ill or has an urgent call from home and has to leave, they need to ask his permission, give me a break. After this, any player who permits their name to be in the calcutta is nuts.

Rodney
02-05-2006, 08:36 PM
Why can`t they just take the $400.00 out of the calcutta fund and give the buyer his money back ?


Seems like the only logical thing to do. While it doesn't make John look good, he did nothing wrong except donate his money to the tournament.

Unless there is more to it.

john schmidt
02-05-2006, 08:40 PM
i dont know exactly what mike does but i think the reason he protects the calcutta people is because the reason they have calcuttas is they keep 10 percent for running it so when big name players show up who go for huge amounts thats good for the td and mike wants the bidders to feel like they can bid huge on us and he can tell us what to do just another way that us players are taken advantage of,

macguy
02-05-2006, 08:46 PM
i dont know exactly what mike does but i think the reason he protects the calcutta people is because the reason they have calcuttas is they keep 10 percent for running it so when big name players show up who go for huge amounts thats good for the td and mike wants the bidders to feel like they can bid huge on us and he can tell us what to do just another way that us players are taken advantage of,

Wow, so in effect he is running a gambling enterprise and taking a cut. That's not legal in any state.

mocbc
02-05-2006, 09:03 PM
A player must enter himself, for a fee, in the calcutta. If he fails to show he forfeits his entry fee. The bidder should not be held responsible.

ScottW
02-05-2006, 09:06 PM
I've only met Mike recently (in Atlanta, and before I even joined up on this forum! heh), and he seemed like a good guy to me the few times I've spoken with him face-to-face since then. That's all I've got to go on.

I'd wait 'til he weighs in with his side of the tale before making judgments either way. As he's a regular on this site, I'm sure it'll be soon, now that his tournament is wrapped up (or nearly so) and he has time to post.

billiardspro
02-05-2006, 09:06 PM
well for one john didnt have to buy any of him self in the calcutta so he shouldnt have owed anything to this guy that bought him...
2. if john did buy some of himself he would have owed him 200 not 400...
3.i feel this all falls on mike janis if john didnt show for the tourny the calcutta bid should have been canceled and the guy should have gotten his 400 back anyways....you cant buy a guy in the calcutta if he isnt there...

MikeJanis
02-05-2006, 09:22 PM
This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

2nd the story posted by Tims and followed up by John was not the entire story but really makes ZERO difference.

Finally, the event in question was the Southern Classic Open which was a huge success that drew many top players and spectators and that is what the fine is about.

Simply put, the event was a professional calibur event with $20,000 added. The spectators paid a fee at the gate and expected to see their favorite players competing. The Viking Tours fine is based on the players level of professionalisn, ability and sportsmanship that was predetermined by the players peers which is directly proportioned to the players entry fee of the player auction. Additionally, the Viking Tour enforces the fine but does not profit by fining players. We give the fine back to the individual or corporation that posted the entry fee for the player to make sure that there is absolutely no thought of the tour banning players for profit and no sense of improprieties on our part.

On the Viking Tour all banned players will remain banned until their fines are paid or otherwise stated.

The Player Auction at the Viking Tour events is not mandatory and all players have a choice to not enter the seperate prize fund. However, if they do the player must adhere to our rules.

Respectfully,

dogginda9
02-05-2006, 09:27 PM
A player must enter himself, for a fee, in the calcutta. If he fails to show he forfeits his entry fee. The bidder should not be held responsible.
Say what? Me thinks that you are smoking something.

Timberly
02-05-2006, 09:28 PM
2nd the story posted by Tims and followed up by John was not the entire story but really makes ZERO difference.
Someone asked what John's side of the story was and I told it the way John told me. If I had heard it from someone other than you or John, I wouldn't have posted. If I said something incorrect then I apologize. If the story is different than that, you've got your chance to share your side of the story if you choose to do so. I have no ill will towards you or John. I just simply stated the story that was relayed to me by one of the parties involved.

sixpack
02-05-2006, 09:29 PM
The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

That's a good point. He was technically still alive in the tourney. If the TD prevented him from competing when he still had a chance, then I think the TD owes the money.

HOWEVER, he is perfectly within his rights to ban him from the tour. I've seen people bring up employment law several times when discussing player/tour relationships. IMO it's invalid in this case. Since the players pay him to play, you could as easily argue that he works for them or that he provides a service for which they collectively pay for (i.e. accounting and distribution of funds). Most likely they would all be considered independent contractors-all equal.

Since he works for them as much as they work for him, and slavery is illegal, he can choose who he will or won't work for just as much as they can choose which tournaments to attend...and he can base his decision on whatever factors he wants, including whether or not a player is in good standing with other parties.

Cheers,
RC

vagabond
02-05-2006, 09:41 PM
so what makes you and mike janis think you own me because you put up 400.what if you john schmidt

In another thread recently I mentioned that when one wins the tournament he is NOT morally or legally obligated to the guy who bought the player in the calcutta and is NOT at all obligated to pay any TIP to the buyer in the calcutta.John, stay strong and do what u think is right.:cool:

vagabond
02-05-2006, 09:47 PM
This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

Respectfully,

I am unable to comprehend the definition of Player Auction.Can u please explain & educate me?

!Smorgass Bored
02-05-2006, 10:13 PM
vagabond axed:
I am unable to comprehend the definition of Player Auction.Can u please explain & educate me?

Another question,equally important is, what was John's score on the golf course ?

BRKNRUN
02-05-2006, 10:33 PM
This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions. A Player AUCTION is a seperate entry fee based on the players ability as determined by his or her peers which is distributed through a parallel prize fund at the event.

Respectfully,


Do you know Leo Getts...You sure know how to "play around in the grey areas"

I have a couple questions that hopefully someone can answer, cause Arizona is now getting some decent fields for open events. We can not have calcuttas here.

1) If the abouve describes a AUCTION, then what is the definition of CALCUTTA and how are they different?

2) Who pays the separate entry fee determined by the peers? Is it the peer that determined the price?

jay helfert
02-05-2006, 10:38 PM
has gambling been legalized in Georgia?

banning someone for not committing an illegal act appears odd to me

Pretty weak to defend the guy for not showing up for his match. I know that as an occasional backer of pool players, if they missed a match we had a problem.

Jimmy M.
02-05-2006, 10:40 PM
Calcuttas ln -s /black/eye/on/the/pool/scene/reputation

Isn't this sh*t illegal in most states?! I have to find that 4 page legal paper that the late John McChesney had a full lawyers department do on this matter. It is illegal in most states!

Barbara

"Late" John McChesney??? I hadn't heard that. :confused:

P.S. Your use of unix commands as well as C-style comparison operators (as in '==') makes me think that at least one person might have found the humor in my title! ;) :D

cueman
02-05-2006, 10:42 PM
The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.
It was not only mentioned at this Viking event. But at the week long 3 tournament event at the pool room, it was also mentioned at the players meeting that if we did not show up for our match we would would have to pay back any Auction money before we could play again. He does allow you to keep your name from being bid on if you like, but then you go into the field. Not sure how Mike would deal with that if you did not show. But I am sure John went in one of the blind bids anyway. I do think you should be able to keep your name totally out of the auction if you are going to face a penalty. I once saw a guy refuse to play the finals of another tour event because he had bought the other guy in the tournament, and did not buy half of himself. It upset those who had bought him.

jay helfert
02-05-2006, 10:42 PM
This is a cunningly worded statement, and I hope people realize that this has put John in a situation where he looks bad if he responds or not. I think it would be prudent for all to hear John's side of the story and then make your judgement about the situation.

I must add, players like John receive so much more bad press because they play good and people want to play like him which results in a need to bring him down one way or another (consciously or subconsciously). Take a player like Efren and everyone thinks he's a god and so they don't feel as threatened by his playing ability because he's at a supposedly unattainable level. He seems to get much less of this type of attention in spite of the fact that he is no perfect angel.

Way off base here. Efren gets respect for his game and the fact that he is an honest man, who always gives 100%.

!Smorgass Bored
02-05-2006, 10:43 PM
Jimmy M.]"Late" John McChesney??? I hadn't heard that. :confused:


I believe it's been about a year that John passed away.(or possibly 2004)

jungledude
02-05-2006, 10:45 PM
:( As someone who likes and admires John Schmidt it saddens me to have to say he is wrong, but he is. I ran many big tournaments at my pool hall in New Orleans (Racketeers) and we had some calcuttas over $30,000. I too, would have suspended any player who didn't show for his match and Mr. Janis definetly did the right thing for pool. I can really understand John Schmidt's disgust with pitiful payouts and hopefully the IPT will put an end to this, if not John probably should pursue a golf career because pool has not been to good to it's superstars, of which John Schmidt definetly meets that criteria. :( :rolleyes: :(

Jimmy M.
02-05-2006, 10:49 PM
I believe it's been about a year that John passed away.(or possibly 2004)

I always liked John a lot. Back when he was running the McDermott Tour he seemed to always treat all of the players with equal respect (not just the "name" players). I don't know how I missed this news but I'm definitely sorry to hear it.

I'mdoingit
02-05-2006, 10:53 PM
I am not sure what happen but speaking of CALCUTTAS Its bad for the game of Pool. I have seen players dump games and split money / I have seen pool rooms stop players in the middle of a torunment and change their rating ... because they are shooting to good. It just gives pool another black eye..... A tournment alone without a CalCutta will work much better than one with.... in the long run..

jay helfert
02-05-2006, 10:58 PM
I am trying to see this completely objectively and from where I see it if anyone owes the money it is Mike Janis, he should pay the $400. What are the players a bunch of prostitutes? They show up and pay their entry and play pool, if for some reason they decide not to play it should be no ones business, they just forfit. Let the guy who ran the calcutta pay the money back. The players should just request their names not be part of the calcutta if this is the case and leave it at that. By the way, does anyone take a cut from the calcutta or is a 100% pay back?

In a vague sense with the advent of the IPT Mr. Schmitt may be able to consider himself a professional pool player and have an action against Mr. Janis if he tries to prevent him from earning a living at his profession. I am sure there is precedent to support such a case. Better watch it Mr. Janis, you can find real trouble messing with a persons ability to earn a living, not to mention the questionable legalities of the calcutta it's self.

Let me tell you something my friend. If John Schmidt won the tournament, he would expect a piece from the guy who bought him in the Calcutta. That is, if he wasn't already in for half. These "Player Auctions" have been around in pool forever. They are part of the game, just as money games in the backroom are. And the players are willing participants. Have you ever been to the U.S. Open, the biggest tournament in the US? If you have, you know of what I speak.
Whether Calcuttas or Auctions are legal is not the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is for a "professional player" not to show up for his match. How do you think they deal with this on the PGA Tour and the ATP tennis tour? Major fines for a no show, unless it's medical or serious family emergency, and even then they must communicate with the tournament director beforehand. I salute Mike Janis for the stand he has taken. To forfeit a match for no reason other than a golf date is way wrong in a pro tournament. People paid money to see the Pros play. I suspect on the IPT that might be cause for expulsion from the tour.
I like John Schmidt and think he is a great player. How I would handle this situation I'm not sure. Yes it has happened in tournaments I've run and things have gotten ugly sometimes. But I will not second guess Mike Janis judgement in making this call. He has to do what he believes is best for the integrity of his tour.

cueman
02-05-2006, 11:07 PM
well for one john didnt have to buy any of him self in the calcutta so he shouldnt have owed anything to this guy that bought him...
2. if john did buy some of himself he would have owed him 200 not 400...
3.i feel this all falls on mike janis if john didnt show for the tourny the calcutta bid should have been canceled and the guy should have gotten his 400 back anyways....you cant buy a guy in the calcutta if he isnt there...
Here is why I don't think that would work or be fair either. Say a top player goes for $1000 and buys half himself. If loses his first round match he might decide getting a sure $500 back now would be good and not show up for his next match. After all he might have to win 8 to 10 matches in a row to hit Auction money. Under your suggestions the Director would give back the bidder $1000 and the player would then go to the bidder to get back his half. I suggest letting the players have their name held out of the Auction and not penalize those who are bought in the field, no matter how much money the field brings. Viking puts those who don't want to be bid on in the field. You could have huge amounts bid on the field with John or Shannon or Cliff in the field, but I think if someone opts out and you then put them in the field that they should be held blameless, especially if they are going to bring back players that have not cashed as they did this weekend. My son had to make the 3 hour round trip to go back and lose his first match on Sunday. At all other Viking events we did not have to go back on Sunday unless we were in the money.

Mike, please shorten the races to where we can all be in the cash if we have to come back. That makes your event too expensive for many amateurs. We have to get a hotel or drive a long ways and cancel Sunday plans all the while not knowing if we are going to cash. I noticed we quit fairly early Saturday. I understand John (the pool room owner) needs to make table time money and wants the tournament to end a little earlier, but race to 7 and 5 instead of 9 and 7 would have done the trick.
Please consider it.
Chris
www.cuesmith.com
www.internationalcuemakers.com

Jude Rosenstock
02-05-2006, 11:18 PM
Aside from the specifics of John Schmidt's situation, a player walking away from a tournament where there is a seperate prize fund that involves other persons brings up very serious issues.

In New York City, calcuttas have all but been banned from tournaments and part of the reason for this has to do with situations like the one John Schmidt unintentionally created. You see, players have deliberately walked away from tournaments as a way of exerting political power when they failed to purchase themselves. Either they don't like the buyer, fail to successfully negotiate with the buyer for a cut or wish to lower their auction-value in future events.

Regardless of their reasons, when players deliberately walk away from events, it threatens the integrity of the entire event. Buyers suddenly become vulnerable and the event takes on an aura of vulnerability which, in-turn proceed to yield smaller purses which end up hurting the other players. Once it's established that there is to be a calcutta (or side-pot), maintaining its integrity becomes one of the Tournamnet Director's greatest responsibilities. No player, no matter how respected, is more important than that responsibility.

For the sake of argument, lets suggest that it was another player. We'll call this hypothetical player "Billy Bob". Billy Bob goes for $500 in the calcutta and proceeds to ask the buyer for half of the purse yet refuses to donate 50% to the purchase. Billy Bob says, "If you don't give me half, I won't show." The buyer refuses this ridiculous offer and finds himself holding the ticket to an absentee horse. On top of that, if this negotiation happens after the draw, the player can add to his position by saying, "Hey, I've got nobody in my bracket until the money."

The bottom-line is, the moment other people are involved, the player has a responsibility that goes beyond his own volition. Oftentimes, even if he didn't actually purchase a portion of himself, he can expect a gapper from the buyer if he ends up winning the event. I'm willing to assume John Schmidt honestly did not intend to harm anyone when he didn't show for his match but regardless of his reasons for not being there, his actions resulted in such.

Regarding the legality issue, all I have to say about that is that it is a necessary evil of most pool tournaments. Arguing that John Schmidt might have walked away from the event because of the moral or legal issues is hogwash. Most players show BECAUSE there's a calcutta or side-pot. It's what makes these events worthwhile for most of them. I know the Joss Tour simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for them. Bringing up the legality of it all would be like arguing why the sky has to be blue. That's the way it is and that's the way it's gonna be whether you like it or not and talking about it will change NOTHING.

Southpaw
02-05-2006, 11:45 PM
Let me tell you something my friend. If John Schmidt won the tournament, he would expect a piece from the guy who bought him in the Calcutta. That is, if he wasn't already in for half. These "Player Auctions" have been around in pool forever. They are part of the game, just as money games in the backroom are. And the players are willing participants. Have you ever been to the U.S. Open, the biggest tournament in the US? If you have, you know of what I speak.
Whether Calcuttas or Auctions are legal is not the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is for a "professional player" not to show up for his match. How do you think they deal with this on the PGA Tour and the ATP tennis tour? Major fines for a no show, unless it's medical or serious family emergency, and even then they must communicate with the tournament director beforehand. I salute Mike Janis for the stand he has taken. To forfeit a match for no reason other than a golf date is way wrong in a pro tournament. People paid money to see the Pros play. I suspect on the IPT that might be cause for expulsion from the tour.
I like John Schmidt and think he is a great player. How I would handle this situation I'm not sure. Yes it has happened in tournaments I've run and things have gotten ugly sometimes. But I will not second guess Mike Janis judgement in making this call. He has to do what he believes is best for the integrity of his tour.

Could not have been put any better than this. Everyone wants to cry the "calcutta is gambling......" Im sure John's little golf escapade was only for fun.....yeah right. You cant cry about the calcutta or player auction being gambling when thats how most pool players have to make their money...in the backrooms gambling. The bottom line is that John wants to be called a "professional", but wants to be able to pull a stunt like this and everyone just turn their heads. You cant have it both ways my friend. Im really starting to wonder what is the truth in the whole Mobile incident too.

Southpaw

sharandrew
02-06-2006, 12:22 AM
Calcutta is gambling a risk no mater what….It is a way to create more revenue for the players and spectators. A player is not own by an association or a bidder in a Calcutta. The Calcutta operators likely owes the money and a refund to the bidder is in order. If there is rules for the tour that are CLEAR then there is a case to revoke participation in the tour. Is there any rules to this???

lamar25
02-06-2006, 12:25 AM
Hey Everyone,
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!

What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???

Lamar

Jude Rosenstock
02-06-2006, 12:28 AM
Calcutta is gambling a risk no mater what….It is a way to create more revenue for the players and spectators. A player is not own by an association or a bidder in a Calcutta. The Calcutta operators likely owes the money and a refund to the bidder is in order. If there is rules for the tour that are CLEAR then there is a case to revoke participation in the tour. Is there any rules to this???

The player is automatically responsible the moment he enters the event. He has agreed to play and betting is based upon this agreement. The moment someone else purchases him, he has an agreement that goes beyond himself and the tour. A tour holds the right to revoke membership for almost any reason that would be deemed unwanted behavior. Forfeiting a match under the forementioned circumstances can easily be defined as such.

Jude Rosenstock
02-06-2006, 12:28 AM
Hey Everyone,
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!

What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???

Lamar


Did you ever see "Eight Men Out"?

lamar25
02-06-2006, 12:33 AM
Did you ever see "Eight Men Out"?

YES!
Thanks, Lamar

Snapshot9
02-06-2006, 12:42 AM
well for one john didnt have to buy any of him self in the calcutta so he shouldnt have owed anything to this guy that bought him...
2. if john did buy some of himself he would have owed him 200 not 400...
3.i feel this all falls on mike janis if john didnt show for the tourny the calcutta bid should have been canceled and the guy should have gotten his 400 back anyways....you cant buy a guy in the calcutta if he isnt there...

This is a controversial subject, but I think consideration should be given to the following points:
1) Many tournaments would not be worth the risk and expenses without a calcutta. The calcutta money many times puts a player over the top for what he considers to be 'good payback'. I REPEAT, calcuttas makie MOST
tournaments worth it, otherwise many many tournaments would not be worth it.
2) TD's and other tournaemnt and calcutta people do a lot of work for little pay. They all can't work for free. Sorry players, that's life.
3) TD's have to balance a lot of factors regarding the players, payback, railbirds, etc.. Noone's perfect, and everyone makes mistakes.
4) JS makes his living, I assume, by playing pool. If I missed my job to go play golf, my job would be in jepordy. I doubt if he had a high stakes money match scheduled that he would have gone to play golf. Unless he is going for the PGA, he needs to reconsider his priorities. Yes, everyone gets tired of their job, but it still puts bread on the table.
5) The calcutta bidder on John is just out the $400, and should have bet on a better horse normally, but the point about John not being there by the time the calcutta is over, normally means he would not be included in the calcutta, and the money refunded. Players ARE REQUIRED to be there to play before the calcutta is over.
6) When you are a professional, you are expected to behave like a professional, and people have expectations from you. This creates responsilbilities for the player. If you don't live up to those responsibilities, then you get frowned upon, simple as that.
7) Quit nitpicking the law about calcuttas, we are talking real life here folks, and how Pool has to exist to make it. People bet on all kinds of sports, and most is illegal. What are you gonna do, bring back prohibition?
That went over well, didn't it?

lamar25
02-06-2006, 01:10 AM
Just to let you know,
If it were not for player auctions, football pools, & nascar pools I would have to apply for food stamps.
Lamar

9balllvr
02-06-2006, 01:11 AM
there was once a question of the legality of calcuttas where I used to live, and if I recall correctly, as long as all monies are placed in the pot and are returned in full to the players, it is not illegal. to the guy that mentioned something to the affect that Mike may be messing with John's ability to make a living - I can't imagine that one tour would establish that fact, but who knows....in this day and age, well, you can sue for just about anything and potentially win......

enzo
02-06-2006, 01:33 AM
Way off base here. Efren gets respect for his game and the fact that he is an honest man, who always gives 100%.

this is a little off topic, sorry to the others about that, but to Jay... i think you just unknowingly proved my point about efren getting favorable press. am i supposed to believe you because you are an honest man too (yes, right?)? it makes me laugh to think people believe efren is this perfect little angel... never purposefully racks the balls bad, never used to stand in players shot line, never coaches other philipinos during one-pocket money games in their language; never any of it, right? i'm sure he's gotten better recently because all he does is win, he doesn't need the money as bad. but 10 or 12 years ago i saw him pull quite a few seedy little moves. i just don't feel the need to put up a post about how bad a guy he is. yet, people are giving john schmidt a hard time and doubting his credibility in pasts posts because of this incident? i just feel schmidt receives an undue amount of negative press.

btw jay, did mark tadd ever get back to you?

lamar25
02-06-2006, 01:36 AM
Hey Everyone,
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!

What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???

Lamar

BUMP, BUMP

JOEY
02-06-2006, 03:24 AM
since whenn in the hell do ppl not know that gambling is illegal. are you trying to tell me that the guy that bet on john had no idea that gambling was illegal? give me a break ppl. thats like playing someone a race to 5 for $100 and when you lose, you tell him gambling is illegal. i dont know john personally, but i think that anybody in a tourney has a choice. if john had a chance at winning 10k on that golf game, im sure you would be more understanding. the fact is, he was there to make himself money, not relying on anybody else. the guy lost out. its a shame, but it happened, nothing you can do.
i would be mad as well, but its the rare chance you take. probably woulda been nice for john to split it with him. give him $200 and call it a day.
take care,
joey

Timberly
02-06-2006, 05:32 AM
BUMP, BUMP
I don't think bumping this thread is really necessary.

In answer to your question.... Ask it it again when pool is as big as football. When pool players make football players salaries. Also, John is one person, not a whole team.

Flex
02-06-2006, 06:06 AM
I'm willing to assume John Schmidt honestly did not intend to harm anyone when he didn't show for his match but regardless of his reasons for not being there, his actions resulted in such.


Sounds to me like the problem started when he asked to have his match scheduled for later in the day, and gave his reason for the request. Might have been smarter to not have said anything and just called in sick, taking a forfeit. Asking for a rescheduling invested Mike Janis with too much power in this situation. Who is this Mike Janis anyway?

Flex

j_kronz79
02-06-2006, 06:20 AM
has gambling been legalized in Georgia?

banning someone for not committing an illegal act appears odd to me



for anyone that is signed up for a tourney and doesnt show without prior acknowledgement they owe any money due throughout the calcutta and entry, regadless of the legality issue, otherwise dont call and ruin it for other people such as myself that travel hundreds of miles to get involved. i myself have been forfeited by the midwest 9-ball tour and i excepted the punishment. players, especially above average, should recognize their benefit ad either call and canel or confim

RSB-Refugee
02-06-2006, 07:07 AM
Ask it it again when pool is as big as football. When pool players make football players salaries.
The football players get paid, even if they lose. That makes a big difference IMO.

Tracy

Ky Boy
02-06-2006, 07:13 AM
FWIW, John is definitely in the wrong. I think we all understand the lacking of funds to professional pool players. However, the professional knows there is no money when they enter pool professionally. No one can make a living playing pool on tour. Except maybe Efren. And that's because he is so consistent. John made a very poor decision to blow off the match for a golf game. And no offense John but to come back and say that the bidder would not have given you any of it was, to me, a pathetic excuse. You didn't shoe up for your match so instead of taking it like a man you turn the tables on some poor gent playing it out to be his fault. And also taking a whack a Mike Janis saying he is making money off pool players. Are tournament promoters supposed to work for free and give YOU the players all the money? I used to respect you John Schmidt for alot of different reasons. I thought you were going to be one of the GREATs that would help turn the scene around by attracting more fans thus attracting more money but now I believe you are another NIT!!!!!!! We all wonder why pool will not take off and pay big dividends. Now we know that so many players don't take it seriously enough to draw big sponsors. John, I am not using this thread to take a shot at you but rather hoping you will take note of this and other replies on this subject to see what a mistake you made. If pool doesn't pay enough to hold your attention maybe you should quit and take up golf full time. It does pay more!! But golf payouts are so large because of the crowds they draw and in turn bringing in big sponsors. I hope you will take note of this!!!! Gary Gullett

frankncali
02-06-2006, 07:20 AM
I am surprised that anyone thinks its okay for someone to tell me what I can do on MY OWN time.

The Viking Tour can be compared to other Pro tours but not justly. Players
on the PGA tour and Tennis Tour and others are bound by a contract that they signed stating what they can do.
The Viking Tour is a small regional event priced for the average ball banger not a Pro. As long as you have money you can play.
Theres a huge difference in comparing Pro sports to the Viking Tour.

While I think the above is correct it does not excuse Johns actions but I dont think Janis or anyone can do anything to a guy for simply not showing up. I mean what if he just did not feel like playing. He is not
bound to even appear for his entry but rather only to pay it.

Calcuttas(player auctions) are a gamble and I have been to many that if I player did not show for his first match then the money was returned in
full and simply deleted from the fund.
John is on his own time at this weekend OPEN event. I don think it was a good decision but then again he has that right. Mike has a right to ban him basically because he runs or owns the tour and can do what he wants. I think its nuts to forfeit both matches due to just missing the first
one.
All this could have been handled by simply giving the money back and let people think what they want about John and his reason.

I do believe that on the IPT or a Pro event of any kind where players are bound tighter with restrictions that there should be penalties but to the tour not to a spectator that made a bet on the outcome of a tournament.

john schmidt
02-06-2006, 07:33 AM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there.if janis could not have auctions he would not have tourneys you think he just loves pool,he does them because he makes a percentage .auctions do guys like me no good because we go for high amounts so its a bad move to buy halve ourselves because we are not getting much odds on the money.then some guy who cant play and is jealous and probably hates good players anyway buys you and then acts like he owns you,it cracks me up.and for the record helfort you were not putting me in the tourney and neither was anybody else so whats with you chiming in oh thats right your a td so of course your going to take janis side because you make money off auctions too,and another thing you do not need to speak on my behalf about me expecting a piece when i win a tourney.as a matter of fact ive won around 20 tourneys that had big auctions and got jellied twice so no i dont expect shit. and as far as me acting like a professional southpaw if that was actually what i consider a pro event than maybe i would not have brought golf clubs.another thing southpaw you keep saying derogatory things about me but it seems out of the norm for you are you sure someone is not using your keyboard someone who maybe got banned from this forum .huh just something to think about.people told me years ago that wannabe nobodys who have never been able to be great at too much will secretly hate and be jeolous of people who are im starting to see what their talking about,now that ive pissed off guys like southpaw watch how much crap they bring up now bravely behind their keyboard. john schmidt

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 07:38 AM
Just to let you know,
If it were not for player auctions, football pools, & nascar pools I would have to apply for food stamps.
Lamar

Hey Lamar,:)

First regarding your football question. The advertisers and network would own that team after they sued.The fans would never attend a game again.
The players and/or owner would be banned for life and no "Hall of Fame".

Given this statement above by you I'd like to hear your thoughts. What would you think if a player you put your money on walked? Who's responsibility would you think it is to make it right, the player or the tour?
Do you think you take your chances and "oh well" this time I picked a lame horse?

I think Mike J. has been put into a difficult situation. It is bad for him, bad for the tour (and their willingness to continue having a tour), bad the backer, bad regarding the willingness of the pool room and maybe other rooms to have events, bad for John S.'s reputation, bad for the fans.


Terry

watchez
02-06-2006, 07:55 AM
As much as I hate to say it, I totally agree with Mike Janis on this one. His ban for a player not showing up & being in a player auction/calcutta is standard practice in tournaments. Maybe Timberly never heard of this but I am sure if she took the time to ask other tours & tournament directors she would find out this is true. I am sure John Schmidt who has played in 100's of tournaments realized this before the ban. The point that Janis makes 10% off the calcutta has no basis either. Janis makes money off the tournament too. It is all part of it. John Schmidt, yes is a great player, but his playing ability should not be a factor in the decision either. If you want to compare it to other sports, Rafael Palmeiro didn't get any leeway on his illegal act just because he was a future hall of famer. Breaking a rule (and there are many unwritten ones) is still something that should be penalized. Sorry John, that you feel the whole world is jealous of your playing ability. You may play great but that doesn't make you free to do as you wish. You know why the NFL, Golf, etc are more successful sports than pool? The fans. Plain & simple. Barry Sanders quit the NFL and it still went on. If players keep doing the fans wrong then pool will never get anywhere.

Ky Boy
02-06-2006, 08:00 AM
I did forget to mention, JMHO, that John should not be responsible for paying back the $400.m The TD or tour promoter should have given the money back. It is not John's responsibility to pay it back. But there needs to be something some kind of contract drawn up for whichever tour stating the rules while playing it that said event, not the tour. I think this would help with any players not showing up to take some heat from the people bidding on calcuttas to know that they won't lose their money if the player doesn't show. And one more thing people will stop bidding on players that show a track record of not being reliable. As long as there is some kind of measures in place to protect the player and people bidding.

DaveK
02-06-2006, 08:10 AM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there.if janis could not have auctions he would not have tourneys you think he just loves pool,he does them because he makes a percentage .auctions do guys like me no good because we go for high amounts so its a bad move to buy halve ourselves because we are not getting much odds on the money.then some guy who cant play and is jealous and probably hates good players anyway buys you and then acts like he owns you,it cracks me up.and for the record helfort you were not putting me in the tourney and neither was anybody else so whats with you chiming in oh thats right your a td so of course your going to take janis side because you make money off auctions too,and another thing you do not need to speak on my behalf about me expecting a piece when i win a tourney.as a matter of fact ive won around 20 tourneys that had big auctions and got jellied twice so no i dont expect shit. and as far as me acting like a professional southpaw if that was actually what i consider a pro event than maybe i would not have brought golf clubs.another thing southpaw you keep saying derogatory things about me but it seems out of the norm for you are you sure someone is not using your keyboard someone who maybe got banned from this forum .huh just something to think about.people told me years ago that wannabe nobodys who have never been able to be great at too much will secretly hate and be jeolous of people who are im starting to see what their talking about,now that ive pissed off guys like southpaw watch how much crap they bring up now bravely behind their keyboard. john schmidt

Is this (the bolded part) a common sentiment amongst professional pool players ?

Dave

JAM
02-06-2006, 08:11 AM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there....

Hey, John Schmidt, if they didn't rag on you, then you'd not be worthy of mention. However, the opposite is true. You do have a fan base which stretches from coast to coast, AND that's a good thing.:)

I can understand both views on this matter. Mike Janis is running a regional tour which is enjoyed by many a pool player, fans, and railbirds alike. Some regional tours will not hold calcuttas, but there's a whole bunch of people who enjoy them. It gives the railbird spectators a chance to root for their favorite horse and get in on the action, so to speak. I actually know of folks who just travel the tournament trail for the sole purpose of betting in these calcuttas or player auctions.

John Schmidt is a prominent pool player, one who has gained quite a following. He's been on TV, won several championship titles, and has the capability to be a tournament soldier AND an action player. Who can forget John playing Alex Pagulayan in 14.1 at the DCC?! He is, by all accounts, a very talented player of all games. However, in this day and age, being a good pool player does not pay the bills; that is, unless you're sponsored by one of the few industry members out there who can afford it. As an independent entity, John Schmidt is entitled to do whatever he deems is in his own interests; that is, unless he is a paid participant/competitor.

FWIW, as I was reading this thread, my counterpart told me the EXACT SAME THING happened to him in Georgia, ironically, many moons ago. He was due for his match, but for whatever reason, unbeknownst to me at the time of this writing, he was a no-show. He ended up paying the calcutta bidder a whopping 400 bucks. Though he wasn't happy about it, he received a lot of heat and decided this was the right thing to do in this instance.

Maybe in the future when these calcuttas or player auctions are in force, the player should be asked whether or not they want to be included in it. This may help to eliminate any problems.

I must say, though, that MANY, MANY, MANY tournament competitors actually count these calcutta monies as a means of income. They bid on themselves or buy half of themselves. If they are given this option, I think they should also be given the option to opt out of the calcutta altogether. Tournament directors are the ultimate authority for sure, but players do have rights, too. They are not bound by any agreement to remain throughout the duration of an event. Just a little food for thought to enter into the fray on this fine Monday morning.

John, you're still tops in my book, and, Mike Janis, you're the best.

JAM

chefjeff
02-06-2006, 08:24 AM
Who started this problem? That is, there wasn't a problem with anyone until ________did _________. There's your answer right there.

Jeff Livingston

CaptainJR
02-06-2006, 08:26 AM
This surprises me a little. I'm not saying that I am on anyone's side. I'm just a little surprised that a "tour" would have a Calcutta. I know that Tiger Planet Pool doesn't and they don't just do it for fun either. So it isn't like a Calcutta is a requirement to make enough money to hold the tournaments. Yes, I'm using the term Calcutta. A Calcutta is a slang term for players auction. They are one in the same.

I think it is legal in most stats as long as it is only the players making the wager. Can't have spectators bidding. I only heard of players auctions a more private tournaments, not tour events. Maybe it is more common that I know about.

They might consider one thing though and I pointed this out at an event a while back. I was at an event that had a Calcutta. A few days later a friend and I were discussing the tournament and he mentioned about how well the youngster had done and he was only 13 years old. I said, yes he did well, but, not that I care but if I were you the next time I would exclude him from the Calcutta.

So if a tour is going to have a players auction, I would hope they remember to exclude anyone from that auction that is under 21. It may be legal to have a player auction, but I'm pretty sure it is not legal to have someone in it that is under 21 years old.

PROG8R
02-06-2006, 08:27 AM
I played, (almost), once in a tournament that got shut down by the cops. They came in and said if the tournament started they would arrest the promoter. As far as they were concerned it was gambling with the players competing for a pot they had put up, (Gambling). IF the money was a prize with no entry fee it would be OK. (Not gambling). By the strictest sense most local pool tournaments are not legal. They even said something about the pool room owner not being a licensed sports promoter. They had all kinds of reasons why the tournament couldn't be played and most sounded pretty solid. We all just left. That is why you always see when a place like Burger King is having a contest it says, "No purchase necessary". If they require you to buy something to play it is a lottery, gambling.


Look here:
Pool as weird as it sounds is not a game of chance (not gambling). Calcutta is a bit of chance ina bizzaro world sort of way. The 400$ should have been taken form the calcutta pot and then readjusted the payout. John is a player and they don't have to finish crap if they don't want to. He paid his entry fee and his greens fee and completed his obligation to Mike janis when the cash transfered hands. He definitely should not be banned, all though he may not want to play on that tour anymore now that he has much bigger fish to fry.
JMHO

Mike Templeton
02-06-2006, 08:43 AM
Maybe in the future when these calcuttas or player auctions are in force, the player should be asked whether or not they want to be included in it. This may help to eliminate any problems.

JAM
Hey Jam,

Mike does ask if a player wants to be included. At the beginning of every auctions, he states that if a player does not want his (or her) name included int he calcutta, let the TD know, and the persons name will be taken off the list and not included. At least that is the way it was done at every Viking event I have attended.

I agree that this is unfortunate for all parties. I saw the same thing happen a couple of years back where Earl was taken for $1200 (I believe) by a person that I know in a player auction. Earl lost a close match during the tournament, got pissed for some reason, packed his stuff and left, not showing up for, and forfeiting his one-loss side match. This auction participant was out $1200 when the field was not that tough, and Earl had a good chance to come back through the field.

Although he was upset, the bidder stated, "I guess you need to be careful who you bid on".

I don't buy the "exclusive golf course" story. John makes his living winning money. From pool, golf, and probably other areas of "gambling" expertise. He didn't go just to play golf at an "exclusive club". I don't know, but I would bet that there was a chance to win more money playing golf than there was playing pool. Otherwise, John would have been at the Pool Room 2.

It's hard to blame John for trying to make as much money as possible. He maybe should have taken his name off of the calcutta list if he knew that he would not be there for his matches. There's also nothing wrong with Mike Janis doing whatever he thinks is right, since he is the director of the tour.

The person who bought John in the auction is out $400. It's sad that it happened the way that it did, but the guy had to know that he was taking a chance of losing the cash. What if John had gotten beat his first two matches? It was not probable, but it could have happened.

Like the person who bought Earl said, "You need to be sure of who you are bidding on whe you buy someone in the calcutta". How true.

Mike

macguy
02-06-2006, 09:02 AM
Look here:
Pool as weird as it sounds is not a game of chance (not gambling). Calcutta is a bit of chance ina bizzaro world sort of way. The 400$ should have been taken form the calcutta pot and then readjusted the payout. John is a player and they don't have to finish crap if they don't want to. He paid his entry fee and his greens fee and completed his obligation to Mike janis when the cash transfered hands. He definitely should not be banned, all though he may not want to play on that tour anymore now that he has much bigger fish to fry.
JMHO

That incident took place in Florida. Although I don't know the exact details, I believe the Florida tour today has to do something like give a percent of the money to charity to make it legal to even hold a tournament. Although small potatoes and who really cares, to the best of my knowledge they can shut down most pool tournaments based on a host of legal issues.
One being in most cities or counties you have to pull a permit to put on any kind of public event such as a small carnival or art show, what ever and forget about a calcutta. I wouldn't want to be Mr. Janis trying to explain to a states attorney or judge the difference between a calcutta and a players auction and why it isn't gambling add to that the fact that he takes his act from state to state triggering I would guess a few federal issues.
Again, it is small potatoes and no one cares.
The IPT is another thing though. I would expect to see people who have it in for KT to be looking at what he does very closely and if any of what goes on around the everyday pool tournament, Gambling, callcuttas and so on go on there, it may bring down a lot of grief on them.

ScottW
02-06-2006, 09:17 AM
My $.02 -

Full disclosure - I'm I suppose a "wannabe newbie" as far as this level of pool goes. The little local tournaments I've played in don't run calcuttas, so I have no real experience with'em.

That said - if a player enters an event and agrees to participate in a function of said event (calcutta) that affects *other people* - i.e. the spectators buying in - and then bails on said event in a way that affects his standing in that side function - that's not good. It sounds to me like everyone knows the score when they agree to participate in the calcuttas. If Mr. Schmidt did indeed skip his match, knowing that his actions would cost some other individual his buy-in - not good.

Beyond that - a player bailing on an event due to the calcutta affects the calcutta as a whole, does it not, as it well could affect the end rankings of the tournament. Player X is set to play Player Y, and the winner of that match, Player Z. X, if he played, could well beat Y and Z. But X bails - letting Y play Z, etc. The end results of the tournament could well be different than if X had stuck it out. (And yes, they could be identical - X could have played and lost, and every other match come out the same way). So players bailing don't just affect the folks who bought in for them - they very well could affect many other people, those folks who bought-in on people who lasted through later rounds. THAT'S not good either.

I don't know Mr. Schmidt and I'm not going to rip on him (except for maybe, use some punctuation! Your posts are hard to read :D), and I barely know Mike (three or four conversations in person recently). But it sounds to me like Mike made the correct call, in general. I don't know that banning Mr. Schmidt from his tour was over-the-top or not - but it's not my call, it's not my tour.

I do wonder, though, whether how calcuttas are run should be looked over and revised in some way, to better protect against situations that spawned this ginormous thread. Some folks suggested that the calcutta fund simply refund the buy-ins to the folks affected - and that sounds like a reasonable policy to me. BUT - I don't know enough about how these systems are run to say whether or not it's a workable option. If anyone wants to PM me (or even, just start a new thread, for everyone's benefit) with the details on how calcuttas are run, I'd love to get a better understanding. I would wager (har! puns), however, that this situation is nowhere *near* a new situation, and that people have wrestled with this issue many times in the past and have considered many variations of the system - and that the current model, however flawed and vulnerable, may be the best-of-breed. *shrug*

Southpaw
02-06-2006, 10:42 AM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there.if janis could not have auctions he would not have tourneys you think he just loves pool,he does them because he makes a percentage .auctions do guys like me no good because we go for high amounts so its a bad move to buy halve ourselves because we are not getting much odds on the money.then some guy who cant play and is jealous and probably hates good players anyway buys you and then acts like he owns you,it cracks me up.and for the record helfort you were not putting me in the tourney and neither was anybody else so whats with you chiming in oh thats right your a td so of course your going to take janis side because you make money off auctions too,and another thing you do not need to speak on my behalf about me expecting a piece when i win a tourney.as a matter of fact ive won around 20 tourneys that had big auctions and got jellied twice so no i dont expect shit. and as far as me acting like a professional southpaw if that was actually what i consider a pro event than maybe i would not have brought golf clubs.another thing southpaw you keep saying derogatory things about me but it seems out of the norm for you are you sure someone is not using your keyboard someone who maybe got banned from this forum .huh just something to think about.people told me years ago that wannabe nobodys who have never been able to be great at too much will secretly hate and be jeolous of people who are im starting to see what their talking about,now that ive pissed off guys like southpaw watch how much crap they bring up now bravely behind their keyboard. john schmidt

So basically you are saying that TDs like janis should travel on the road for 6-8 months at a time, away from family and friends and life as they know it, to hold these tournies for guys like you and them do it for free? You would really love that huh John? You cry and whine all the time about your integrity and credibility and how "professional" pool players dont get paid enough or get the respect that the sport deserves....well guess what buddy...this kind of crap is why! If you were a top "professional" in any other sport and pulled this little no show game....you would have been fined a hell of a lot more than $400. What you did was just a complete lack of respect for another person. You knew what you were doing and you knew that some poor soul was gonna suffer. Maybe you just thought that janis would refund his money to him, but you still knew that your decision and lack of "professionalism" would have an affect on another person. As for me, well maybe i am a pool player wanna-be, but its people like me that want to play and see the game played correctly that keep the game going in small towns and pool rooms....not guys like you that think since they are on top of the sport that they can do whatever the hell they want to and everyone is just supposed to kiss their ass and forget it. It all comes down to one word..."PROFESSIONAL". Are you one or not??

Southpaw

Southpaw
02-06-2006, 11:03 AM
Also john, no one else is using my keyboard. i was at the tourney when you pulled this stunt.

Southpaw

jjinfla
02-06-2006, 11:13 AM
I suppose the only way to settle this is for someone there to forward this thread to the local Detectives with the dates of the next tournament. Then they can come and watch and you all can get a professional opinion.

If it is illegal then Mike Janis is not only putting himself in jeopardy but also the owner of the pool room.

Most likely the police do not want to bother with it but if someone files a complaint then they will be forced to take some action.

As MacGuy said, if there is 100% payout of the calcutta money then it is most likely legal. Or, at least, not illegal. But if the person running it keeps $1.00 then it most likely is not legal. I don't know.

The real loser would be the owner of the pool hall. He could find himself shut down for a week or two pending a hearing.

Jake

uwate
02-06-2006, 11:23 AM
This exact thing happened in Miami this weekend. The best player in the local 1000 added tournament was bought for the highest price in the calcutta. Lost a match, got pissed, and walked out instead of fighting it out in the losers bracket.

The interesting thing is that this player is always looking for sponsors and complaining about the lack of support for his game. The 3 people he burned in the calcutta were some of the wealthiest people in the pool hall, and they wont soon forget this.

The "fans" who bid in the calcutta, in many cases represent opportunities for the players to network for support, sponsorship and stakehorses. If a player I bought in a calcutta quit the tournament, you better believe I wouldnt stake that person for a dime in the future and I would tell all my friends the same. Schmidt, even in a scenario where he is just looking out for himself, should have played.

Blackjack
02-06-2006, 11:29 AM
IMO, John Schmidt sets the standard for professionalism.

Southpaw
02-06-2006, 11:39 AM
IMO, John Schmidt sets the standard for professionalism.

Yeah any guy that has demonstrated that he may or may not show up for a match when someone else's money is involved sure sounds like a true "professional" huh? Funny how you never hear about pros like Archer or Reyes or any of those guys pulling these stunts.....Maybe thats because they know what it takes to keep the sport going and they are willing to do whatever it takes to support it so that they can continue to make their living doing what they were put here to do. I guess re-scheduling the golf round was just a little too much to ask of Mr. Schmidt the "professional".

Southpaw

bigsamho
02-06-2006, 11:41 AM
There's no point to even go deep into the subject. That was such a classless act. Once you get to the pro level (like John is) you should know that you have responsibilities to take care of. He knew he was playing in an event with players auction first off. Yeah you can do what you want, but dont be a punk ass about it. A lot of people look up to pro players and admire them for their talents. Pool already has a reputation for pieces of trash playing the game. I thought it was cleaning up a lot with the IPT starting, but it seems these people's morals havent changed. That $400 may be a lot of cash to dish out for the buyer of John in that auction. You can be like Michael Jordan and be a class act, or Kobe Bryant and disgrace the game. It's a shame and I hope the buyer got his money back.

Chris
02-06-2006, 11:41 AM
You knew what you were doing and you knew that some poor soul was gonna suffer.

This is only true if J.S. expected to be banned from the tour instead of being allowed to come up through the one loss side of the bracket.

Unless I am missing something, J.S.'s actions did not ensure his tournament loss. He had no way of knowing that a single forfeit would essentially count as two match losses.

PROG8R
02-06-2006, 11:44 AM
So basically you are saying that TDs like janis should travel on the road for 6-8 months at a time, away from family and friends and life as they know it, to hold these tournies for guys like you and them do it for free? You would really love that huh John? You cry and whine all the time about your integrity and credibility and how "professional" pool players dont get paid enough or get the respect that the sport deserves....well guess what buddy...this kind of crap is why! If you were a top "professional" in any other sport and pulled this little no show game....you would have been fined a hell of a lot more than $400. What you did was just a complete lack of respect for another person. You knew what you were doing and you knew that some poor soul was gonna suffer. Maybe you just thought that janis would refund his money to him, but you still knew that your decision and lack of "professionalism" would have an affect on another person. As for me, well maybe i am a pool player wanna-be, but its people like me that want to play and see the game played correctly that keep the game going in small towns and pool rooms....not guys like you that think since they are on top of the sport that they can do whatever the hell they want to and everyone is just supposed to kiss their ass and forget it. It all comes down to one word..."PROFESSIONAL". Are you one or not??

Southpaw

Wish you would get off John's jock. He didn't ask anyone to buy him, and it is up to any player to quit a tourney whenever he wants to. The player doesn't owe the calcutta anything at all. If you buy a player there is no Guarantee that you will make a dime off of them, and then is he to repay because he got beat out, NO!! John does set a high standard for professionalism. I have left many a tournament to go play golf, it's MY DAY period. He wasn't sponsored in the event to play or sign autographs or work a booth, he showed up to play and then changed his mind when something better came along. What would be the difference if he just dumped his match really quick so he could leave? Quit being a HACK and leave it alone. You don't know what your'e talking about if you have never been there.
Remember this "We don't play for the calcutta, some will by themselves or other players, and we can still manipulate the outcome in our favor if we want to"

Southpaw
02-06-2006, 11:52 AM
This is only true if J.S. expected to be banned from the tour instead of being allowed to come up through the one loss side of the bracket.

Unless I am missing something, J.S.'s actions did not ensure his tournament loss. He had no way of knowing that a single forfeit would essentially count as two match losses.

So you dont think that the guy that bought him in the auction should feel cheated? He bought a very well known player in a double elimination tourney that had a very good chance of winning and could have possibly only seen him play one match...at best! John should have spoke up and told Janis to take his name out of the auction because there may be a chance that he may miss his 1st match or possibly not be able to play at all.....WOW how difficult would that have been??

Southpaw

Southpaw
02-06-2006, 11:55 AM
Wish you would get off John's jock. He didn't ask anyone to buy him, and it is up to any player to quit a tourney whenever he wants to. The player doesn't owe the calcutta anything at all. If you buy a player there is no Guarantee that you will make a dime off of them, and then is he to repay because he got beat out, NO!! John does set a high standard for professionalism. I have left many a tournament to go play golf, it's MY DAY period. He wasn't sponsored in the event to play or sign autographs or work a booth, he showed up to play and then changed his mind when something better came along. What would be the difference if he just dumped his match really quick so he could leave? Quit being a HACK and leave it alone. You don't know what your'e talking about if you have never been there.
Remember this "We don't play for the calcutta, some will by themselves or other players, and we can still manipulate the outcome in our favor if we want to"


Another great promoter of the sport of pool I see....Good luck with this career.

Southpaw

watchez
02-06-2006, 11:58 AM
I also don't understand why some of these posters keep bringing up whether calcuttas/player auctions are legal or not? Does that have any bearing on the topic of this post? Did John Schmidt walk out of the tournament because he didnt want to be apart of something illegal? NO--he walked out because he felt he could make more money on the golf course that day.

Mike Janis--answer: Did you give the $400 back to the person that bought John Schmidt?

Chris
02-06-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Southpaw:
So you dont think that the guy that bought him in the auction shouldnt feel cheated? He bought a very well known player in a double elimination tourney that had a very good chance of winning and could have possibly only seen him play one match...at best! John should have spoke up and told Janis to take his name out of the auction because there may be a chance that he may miss his 1st match or possibly not be able to play at all.....WOW how difficult would that have been??

If the guy that bought him in the auction feels cheated, IMO he should take it up with the TD, as it was the TD's decision that eliminated JS from the tournament, and not JS's forfeit of a single match. There's no reason JS shouldn't have had the opportunity to win from the one loss side.

Nostroke
02-06-2006, 12:04 PM
This exact thing happened in Miami this weekend. The best player in the local 1000 added tournament was bought for the highest price in the calcutta. Lost a match, got pissed, and walked out instead of fighting it out in the losers bracket.

The interesting thing is that this player is always looking for sponsors and complaining about the lack of support for his game. The 3 people he burned in the calcutta were some of the wealthiest people in the pool hall, and they wont soon forget this.

The "fans" who bid in the calcutta, in many cases represent opportunities for the players to network for support, sponsorship and stakehorses. If a player I bought in a calcutta quit the tournament, you better believe I wouldnt stake that person for a dime in the future and I would tell all my friends the same. Schmidt, even in a scenario where he is just looking out for himself, should have played.


I have said before, When you buy an idiot, that is what you get. You have to measure a guys ability against the 'quit factor' 'dog factor' 'drug factor' 'oversleep factor' 'lost on the way factor' etc. There is no way that you should just look at ability.

There should be a negative risk premium in all these erratic players auction prices. Just like at the trotters-If the fastest horse in the race is a "breaker", he is never gonna be the odds on favorite. If he stays flat you probably will be looking good but if he breaks, you are done.

pillage6
02-06-2006, 12:26 PM
I also don't understand why some of these posters keep bringing up whether calcuttas/player auctions are legal or not? Does that have any bearing on the topic of this post?

Because if it's illegal then it the calcutta/auction should not have been held and this whole situation could have been avoided. People in the past have been arrested for gambling and people in the future will be arrested for gambling, they are doing it of their own free will.

Imagine if you travel hundreds of miles to spend the week/weekend at a tournament and they hold an auction. The tournament gets cancelled because of the auction and you are out all of your traveling expenses, how woul you feel?

Gambling is gambilng and it should be between people that agree upon the stakes and the game.....or completely on the side, not run by the same people that run the tournament to avoid any conflicts of interest.

And yes it has a bearing to this thread, if you don't resolve the dispute and figure out what the best thing to do is in the future, have you really learned anything?

watchez
02-06-2006, 12:36 PM
Because if it's illegal then it the calcutta/auction should not have been held and this whole situation could have been avoided. People in the past have been arrested for gambling and people in the future will be arrested for gambling, they are doing it of their own free will.

Imagine if you travel hundreds of miles to spend the week/weekend at a tournament and they hold an auction. The tournament gets cancelled because of the auction and you are out all of your traveling expenses, how woul you feel?

Gambling is gambilng and it should be between people that agree upon the stakes and the game.....or completely on the side, not run by the same people that run the tournament to avoid any conflicts of interest.

And yes it has a bearing to this thread, if you don't resolve the dispute and figure out what the best thing to do is in the future, have you really learned anything?
When was the last time a tournament anywhere was canceled or raided by the police for a calcutta? John Schmidt knows this--they have calcuttas at golf tournaments. Both locals by hackers & on the pro tour. Believe me these are much bigger than anything pool has ever seen and I don't think they have made any arrests outside of Augusta each year. Police have better things to do.

And if you are going to worry about that, maybe you should be worried that the police will come in & search the pockets of the pool players for illegal items and shut the tournament down.

mapman72
02-06-2006, 12:41 PM
...However, in this day and age, being a good pool player does not pay the bills; that is, unless you're sponsored by one of the few industry members out there who can afford it...JAM

Is anyone else tired of this statement being used as an excuse for the lack of professionalism exhibited in pocket billiards today?

Yes, pool players are unappreciated. Yes, they don't make good money. Yes, it's been that way for a long time. Yes, it sucks. But these facts are not justification for doing what John Schmidt did and many other top pool players have done.

The reality is that until professional pool players begin acting like professionals, pool will never be elevated to the place where it can "pay the bills". You'll see this in the coming year. If someone walks out on an IPT event, you watch how quickly their butt gets tossed right off the tour. KT is going to demand a level of professionalism because that is what pool will need to become mainstream. If he is unsuccessful in ensuring professionalism, his tour will flop.

Come on John, get with it. Admit your mistake and move on.

pillage6
02-06-2006, 12:42 PM
Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it can't. Are the auctions at the golf tournaments held by the same people running the tournament? My guess would be no.

SUPERSTAR
02-06-2006, 12:45 PM
Very interesting laws.

taken from
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0849/ch0849.htm

849.07 Permitting gambling on billiard or pool table by holder of license.--If any holder of a license to operate a billiard or pool table shall permit any person to play billiards or pool or any other game for money, or any other thing of value, upon such tables, she or he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

849.14 Unlawful to bet on result of trial or contest of skill, etc.--Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power or endurance of human or beast, or whoever receives in any manner whatsoever any money or other thing of value staked, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being staked, bet or wagered, by or for any other person upon any such result, or whoever knowingly becomes the custodian or depositary of any money or other thing of value so staked, bet, or wagered upon any such result, or whoever aids, or assists, or abets in any manner in any of such acts all of which are hereby forbidden, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

oceanweb
02-06-2006, 12:48 PM
Buying a player in a calcutta involves risk. Most participants understand the risks involved (forfeits, dumping, etc.). If a player decides to forfeit, he cannot be forced to play just because he went high in the calcutta.

What if some local guy went for $25 in the calcutta and then went out and played golf instead, should he be banned too?

Blackjack
02-06-2006, 12:56 PM
Yeah any guy that has demonstrated that he may or may not show up for a match when someone else's money is involved sure sounds like a true "professional" huh? Funny how you never hear about pros like Archer or Reyes or any of those guys pulling these stunts.....Maybe thats because they know what it takes to keep the sport going and they are willing to do whatever it takes to support it so that they can continue to make their living doing what they were put here to do. I guess re-scheduling the golf round was just a little too much to ask of Mr. Schmidt the "professional".

Southpaw

He missed 1 match and you're upset? It happens. Passing judgment on his professionalism isn't necessary. People make mistakes. John didn't twist that guy's arm to pay $400 into the player auction and chances are that John would not have seen a dime if the guy made any money back. That's reality. That's how players view it. You bring up Johnny Archer... that's probably the guy John went golfing with. lol

Scaramouche
02-06-2006, 01:02 PM
Wager on a horse and you can be the victim of the horse's behaviour.

Niatross, one of the fastest and most consistent pacers of all time once went, with driver and sulky, over the hub rail. Puss n Boots became famous for jumping the rail at Woodbine and going for a swim in an infield pond.

Like Puss, Schmitt has an inexplicible affinity for water hazards. Let the punters beware.

No refunds to the bettors.:D

john schmidt
02-06-2006, 01:17 PM
Well this has went far enough. First of all you can believe this or not, but I did not know I could be taken off the calcutta list, since I have played in around seventy five tourneys in my life, its my fault that I did not know that. Further more, I never pay any attention to the calcuttas because they are not good odds on the money. Had I have known I would have been forfetted out of the one pocket , eight ball, and nine ball, I would have shown up . And no I wasnt playing golf for big money, It was just Johnny Archer , Corey Duell, and myself playing for fun. You guys bring up my proffesionalism and personally , I dont consider myself a proffesional player. I am just someone who shows up to tourneys occasionally, I only played in nine last year , to try to make a little money. I was not sponsored at that time and no one was paying my bills, so I feel that if I cant make it to a match on time thats my problem. As far as the IPT goes, I will obviously do what is best for the tour, because there is enough money involved to make me show up on time, and they are organized enough to let me know the rules if I dont. Thats about all I can say and I will never be involved in another calcutta. John Schmidt

!Smorgass Bored
02-06-2006, 01:26 PM
When the dogs of war are set loose upon many of the 'Pros' at AzB,they leave, never to return.At least John has the gonads to return time and time again and weigh in (whether perceived as right or wrong)..... imo
Good luck on the IPT and a good decision concerning future calcuttas.
Doug

Bill O
02-06-2006, 01:34 PM
Back when Scotty Richards was still in NY I bought both of you a couple of times in calcutta's and you both always came right over and bought 1/2.
I've seen it happen where a player is occupied and doesn't know he's been bought and the buyer had to let him know. I was taught that it's the buyers responsibility to let the player know.

pillage6
02-06-2006, 01:36 PM
Since it's been brought up that these things happen at Golf tournaments, are Golfers allowed to buy half of themselves also? Just curious.

JAM
02-06-2006, 01:40 PM
Is anyone else tired of this statement being used as an excuse for the lack of professionalism exhibited in pocket billiards today?

No offense taken, Joey.

Until you've walked in the shoes of a pool player who has devoted their entire life to pool, I reckon you don't really understand one iota of what it means to be a pool player, 100 percent of the time.

Taking a walk down Connecticut Avenue and stopping in a local pool hall for a monthly tournament or being a weekend warrior doesn't give you any KNOWLEDGE of what it means to earn your living by playing pool.

How about the tournament promoter who advertises a great event, you travel hundreds of miles and at great expense to get there, and by golly, you WIN the whole shebang. Unbeknownst to you, the tournament promoter leaves town with all the monies, and you're stuck high and dry.

Then there are the organizational entities, some of which used pool players like mere prostitutes to fatten up their pockets and travel first class around the world, while pool players were sleeping three, four, and five to a room and eating at Taco Bell.

And let's not forget about the MANY players who invested their entire life savings into competing on a professional level, who played CHAMPIONSHIP-caliber pool, only to leave the sport altogether, busted and disgusted when the reality smacks them in the face that they can't keep a roof over their head.

I could write a dissertation about the inequities in the sport, but I'm saving that for another time. And FWIW, Joey Baby, I never used players' professionalism or lack thereof as an excuse relating to the success of the sport. You did.

JAM

watchez
02-06-2006, 01:47 PM
Wager on a horse and you can be the victim of the horse's behaviour.

Niatross, one of the fastest and most consistent pacers of all time once went, with driver and sulky, over the hub rail. Puss n Boots became famous for jumping the rail at Woodbine and going for a swim in an infield pond.

Like Puss, Schmitt has an inexplicible affinity for water hazards. Let the punters beware.

No refunds to the bettors.:D
This is a bad analogy. Both of these horses started the race. John didn't. He might honestly have not known that he could remove himself from the calcutta but as the police say, 'ignorance is no excuse'. Janis & other tournament directors have this rule & whether you agree with it or not, the players have to abide by it, no matter how far they can draw their ball.

Getting back to horses, since it was brought up. If a horse is entered into a race & then withdraws before the race starts, in some cases the horse will have to sit for 30 days before it can race again.

Professionalism makes me think of an interview I saw with Roger Clemens, probably the greatest pitcher the past 20 years. He was asked why it was taking him so long to make up his mind on whether he was going to come back for one more season. His response was that the fans expect a certain level of play from him & it takes a lot of training to make sure that he is up to their standards. If he couldn't get committed mentally then he knew he couldn't do it physically & didnt want to let down his fans.

JoeyA
02-06-2006, 01:50 PM
By banning John from all Viking Tour Tournaments, Mike Janis may be bringing the squinty eyes of the law into our little pasttime and that is something we need like another hole in the head. Bad move. Mike correct this one before it gets all tournament Calcuttas banned or worse. Right now, it's our own dirty little secret. Let's keep it that way.

John Schmidt has always been cordial, polite, friendly and helpful when approached by every wannabee pool player or business owner, including myself. I like him and think he carries himself in a professional manner. Everyone gets assailed at one time or another for a variety of reasons. John is no different and I'm sure he's no saint.

I doubt that John would intentionally try to screw someone out of their Calcutta money. Hell, he might get some jelly if he wins the tournament even if he didn't put up a nickel in the Calcutta. BTW, did John buy any of himself in the Calcutta?

FTR, I wouldn't appreciate every money bags running me up in the Calcutta every time I played and not getting a dime for my efforts.

If the Calcutta is for the gamblers, let them take their own losses. Players have a "reputation responsibility" to the Calcutta guys only.

Let the Calcutta buyers beware.
JoeyA



The way I understand the situation to be is this... An opportunity arose for John to play on an exclusive golf course with some influencial people. John asked if Mike could accomodate him by making sure his match started later in the day. Mike said he would not do that. The decision was up to John but John was not told of the consequences. John thought that he would forfeit the 1st match & have to play from the one loss side. He did not know until he got to the pool room later in the day that he would be banned. Had he known that, he probably would've made a different decision. Sometimes things like this come up where a player is forced to choose and because it's a double elimination tournament, they choose to forfeit & play from the one loss side. John is not the 1st player to make this decision at a pool tournament and doesn't deserve to be burned at the stake for it.

watchez
02-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Until you've walked in the shoes of a pool player who has devoted their entire life to pool, I reckon you don't really understand one iota of what it means to be a pool player, 100 percent of the time.

Then there are the organizational entities, some of which used pool players like mere prostitutes to fatten up their pockets and travel first class around the world, while pool players were sleeping three, four, and five to a room and eating at Taco Bell.

And let's not forget about the MANY players who invested their entire life savings into competing on a professional level, who played CHAMPIONSHIP-caliber pool, only to leave the sport altogether, busted and disgusted when the reality smacks them in the face that they can't keep a roof over their head.

I could write a dissertation about the inequities in the sport, but I'm saving that for another time.
JAM

One of the Super Bowl pre game shows had an interview with a Green Bay Packer great of the 1960's and he said his pension was $760 a month. I think inequities are found in every sport. The pluses are that you don't have to punch a clock, the minuses are that nothing is guaranteed.

macguy
02-06-2006, 01:56 PM
Very interesting laws.

taken from
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0849/ch0849.htm

849.07 Permitting gambling on billiard or pool table by holder of license.--If any holder of a license to operate a billiard or pool table shall permit any person to play billiards or pool or any other game for money, or any other thing of value, upon such tables, she or he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

849.14 Unlawful to bet on result of trial or contest of skill, etc.--Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power or endurance of human or beast, or whoever receives in any manner whatsoever any money or other thing of value staked, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being staked, bet or wagered, by or for any other person upon any such result, or whoever knowingly becomes the custodian or depositary of any money or other thing of value so staked, bet, or wagered upon any such result, or whoever aids, or assists, or abets in any manner in any of such acts all of which are hereby forbidden, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


You know what is interesting, that is written just to cover pool. If you do a search you will find exclusions for bowling and golf. In other words a golf tournament or bowling league where they put up money is legal, but with pool it is not. In fact in Florida a pool table by law is considered a gaming device like a slot machine so to speak and you have to buy a license for every individual table in the pool room. If they want to give a pool room trouble they still have laws hanging around to do so. I would bet many other states do as well. That's why I was very surprised a guy like KT picked Florida to hold a tournament. If the states attorney decides he has a thing about KT they will reach in their back pockets and find a way to give him a hard time.

satman
02-06-2006, 02:03 PM
Very interesting laws.

taken from
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0849/ch0849.htm

849.07 Permitting gambling on billiard or pool table by holder of license.--If any holder of a license to operate a billiard or pool table shall permit any person to play billiards or pool or any other game for money, or any other thing of value, upon such tables, she or he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

849.14 Unlawful to bet on result of trial or contest of skill, etc.--Whoever stakes, bets or wagers any money or other thing of value upon the result of any trial or contest of skill, speed or power or endurance of human or beast, or whoever receives in any manner whatsoever any money or other thing of value staked, bet or wagered, or offered for the purpose of being staked, bet or wagered, by or for any other person upon any such result, or whoever knowingly becomes the custodian or depositary of any money or other thing of value so staked, bet, or wagered upon any such result, or whoever aids, or assists, or abets in any manner in any of such acts all of which are hereby forbidden, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

A friend of mine owns a local pool room here in Indiana. As far as pool tournaments and entry fee's go, It is legal to pay an entry fee and receive cash winnings. The player is also allowed match up with another player as long as the actual players are the only ones betting the match. It is illegal to bet on another persons skills at the table. Same for the calcutta or player auctions, you are betting on another persons skills to win.
This came from the local prosecutor's office.
The same thing applies to Texas Holdem. I can have a poker game at my house as long as I don't take a rake from the pot's. We must have 7-8 place's that have Hold'em tourneys here in town, and they don't have any problems with the law.
I have read most all the reply's on this thread, and a lot of opinion's are represented. I know when the Mcdermott tour was around, they instituted the same type rule. If a player missed his match for any reason, he must re-imburse the person who bought him/her in the auction, or could not play any more tour events. The reason for this rule, some players would lose the first round and forfeit out of the tourney to go somewhere else to gamble or hit another tourney.
Just my opinion, but it was a good rule then, and still is. Sam

JAM
02-06-2006, 02:03 PM
One of the Super Bowl pre game shows had an interview with a Green Bay Packer great of the 1960's and he said his pension was $760 a month.

You know, it's funny you would mention that. There's a Green Bay Packer backer up who hails from upstate New York, and I see him all the time at regional events, but he certainly ain't rolling in the dough. I often wondered how pros in football, as an example, who were playing 30-plus years ago feel about the monies the current NFL pros are earning today.

I think inequities are found in every sport. The pluses are that you don't have to punch a clock, the minuses are that nothing is guaranteed.

It is, indeed, a sacrifice many pool players do make, but they do so out of a deep passion for the game.

There were some tears flowing down the faces of some folks at the IPT KOTH in Orlando this past December when some of those Hall of Famers collected their $30,000 checks. It was heart-warming, but yet kind of sad at the same time.

JAM

ScottW
02-06-2006, 02:07 PM
Very interesting laws.

taken from
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0849/ch0849.htm


In response to the previous post referencing this - I'm curious *when* these FL statutes were passed. Pool has loooong been a sport associated with gambling and hustling - just look at old movies ("The Hustler" itself notwithstanding). Plus the fact that Florida is a very "blue" state... similar statutes in other states may well be more slack (or even more stringent!). It's nonsensical to cite one state's statutes in a discussion such as this without looking at other state's laws in comparison. Sort of like judging the height of your average Chinese person by looking at Yao Ming (the 7'+ pro basketball player) only. :)

chefjeff
02-06-2006, 02:16 PM
So you dont think that the guy that bought him in the auction should feel cheated? He bought a very well known player in a double elimination tourney that had a very good chance of winning and could have possibly only seen him play one match...at best! John should have spoke up and told Janis to take his name out of the auction because there may be a chance that he may miss his 1st match or possibly not be able to play at all.....WOW how difficult would that have been??

Southpaw

This discussion is getting away from the real problem....

The calcutta is a known gamble...so that's not the problem---the $400 bettor lost his bet. That's what gambling is all about, right? I'd wanna break some thumbs if it happened to me, but that's between the gambler and the (non)player who walked, moreso than it is for the TD, imho.

THE problem, that destroyed real value, is that spectators PAID MONEY FOR SOMETHING and then they didn't get it because _________did __________.

Jeff Livingston

macguy
02-06-2006, 02:19 PM
In response to the previous post referencing this - I'm curious *when* these FL statutes were passed. Pool has loooong been a sport associated with gambling and hustling - just look at old movies ("The Hustler" itself notwithstanding). Plus the fact that Florida is a very "blue" state... similar statutes in other states may well be more slack (or even more stringent!). It's nonsensical to cite one state's statutes in a discussion such as this without looking at other state's laws in comparison. Sort of like judging the height of your average Chinese person by looking at Yao Ming (the 7'+ pro basketball player) only. :)

It is just an example of what kinds of laws may still exist and you can make the assumption there may be similar laws in other states. In the early 80's they had the Miller Lite tournaments for a couple of years before it turned out there were like (I am going from memory) 19 states where they were illegal so it came to an end, probably for other reasons as well. Point being, you don't want to be opening a can of worms. Calcutta's though where the promoter is taking a cut is not even a close call, he would be shut down if any kind of investigation took place and may find himself with tax troubles as well. I doubt many of these guys handle the money honestly. Best not to get on anyone's enemy list.
You could call into question the IPT qualifiers and the various places they are holding them. That whole thing may not stand up to close legal scrutiny, especially with the amount of money involved with people paying $2000. to play and people raking money out left and right. Like I said about cans of worms

watchez
02-06-2006, 02:28 PM
You know, it's funny you would mention that. There's a Green Bay Packer backer up who hails from upstate New York, and I see him all the time at regional events, but he certainly ain't rolling in the dough. I often wondered how pros in football, as an example, who were playing 30-plus years ago feel about the monies the current NFL pros are earning today.
JAM

I am sure it would depend on which player/person you talked to. Some would feel they were taken advantage of, some would feel that their sport gave them opportunities they wouldn't have had elsewise. I am sure if you ask Earl Campbell who can't walk down his driveway to get his mail, he might be a little sour on what the NFL gave him and what it took away.

BTW, a baseball player from the 1960's with the same service time as an NFL player of that era receives about $125,000 a year in pension.

mapman72
02-06-2006, 02:40 PM
Taking a walk down Connecticut Avenue and stopping in a local pool hall for a monthly tournament or being a weekend warrior doesn't give you any KNOWLEDGE of what it means to earn your living by playing pool.

I could write a dissertation about the inequities in the sport, but I'm saving that for another time. And FWIW, Joey Baby, I never used players' professionalism or lack thereof as an excuse relating to the success of the sport. You did.JAM

JAM,

Why so bitter? I thought that you implied the above statement and I have heard others come right out and say it. If that wasn't your implication, I apologize. And I have never claimed that I have knowledge of what it takes to earn my living by playing pool, although you constantly feed me several paragraphs on the difficulties of playing pool for a living (while I don't think you have ever done it either). For future referrence, I no longer aspire to be a professional pool player so your comments about me being a shortstop do not bother me. I am perfectly happy leading a successful life as a research executive. I do not need to struggle as a professional pool player to make observations about the poor behavior exhibited by some "professionals".

Back to the point -- What I do have knowledge of are concepts like integrity, professionalism, and honor. If those bad apples that have spoiled professional pool understood those concepts, the game would be in a lot better place. Just to thwart a future attack, I would like to point out that I am not talking about K.M. or even Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt's golf episode, while troubling, is only one event and I am sure that he will reconsider a decision like this in the future. I am talking about these "professionals" who are constantly behaving in an unprofessional way. And, FWIW, I am very content walking down Connecticut Avenue and popping into a monthly tournament because I know that I love the game, I respect the game, and that I always treat my fellow competitors with the respect that they deserve. How many pros can say that?

I think I'm going to end this posting with some famous lines that I have received from "professional" pool players after I have beaten them in tournaments. I'm doing this for two reasons, 1. So people can see how they behave when there is no accountability and 2. So you can tell me that I'm posting "another self-serving diatribe" like you did last time (my comments in italics)

1. "I let you win!" - I know that one sounds familiar
2. "I'll give you the seven any day!" Shouted out to the whole pool room
3. "You get every roll you lucky _ _ _ _!" I think I played the match of my life in this one
4. "No way you're supposed to beat me!" No crap
5. "Don't dog it the next match like you normally do." I did dog it the next match :)

Please understand that these are selected examples and they are only from matches that I have won. I have another set of "poor winner" examples from matches I have lost. In addition, there are numerous examples of matches where I have lost to pros and they have exhibited a great deal of professionalism, notably Mike Davis, Ramil Gallego, Jason Kirkwood, and Edgar Acaba. Thanks to them for being good ambassadors for the sport.

Thanks for the rip JAM, I'm glad you didn't take offense.

Joey

JAM
02-06-2006, 03:07 PM
JAM,

Why so bitter? I thought that you implied the above statement and I have heard others come right out and say it. If that wasn't your implication, I apologize. And I have never claimed that I have knowledge of what it takes to earn my living by playing pool, although you constantly feed me several paragraphs on the difficulties of playing pool for a living (while I don't think you have ever done it either). For future referrence, I no longer aspire to be a professional pool player so your comments about me being a shortstop do not bother me. I am perfectly happy leading a successful life as a research executive. I do not need to struggle as a professional pool player to make observations about the poor behavior exhibited by some "professionals".

Back to the point -- What I do have knowledge of are concepts like integrity, professionalism, and honor. If those bad apples that have spoiled professional pool understood those concepts, the game would be in a lot better place. Just to thwart a future attack, I would like to point out that I am not talking about K.M. or even Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Schmidt's golf episode, while troubling, is only one event and I am sure that he will reconsider a decision like this in the future. I am talking about these "professionals" who are constantly behaving in an unprofessional way. And, FWIW, I am very content walking down Connecticut Avenue and popping into a monthly tournament because I know that I love the game, I respect the game, and that I always treat my fellow competitors with the respect that they deserve. How many pros can say that?

I think I'm going to end this posting with some famous lines that I have received from "professional" pool players after I have beaten them in tournaments. I'm doing this for two reasons, 1. So people can see how they behave when there is no accountability and 2. So you can tell me that I'm posting "another self-serving diatribe" like you did last time (my comments in italics)

1. "I let you win!" - I know that one sounds familiar
2. "I'll give you the seven any day!" Shouted out to the whole pool room
3. "You get every roll you lucky _ _ _ _!" I think I played the match of my life in this one
4. "No way you're supposed to beat me!" No crap
5. "Don't dog it the next match like you normally do." I did dog it the next match :)

Please understand that these are selected examples and they are only from matches that I have won. I have another set of "poor winner" examples from matches I have lost. In addition, there are numerous examples of matches where I have lost to pros and they have exhibited a great deal of professionalism, notably Mike Davis, Ramil Gallego, Jason Kirkwood, and Edgar Acaba. Thanks to them for being good ambassadors for the sport.

Thanks for the rip JAM, I'm glad you didn't take offense.

Joey

Thanks for the good laugh. Much appreciated.

JAM

JPB
02-06-2006, 03:27 PM
Since it's been brought up that these things happen at Golf tournaments, are Golfers allowed to buy half of themselves also? Just curious.


Calcuttas are frowned upon in golf, but they do occur. However, the USGA can take away the amateur status of anybody participating in one. This probably won't happen since the USGA isn't enforcing the rules of amateur status very well. If they won't look harder at Michelle Wie taking expenses and advertising for Nike while an "amateur" they probably wouldn't bust some hack gambling in a calcutta. At least, however, golf has a general policy that doesn't favor the calcutta, which has always been a source of problems.

pillage6
02-06-2006, 03:30 PM
So I guess Golf is not a good standard for calcuttas being held at professional tournaments then. Does anyone know of a sport that holds auctions/calcuttas successfully? Probably not, and there are plenty of good reasons why, this thread just happens to be about one of them.

JPB
02-06-2006, 03:37 PM
So I guess Golf is not a good standard for calcuttas being held at professional tournaments then. Does anyone know of a sport that holds auctions/calcuttas successfully? Probably not, and there are plenty of good reasons why, this thread just happens to be about one of them.



Pro events banned them along ago, and I think used to strongly discourage players from participating in non-sanctioned ones. With what the pros make now, none of them are foolish enough to get involved in stuff like that. Some probably still gamble one on one, but calcuttas are different. And fewer of them are gambling much as time goes on. I would guess less than 100 changes hands in most of their matches on practice days. Used to be the pros gambled more I think. But now they spend time shopping for gulfstreams and yachts and talking to their investment advisors and fitness guru. The USGA regulates amateur status not pro tour rules, and despite the USGA's growing weakness in the area, golf does have some rules about amateur status unlike pool. In pool the distinction is meaningless as there are no amateurs really, just players who are deemed too good for a particular tournament.

jjinfla
02-06-2006, 03:55 PM
Where is Mike Janis' version?

And who won the calcutta? It would really be funny if one of JS friends bought him after not being able to buy JS.

A while back I was sitting at the bar and overheard two pros saying how they had to be at the golf course at 8:am next morning. Funny how neither of them made it to the Sunday rounds.

Couldn't find anyone to bet on them - I guess everyone knew the score.

Jake

john schmidt
02-06-2006, 03:55 PM
again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour thats exactly what should happen to me or anyone else who does not show ,i just did not know i could be excluded from the auction .what im mad about is southpaw coming on here and constantly saying im bad for the game,unproffessional,think i can do what i want because i play good .me posting on here has nothing to do with my being banned i could not care less ,what i dont like is southpaw trying to ruin my careerand rep and if he keeps it up me and him are going to have alot bigger problem than me not being able to make minimum wage on the viking tour.and yes i type bad i can only type 10 wpm so i have to be pissed to even write this much as took me like thirty minutes believe me i have better things to do than try to defend myself to southpaw every 8 minutes,im going to try my best to never look at these forums because it gets me in a bad mood .every day someone new basically says im a piece of crap on here and they know hardly anything about me .pool sucks im going golfing

Timberly
02-06-2006, 03:58 PM
As much as I hate to say it, I totally agree with Mike Janis on this one. His ban for a player not showing up & being in a player auction/calcutta is standard practice in tournaments. Maybe Timberly never heard of this but I am sure if she took the time to ask other tours & tournament directors she would find out this is true.
I never said that what Janis did was wrong. I never said anything negative about him at all. This thread was made (sadly because John & Mike shook hands and agreed that they both had to do what they did. Now there's more animosity).

John doesn't come onto the forums very much and thinking that he might not see the thread anytime soon & the fact that someone asked what his side of the story was, I simply relayed the story as it was told to me by John. The only opinion I put forth was that I didn't think John should be burned at the stake for what he did. Others have done that & done worse.

I also don't think that Mike should be burned at the stake either. According to John, he had the chance to play on an exclusive golf course that he wouldn't have otherwise been able to play on. He wanted to take that offer. He did what he wanted/had to do and Mike did what he had to do.

I have absolutely no problem with tournament directors taking a percentage of anything. They're putting forth their time, effort, & money to run tournaments almost every wkend of the year. Just like the rest of us, they need to get paid too.

Jimmy M.
02-06-2006, 04:00 PM
every day someone new basically says im a piece of crap on here and they know hardly anything about me .pool sucks im going golfing

I still like you, John - regardless of how bad you are for the game. ;)

mnorwood
02-06-2006, 04:00 PM
My comments are not meant offend anyone and I do not wish to take sides.

The thing that strikes me about the whole deal is the fact that this contravercy has been started over the matter of 400$. This amount of money is chicken feed. The prize money in alot of "Pro" events is simply chicken feed. I could participate in 2 weekly home poker games here in houston where the winner wins more than 400$. I could see the outrage if the offense was over more money.

John Schmidt is a world class talent who probably feels like he is not getting paid enough for his time. If the man wants to play golf anytime he feels like it than great. John Schmidt does not need any regional pro tour, most regional pro tour's need John Schmidt.

1pRoscoe
02-06-2006, 04:01 PM
again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour thats exactly what should happen to me or anyone else who does not show ,i just did not know i could be excluded from the auction .what im mad about is southpaw coming on here and constantly saying im bad for the game,unproffessional,think i can do what i want because i play good .me posting on here has nothing to do with my being banned i could not care less ,what i dont like is southpaw trying to ruin my careerand rep and if he keeps it up me and him are going to have alot bigger problem than me not being able to make minimum wage on the viking tour.and yes i type bad i can only type 10 wpm so i have to be pissed to even write this much as took me like thirty minutes believe me i have better things to do than try to defend myself to southpaw every 8 minutes,im going to try my best to never look at these forums because it gets me in a bad mood .every day someone new basically says im a piece of crap on here and they know hardly anything about me .pool sucks im going golfing


No need to defend yourself, John........ ;)

Williebetmore
02-06-2006, 05:02 PM
again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour ...what im mad about is southpaw coming on here and constantly saying im bad for the game

JS,
Just in case you read this, realize (as JAM mentioned) there are a few posters here who jump at the chance to fling dirt whenever and wherever possible (even the poster you mention who has fewer than 30 posts here, and seems to have dropped in just for this purpose).

In addition there are also a significant number of members who live in a fantasy world where there is "professional pool" - with rules, regulations, "codes" of conduct, obligations. In the hope that everyone will behave as they wish, they love to criticize any apparent deviation from their ideal.

I would hope that the majority of the true fans of the game realize that if you (or any player, myself included) entered a tournament, then they have EVERY right to drop out ANY TIME they choose - forfeiting their entry fee, but not in any way their honor. The only obligation (IF ANY) to the Calcutta "buyer" would be from the tournament director. Let the gambler beware.

In any case, many reasonable posters couldn't care less about this entire thread; and I doubt any damage has been done to your reputation - this is just an anonymous internet forum - the "haters" will always hate, thats what they do. They have the freedom to say what they want, we have the freedom to ignore them.

JAM
02-06-2006, 05:25 PM
JS,
Just in case you read this, realize (as JAM mentioned) there are a few posters here who jump at the chance to fling dirt whenever and wherever possible (even the poster you mention who has fewer than 30 posts here, and seems to have dropped in just for this purpose).

In addition there are also a significant number of members who live in a fantasy world where there is "professional pool" - with rules, regulations, "codes" of conduct, obligations. In the hope that everyone will behave as they wish, they love to criticize any apparent deviation from their ideal.

I would hope that the majority of the true fans of the game realize that if you (or any player, myself included) entered a tournament, then they have EVERY right to drop out ANY TIME they choose - forfeiting their entry fee, but not in any way their honor. The only obligation (IF ANY) to the Calcutta "buyer" would be from the tournament director. Let the gambler beware.

In any case, many reasonable posters couldn't care less about this entire thread; and I doubt any damage has been done to your reputation - this is just an anonymous internet forum - the "haters" will always hate, thats what they do. They have the freedom to say what they want, we have the freedom to ignore them.

Williebetmore, that has got to be my number-one favorite posts of the new year. Excellent. And I hope John does get the opportunity to read it.

JAM

thebigdog
02-06-2006, 05:45 PM
again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour thats exactly what should happen to me or anyone else who does not show ,i just did not know i could be excluded from the auction .what im mad about is southpaw coming on here and constantly saying im bad for the game,unproffessional,think i can do what i want because i play good .me posting on here has nothing to do with my being banned i could not care less ,what i dont like is southpaw trying to ruin my careerand rep and if he keeps it up me and him are going to have alot bigger problem than me not being able to make minimum wage on the viking tour.and yes i type bad i can only type 10 wpm so i have to be pissed to even write this much as took me like thirty minutes believe me i have better things to do than try to defend myself to southpaw every 8 minutes,im going to try my best to never look at these forums because it gets me in a bad mood .every day someone new basically says im a piece of crap on here and they know hardly anything about me .pool sucks im going golfing
You should have never quit golfing John. I bet you really regret that first time you came into Boyce's and decided you were going to give up golf to be a pool player. I guess it still beats working anyway. I wouldn't get all worried about what people say on here. The fact is that in other sports the reason why you don't see no shows is because there is real money involved in other sports.
Mike jr.

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 05:59 PM
Has ANYBODY posted the RESULTS of the TOURNAMENT?:confused: :rolleyes:

Terry

Banker Burt
02-06-2006, 06:01 PM
Any player who enters a tournament is only obligated to play by the rules of the game. If for any reason they choose not to play, this is their business and their business alone. PERIOD.

You can call a calcutta whatever you want but it is nothing more than a side bet, which has everything to do with the promoter of the calcutta (oh I'm sorry the player auction), but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLAYER.

Another thing - there is only one difference between side betting on a horse and a pool player, it is LEGAL to bet on a horse.

AND the only difference between a pool player and a race horse is the horse is treated better.

John owes nothing. If some of you think otherwise then so be it.

Scottster
02-06-2006, 06:08 PM
This is a brief explanation of the facts...............

1st of all, we do not do Calcutta's on the Viking Tour, we do Player Auctions.


"Bong" is to "calcutta" what "water pipe" is to "player auction"

You can sell a bong if you call it a water pipe without a penalty even though it is the same thing,
and, yes, TD's make the majority of their money from the "water pipe".

AnyAZer_hasthe8
02-06-2006, 07:14 PM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there.if janis could not have auctions he would not have tourneys you think he just loves pool,he does them because he makes a percentage .auctions do guys like me no good because we go for high amounts so its a bad move to buy halve ourselves because we are not getting much odds on the money.then some guy who cant play and is jealous and probably hates good players anyway buys you and then acts like he owns you,it cracks me up.and for the record helfort you were not putting me in the tourney and neither was anybody else so whats with you chiming in oh thats right your a td so of course your going to take janis side because you make money off auctions too,and another thing you do not need to speak on my behalf about me expecting a piece when i win a tourney.as a matter of fact ive won around 20 tourneys that had big auctions and got jellied twice so no i dont expect shit. and as far as me acting like a professional southpaw if that was actually what i consider a pro event than maybe i would not have brought golf clubs.another thing southpaw you keep saying derogatory things about me but it seems out of the norm for you are you sure someone is not using your keyboard someone who maybe got banned from this forum .huh just something to think about.people told me years ago that wannabe nobodys who have never been able to be great at too much will secretly hate and be jeolous of people who are im starting to see what their talking about,now that ive pissed off guys like southpaw watch how much crap they bring up now bravely behind their keyboard. john schmidt
Someone with a personality such as yours should feel great that some
'jealous guy who cant play and hates good players anyway' would pay 400 for you and to see your game in the first place. You should feel lucky that the person whom apparently was your fan didnt straighten this out with you physically. It pleases me to see that your not gonna participate in another calcutta. Do all gamblers a favor and do just that... While you may think im a jealous wanna be that will say anything behind a keyboard that isnt the case. This is my first post and a great one in that im able to give an opinion on something like this. Nothing i say here wouldnt be said in person. If you like gambling at golf pm me, ill gamble with you at golf. Ill bet anything you can bet that i can outdrive you with any club in the bag. Ill gamble with you at pool too. Obviously ill need a big spot because im one of those jealous people whom cant play anyway. Pool tournaments dont pay enough for you? Again, pm i hear you gamble some. Maybe this is the payday your looking for.

onepocketchump
02-06-2006, 07:23 PM
Calcuttas ln -s /black/eye/on/the/pool/scene/reputation

Isn't this sh*t illegal in most states?! I have to find that 4 page legal paper that the late John McChesney had a full lawyers department do on this matter. It is illegal in most states!Barbara

Goodness, the world is standing on end when I agree with Barbara. I agree that calcuttas are extraneous to the sport and while not neccesarily bad they should not OBLIGATE a player to participate. A person who bets on another player is assuming that risk ENTIRELY on their own. The player in the tournament can do whatever he wants to - go home, be sick, play golf, whatever because he is the one who is paying for his participation. If he has a backer/sponsor then he must answer to them.

A tournament can make up some rules about participation, i.e. the player must clear their reasons for not participating in order to not endanger participation in future events. I would say however that the lesson for the betting crowd is to make sure that your player is involved and committed to the outcome to ensure his best effort. For the tournament it should be such that they make it clear what is expected. And I expect that betting pools are still pretty much illegal and that banning a player for not being an object to bet on is kind of shaky at best.

Timberly
02-06-2006, 07:26 PM
You should feel lucky that the person whom apparently was your fan didnt straighten this out with you physically.

<snip>

While you may think im a jealous wanna be that will say anything behind a keyboard that isnt the case. This is my first post and a great one in that im able to give an opinion on something like this. Nothing i say here wouldnt be said in person. If you like gambling at golf pm me, ill gamble with you at golf.
Looks like TBA found their way back to the forum.

onepocketchump
02-06-2006, 07:34 PM
Hey Everyone,
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!

What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???

Lamar

They would be punished according to the contracts they signed. Last time I checked there weren't any players on the Viking Tour that are guaranteed a good payday just for showing up. I don't think that any of the players are under contract or are employees of the Viking Tour.

The point is moot anyway. When a player pays his own money to participate then he should be free to not participate for whatever reason he wants to. People forfeit out of tournaments in other sports all the time and their particpation is regulated according to whatever rules their organizaton imposes and what they agreed to.

In short order John Schmidt will be making so much money on the IPT that players like myself will be able to play the tours like the Viking tour without having to worry about a slew of players of his caliber. OR - Mike will make a deal somewhere and the VIking Tour will start having milliion dollar payouts and there won't be a question in a pro pool player's mind which activity is more important to him, or her.

John

Timberly
02-06-2006, 07:51 PM
I'll gamble with you at pool too. Obviously ill need a big spot because im one of those jealous people whom cant play anyway.
I would assume that you're giving John the 8 in this game of pool, correct? He is an "AZer" and your screen name says any AZer has the 8. I bet Hillybilly, Danny, & Shawn would like to get in on that action too. :rolleyes:

onepocketchump
02-06-2006, 07:52 PM
The player is automatically responsible the moment he enters the event. He has agreed to play and betting is based upon this agreement. The moment someone else purchases him, he has an agreement that goes beyond himself and the tour. A tour holds the right to revoke membership for almost any reason that would be deemed unwanted behavior. Forfeiting a match under the forementioned circumstances can easily be defined as such.


I respectfully disagree. The player has only an obligation to himself. He has entered to attempt to win the tournament and his participation is totally up to him UNLESS there are some other stipulations agreed to either verbally or in writing.

There is no implied contract between the holder of the tournament and the participants beyond the reasonable expectation that the tournament prize money will be distributed as advertised. There is certainly no legal contract between the player and those who bet on him through a pool. There is no difference in a calcutta bet and a bet between two people - either way the player is not involved or obligated to play.

If you want to run a calcutta then set up a private booking operation and let anyone bet what they want to. All that is going to happen is that the pool of money is going to get cut up in nicely creative ways. There will be a few winners and lots of losers.

I am not sure how it works at the track - do the bettors get their money back if a horse doesn't race? If so, then maybe there ought to be a percentage that goes back to the bettor in the event of unexcused forfeits. I have no idea. I just think that calcuttas are pretty much just gambling and that it's insane to make a player responsible for the bets he is not part of other than to be the object of the bet.

John

Donovan
02-06-2006, 08:03 PM
Would have loved to be the first to tell you that you are appreciated here. But as you can see, you truly do have many fans! Please don't stop coming in here from time to time. You are alright in my book. Just ignore the idiots who have no business making comments. I made assumptions on what I saw on TV once, (ask Corey Duel, he'll tell you about me)...he made me a fan for life! ;) CAN'T WAIT FOR THE 14.1 VIDEO BROTHER JOHN!

Snapshot9
02-06-2006, 08:11 PM
Why is a player auctioned off that isn't there?
Why would a player ever be allowed to forfeit the first match if they are not
there to play?
Entry fees are usually non-refundable after a certain date unless there is an emercency of some kind.
JS can do as he wants, although it would have been considerate of him to have notified Janis that he would not make it, and to withdraw him from the tournament.
And yes, when you enter a tournament, and pay your entry fee, it is an implied oral contract of sorts unless you withdraw by way of tournament rules, which includes notifying them of such. That's part of the reason for forfeiture of entry fees.
If the rules had been adhered to to begin with, JS would have never been auctioned to begin with.

AnyAZer_hasthe8
02-06-2006, 08:12 PM
I would assume that you're giving John the 8 in this game of pool, correct? He is an "AZer" and your screen name says any AZer has the 8. I bet Hillybilly, Danny, & Shawn would like to get in on that action too. :rolleyes:
I never mentioned giving John the 8 as i recall i said i would need a big spot. Maybe i should have considered the "Ask the Pro" section of this forum before i chose this name. Aside from those, my user name stands true. Obviously im not gonna give any pro the 8 but i will gamble with anyone breathing for any amount. If you anyone needs references to wether or not ill gamble pm me. I havent been around much lately due to some bad luck so to speak but several on this forum know ill gamble. If pool isnt your gambling game of choice me and my friends will gamble at arm wrestling, coin lagging, or beer drinking for as much money as anyone can bring.

etimmons
02-06-2006, 08:14 PM
JS,
Just in case you read this, realize (as JAM mentioned) there are a few posters here who jump at the chance to fling dirt whenever and wherever possible (even the poster you mention who has fewer than 30 posts here, and seems to have dropped in just for this purpose).

In addition there are also a significant number of members who live in a fantasy world where there is "professional pool" - with rules, regulations, "codes" of conduct, obligations. In the hope that everyone will behave as they wish, they love to criticize any apparent deviation from their ideal.

I would hope that the majority of the true fans of the game realize that if you (or any player, myself included) entered a tournament, then they have EVERY right to drop out ANY TIME they choose - forfeiting their entry fee, but not in any way their honor. The only obligation (IF ANY) to the Calcutta "buyer" would be from the tournament director. Let the gambler beware.

In any case, many reasonable posters couldn't care less about this entire thread; and I doubt any damage has been done to your reputation - this is just an anonymous internet forum - the "haters" will always hate, thats what they do. They have the freedom to say what they want, we have the freedom to ignore them.
Well Said ........

ribdoner
02-06-2006, 08:17 PM
I would assume that you're giving John the 8 in this game of pool, correct? He is an "AZer" and your screen name says any AZer has the 8. I bet Hillybilly, Danny, & Shawn would like to get in on that action too. :rolleyes:
Don't mess with the big dipper with the little flipper:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Timberly
02-06-2006, 08:19 PM
Don't mess with the big dipper with the little flipper:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
LMAO, now THATS funny! :D

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 08:29 PM
ANYBODY KNOW WHO WON!

Terry< just curious

enzo
02-06-2006, 08:32 PM
i think you need to step back from this situation for a second and really ask yourself why you are so upset, and why are you spending hours at a computer trying to bring down john schmidt? do you really care that someone other than yourself lost $400, i doubt it. is it because you think pro players should present themeselves more professionally? if so, go bug someone else, becasue john is a much better for pool than about 90% of the players i can think of. he handles himself very well most of the time, is he perfect, no.... but you need to calm down. YOU are the one making players look bad by perpetuating this discussion in a negative manner. if you care so much about pro pool, you can prove it by easing off a little.

i bet you're thinking of all the clever ways you can respond to me and bring down john even more right now. well, i may read it, but i won't respond to you, i wont give you the satisfaction. and i am right now enjoying the fact that you will work hard for me, john and others in an attempt to counter all these posts.

MacGyver
02-06-2006, 08:35 PM
Wow... this thread is just mind boggleing...

I'll admit I'm not heavy into pool and certainly not for a long period, but it seems ludacris some of the analogies or just pure BS people are spouting off.

First off, there is a *HUGE* difference between being a paid employee(most proffesional sports have the players under contract and salary) and a private individual who is plunking down his own money to enter a contest.

If you are a paid employee under contract, then obviously taking a dive, not showing up, acting unsportsmanlike, etc can be punishable and "wrong" to do....

However, if you are a private individual who is spending his own money to enter a contest, then you have no obligations to anyone for anything, short of playing your game by the rules and actually paying the entry fee. If you want to leave, dump, whatever else then you are free to do so since you are not part of the organization.

If anyone has a problem with this, then they need to change the way pool events are held, such as having *only* the calcutta and pay the players to be there, charge the fans to watch.

As long as pool events are being held as tournaments that the players must pay to enter, they are under no obligations to anyone....(except not to cheat).

Let's look at a simple analogy:

I goto the movies and pay my $10 for a ticket, and at this point two people see me and bet between themselves whether I'll like the movie or some such nonsense....

I get a phonecall and decide to leave the movie, and one of them stops me telling them they have a couple thousand bet and that I'm obligated to stay for the movie because they bet on me, or that I am responsible to them because they put money on me, etc, etc.

That is COMPLETE BS!!!!!!!!!

I can put money on you doing anything in your private life, and that grants me absolutly ZERO control over anything you do.

I would really like to find these people that are saying John did something wrong, go into THEIR lives, bet some money on something and then try to tell them what to due because I have money staked on them.(now please remember I have no idea who john is nor have I been around in pool enough to really care about how tournaments are run).


It seems to me that the key issue here is that running events such that private individuals are paying to enter(instead of paying them as employee's) and then gambling on them is what's wrong... Anyone's actions that cause harm to the fans is due to whoever setup this system, not the player for doing whatever it is he wants to do(and is free to do so).

If you don't like the system, then change the system, don't blame innocent players.....

If I pay to do something and then decide not to do it, how is it anyone else's buisness except my own? Again when answering please let me know where you live so I can come down and plunk some money on your live and then tell you how to live it.

-macgyver
ps I have now made a wager with a friend about this thread.... anyone disagree'ing with me is now responsible for that bet and is obligated to agree with me since I have money on this...

Timberly
02-06-2006, 08:39 PM
YOU are the one making players look bad by perpetuating this discussion in a negative manner. if you care so much about pro pool, you can prove it by easing off a little.
I agree. As stated earlier, John and Mike shook hands and agreed that there was no hard feelings...they just each did what they had to do. Enter this post a month later and tempers have flared on both sides. Both the guys got defensive because of stuff other people(southpaw for one) said. :rolleyes:

sjm
02-06-2006, 08:40 PM
Forgive me in advance for being the confirmed idealist that I've always been, but it always disheartens me when I read how some feel that a player has no obligation to either tournament proprietors or the game's fans. So many feel it's a player's right to not show up for a match or to unscrew whenever they please, that they have no obligations other than to themselves.

Let me open by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with those who say John Schmidt has no obligation to anyone who purchases him in a calcutta, but this is hardly the point.

As far as I'm concerned, when money is added to the prize fund, the persons or businesses adding that money should be viewed as sponsoring the players, and players should feel at least some obligation to them. Second, there are fans of this game who come to watch their favorite players, and it is regrettable that players don't feel a greater obligation to their fans. Finally, a professional player must behave with professionalism, whether playing in the WPC or a Viking tour event.

Frankly, I just don't get it. Scott Frost can skip his first round match at the 2004 US Open because some good action came along, and everyone's OK with it. Corey Deuel can unscrew in mid-match at the 2004 Hilton event in Florida to go golfing, and everone's OK with it. Larry Nevel unscrewed on the same day of the same event during mid-match, and everyone's OK with it. Jeremy Jones unscrewed in mid-match in Grand Central Station during the 2004 World Summit, and that's OK with everyone, too. Danny Harriman concedes to Corey Deuel at the UPA Championships, and that's OK with everyone. John Schmidt, yes this John Schmidt, unscrewed in mid-match at the 2004 Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge, and that's OK, too. This is all very puzzling.

Some suggest that the formation of the IPT has ushered in a new age in which etiquette, demeanor, respect for the game and respect for the fans will rule. Some have argued that now the players are being treated like professionals, they'll behave with professionalism. Well, at least for me, it will take quite a bit more convincing.

lamar25
02-06-2006, 08:50 PM
This is only true if J.S. expected to be banned from the tour instead of being allowed to come up through the one loss side of the bracket.

Unless I am missing something, J.S.'s actions did not ensure his tournament loss. He had no way of knowing that a single forfeit would essentially count as two match losses.

Sorry Chris,
You stand corrected!

Now before I go any further, I would like say I've lost money to John on ghost games & will get back to that latter. I also have a lot of respect for his game. I once bought John in a final 16 auction and he was on the 1 Loss side. What does that say?

Chris, John's actions did infact ensure his tournament loss as he forfeited on the 1 loss side!

I just want the readers here to know where to find the facts.
The Event was "The Southern Classic"; John forfieted on the 1-loss side of the three event tournament.
To review the brackets, go back to AZ's home page. Click on "Tours & Tournaments" (upper left). Click on "Viking Tour", right side click on anything that refers to Stevie, scroll down thru the story to "online brackets" & click. You will now see the three brackets of this event. The One Pocket event is where all of this started, just check the brackets.

"Feared of running out of space hear",
Lamar (I'll Be back shortley)

ScottW
02-06-2006, 08:51 PM
It sounds to me like Mike ran things like "you can withdraw from having your name put up in the calcutta if you wish". Perhaps one small change would do the trick - "you may PUT your name into the calcutta if you wish" - i.e. flip it around. Make it a conscious decision on the part of the players to participate, not the other way around.

I've pondered this situation a bit over the day, and I've basically come to the conclusion that some others have - that the guy who lost the $400 is SOL. He was gambling to start with. He had a good chance of losing his $400 anyhow (i.e. JS not winning). It's sad that he had to lose his cash in the manner he did, but that's part of gambling. And, and this is my opinion, I don't think Mike should maintain that ban on JS. Granted, I think JS ditching a match to go play golf, regardless of the situation, was bad form - but he did pay his fee and if he wanted to forfeit a match and go on the one-loss side due to it, that's his business. I'm sure it was a PITA for Mike, but not that huge a PITA. But Mike (or any TD) cannot 100% control the actions/behavior of the players in their tournaments, nor should they expect to. They should, however, be prepared to adapt to changes that the players' actions/behavior does cause. Of course, that's just my opinion, I wasn't there, etc. etc.

Can we go back to talking about pool instead of gossip now? :P

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 08:53 PM
SJM,

You're not the only one puzzled by these so called "PROFESSIONALS". We must have read a different dictionary than they did.:(
One thing though I don't think they are obligated but they are responsible AS PROFESSIONALS to act and behave professionally.(Again some people must have the matchbook versions of Mr. Websters book)

Terry

PS- ANYBODY KNOW WHO F'N WON??
Still just curious.:confused:

MikeJanis
02-06-2006, 08:54 PM
Whoa !!! This thread has gotten way outta line. There are way many speculations.

Here are a few facts to help clear up the speculations.

JS stated that there isn't enough money in the sport.

John, I couldn't agree with you more but the event in question paid out over $53,000 the the overall winner received over $12,000 in winnings. I personally don't think that a bad payday in our sport.

After reading as much as I could on this thread I assume that some think JS never played a match at the event in question. If he didn't play in the opening rounds this wouldn't be an issue. I would have simply gave the funds back to the person that posted the fee.

JS did play Putnam in the opening round but lost and hit the 1-loss side. That's when the I want to go glofing with JA came into play. Additionally, several other professional players made the same request as JS because they were all going to the same place. However, JS was the only one that made the decision to forfeit out of the pool event.

To JS........ We had this discussion at the event. You were specifically told of the penalties for such actions. You and CD made the exact same request about the golfing situation and I specifically mentioned to you that you would be making a bad choice. If you recall, I told you to ask CD about this because he was on a similar ban a few years ago on the Viking Tour.

John, from what I recall you have only participated in 2 of our splash events on the V-Tour. #1. The $25,000 National Championship. At this event you didn't place high but you did win the Brunswick Gold Crown IV in the raffle. #2 the SCO which is the event in question. I hope you will realise all of the issues on the table and come to an amicable solution so you can once again enjoy participating with us.

I aslo suggest that the next time you JS participate in an event that has either a Player Auction, Calcutta or Audience Participation involved with the event that you remove yourself from the list so you are not bound by the rules of participation and mutual respect that is associated with them.

Respectfully,

Mj

ribdoner
02-06-2006, 08:56 PM
SJM,

You're not the only one puzzled by these so called "PROFESSIONALS". We must have read a different dictionary than they did.:(
One thing though I don't think they are obligated but they are responsible AS PROFESSIONALS to act and behave professionally.(Again some people must have the matchbook versions of Mr. Websters book)

Terry

PS- ANYBODY KNOW WHO F'N WON??
Still just curious.:confused:
20 to 1 that schmidt didn't:)

MacGyver
02-06-2006, 08:59 PM
As far as I'm concerned, when money is added to the prize fund, the persons or businesses adding that money should be viewed as sponsoring the players, and players should feel at least some obligation to them. Second, there are fans of this game who come to watch their favorite players, and it is regrettable that players don't feel a greater obligation to their fans.

Well you are wrong... these are PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS PAYING TO ENTER A CONTEST.

In all other sports(well all that *I* can think of), the fans pay the players salaries... They buy tickets, goes to organization who pays the players. Even in poker many of the televised events are invitationals where the players are all payed to be there and arent paying entry fee's. In the actual poker tournaments, the players are under no obligation to even play once they've paid their money.

In this case(which is why its so different from other sports), the players are there representing themselves and payed to be there.

If buisnesses are adding money, than they should just pay the players to compete... but you can't take someone's money as entry fee, then try to claim sponsership just because they are adding money that a player MIGHT NEVER SEE!!!!!!


I agree with you that there *should* be obligations to the sport and to the fans, but that needs to happen by coming up with a better system where the fans and the sport support players rather than players supporting themselves(by paying entry and whatnot).

Under the current system, the level of obligation/responsiblity is exactly what it should be(none)....

BRKNRUN
02-06-2006, 09:06 PM
Damn...just when I thought pool might have turned the corner, this thread pops up and reminds me how "shortsighted" , "greedy", "selfish" and "ethically corrupt" pool players are....

I have read comments in this thread of "If the payouts were bigger","Its not really a professional event anyway" , "I was not going to get any of the money" (aka..what is in it for me)....and comments of people being jealous of so called "superstars"...

"If the payouts were bigger".....Well actions like signing up for an event and then skipping out to play golf is like a slap in the face to the spectators that showed up to watch...Do you think they are going to want to come back next time to watch that player...fan base draws sponsors, sponsors bring money and eventually bigger and better events and payouts.....

"It's not really a professional event anyway".........Well sure its not the freakin PGA Tour, but I sure as heck would compare it to the Hooters Tour, Gateway Tour, etc.....Each and every one of those tours expects the players to be professional, The event was and event that has "aspiring" professionals that play, and people do show up to see them...skipping out only sets the stage for what people will expect in the future...

"I was not going to get any money"........Perhaps not, but could this have been the one time a potential backer or sponsor, or heck even a talent scout been sitting in the stands expecting to see a certain player?...or could the person that paid the AUCTION price been a potential sponsor?....

Jealousy...Hell yes there are jealous people...heck I am jealous of anyone that is better than me at pool? Does that make their actions right just because they are "better" at pool?

Shyster in action??? ..........Could skipping the event have been a plan so that next time a AUCTION takes place, no one bids and this player gets himself for next to nothing...then snaps of the event and the money???
Only one person had any control of allowing that question of morally corrupt actions to even be thought of...

Contractual and Ethical...No there were no contractual obligations for a player to play a match in that event....But there is a matter of Ethical obligation to give the best effort to present as a professionals. Especially for a person that is aspiring to play on the IPT....

Bottom line....JS for all I know is the nicest person in the world, and maybe the best player and future star in the world...I don't know cause I have never really heard of him other than on this board...but apparently he is a big enough name on the east coast to cause a stir by not showing up....Anyone with that amount of talent that is aspiring to make a living at pool, should think about how their actions may have an effect on his/her future and HOPEFULLY cares enough about the game that they are indeed "lucky" to be so good at....

It really bothers me when really good players take their skill for granted. It bothers me even more that normally reasonable posters back this type of action...

Chris
02-06-2006, 09:12 PM
Chris, John's actions did infact ensure his tournament loss as he forfeited on the 1 loss side!

I stand corrected. Nonetheless, he was under no obligation to anyone but himself. There is a difference between playing at a professional level, and being a paid professional.

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 09:17 PM
Okay,okay

Since nobody seems to know who won the tournament or how Monica, Helena and Sarah did could somebody at least tell me if Archer beat Schmidt? Who has the higher handicap?:confused:

Terry

Timberly
02-06-2006, 09:23 PM
Okay,okay

Since nobody seems to know who won the tournament or how Monica, Helena and Sarah did could somebody at least tell me if Archer beat Schmidt? Who has the higher handicap?:confused:

Terry
Terry, I think this was the tournament that was held back in Oct.. 1p, 8b, & 9b... week long tourney. I think Larry Nevel won the all around or came close to it. Larry & Shannon Daulton were in the running for it as best as I can remember. Larry Nevel won the 1p, I think Stevie Moore won the 9 ball & I don't know who won the 8 ball. Normally I would suggest a quick search but instead of keeping most things in one thread, a certain person insisted on starting a new thread every few hours to the tune of 3 & 4 threads per day for the whole week. :rolleyes:

I stand corrected.
As do I

Timberly
02-06-2006, 09:29 PM
Actually, I correct myself. John told me correctly the first time. In sitting here thinking about him telling me what happend, I remember him saying that he didn't know that he would be forfeited out of the 8 ball and 9 ball if he chose to forfeit out of the 1p. My apologies for not getting the story right the 1st time.


Also Terry, JS is a better golfer than JA.

JAM
02-06-2006, 09:30 PM
Okay,okay

Since nobody seems to know who won the tournament or how Monica, Helena and Sarah did could somebody at least tell me if Archer beat Schmidt? Who has the higher handicap?:confused:

Terry

Terry, the most immediate Viking event, Paul Song won without a loss, Cliff Joyner for second, and Monica Webb for third.

I'm confused now, not knowing which Viking tournament you might be referring to.:p

JAM

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 09:32 PM
Terry, I think this was the tournament that was held back in Oct.. 1p, 8b, & 9b... week long tourney. I think Larry Nevel won the all around or came close to it. Larry & Shannon Daulton were in the running for it as best as I can remember. Larry Nevel won the 1p, I think Stevie Moore won the 9 ball & I don't know who won the 8 ball. Normally I would suggest a quick search but instead of keeping most things in one thread, a certain person insisted on starting a new thread every few hours to the tune of 3 & 4 threads per day for the whole week. :rolleyes:


Ahh nope, I meant who won this tournament in Duluth, and Monica, Helena and Sarah were rumoured to be going. Presumably to play, but then again maybe they decided to go golfing too.:)

Terry

BRKNRUN
02-06-2006, 09:33 PM
Frankly, I just don't get it. Scott Frost can skip his first round match at the 2004 US Open because some good action came along, and everyone's OK with it. Corey Deuel can unscrew in mid-match at the 2004 Hilton event in Florida to go golfing, and everone's OK with it. Larry Nevel unscrewed on the same day of the same event during mid-match, and everyone's OK with it. Jeremy Jones unscrewed in mid-match in Grand Central Station during the 2004 World Summit, and that's OK with everyone, too. Danny Harriman concedes to Corey Deuel at the UPA Championships, and that's OK with everyone. John Schmidt, yes this John Schmidt, unscrewed in mid-match at the 2004 Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge, and that's OK, too. This is all very puzzling.

Some suggest that the formation of the IPT has ushered in a new age in which etiquette, demeanor, respect for the game and respect for the fans will rule. Some have argued that now the players are being treated like professionals, they'll behave with professionalism. Well, at least for me, it will take quite a bit more convincing.

The main problem is that very few of them ARE professionals...They are just very skilled players. They all learned how to play pool, but never learned how to be professional....Hopefully they are fast learners or the up and commers that really want to be Professionals will never get a chance.

Back in the day when sports like baseball, football and basketball were growing...the very skilled players played for the love of the sport....through time they learned to also be professionals and now there is a base of verterans in those sports that help "learn" the rookies....Pool has no verterans to "learn" the rookies...and most of the very skilled players of today play for the love of Money not the love of Pool.........That being said...I think its up to the "fans" to force the players to learn to be professional......

Timberly
02-06-2006, 09:33 PM
Ahh nope, I meant who won this tournament in Duluth
LOL, they were both held in Duluth... the one that the thread is about and the Viking event that was just held. ;)

Tbeaux
02-06-2006, 09:35 PM
Terry, the most immediate Viking event, Paul Song won without a loss, Cliff Joyner for second, and Monica Webb for third.

I'm confused now, not knowing which Viking tournament you might be referring to.:p

JAM

Thank you JAM!:)
Third again, she must be thinking it's a lucky number.:(


Terry

Timberly
02-06-2006, 09:40 PM
Back in the day when sports like baseball, football and basketball were growing...the very skilled players played for the love of the sport....through time they learned to also be professionals and now there is a base of verterans in those sports that help "learn" the rookies....
I have to disagree. One of the reasons I can hardly stand pro football anymore is because the league is infested with criminals that think they can get away with anything because they're "pros". By the time I had given up on the NFL, guys were being busted with drugs, prostitutes, and beating their wives.

If you or I get busted for any of the above, we go to jail and we lose our jobs. These guys get a slap on the wrist with a fine of what amounts to pocket change for these guys.

The NFL isn't the only "pro" sport full of criminals, it's just the 1st that comes to mind. NBA, NFL, MLB, all of them... full of guys that do illegal things because they're "pro". Out of the whole lot of them, the NHL seems to have less than the others but that could just be that it's not as popular nationwide as the others & therefore you don't hear about it as much as the other sports.

BRKNRUN
02-06-2006, 10:08 PM
I have to disagree. One of the reasons I can hardly stand pro football anymore is because the league is infested with criminals that think they can get away with anything because they're "pros". By the time I had given up on the NFL, guys were being busted with drugs, prostitutes, and beating their wives.

If you or I get busted for any of the above, we go to jail and we lose our jobs. These guys get a slap on the wrist with a fine of what amounts to pocket change for these guys.

The NFL isn't the only "pro" sport full of criminals, it's just the 1st that comes to mind. NBA, NFL, MLB, all of them... full of guys that do illegal things because they're "pro". Out of the whole lot of them, the NHL seems to have less than the others but that could just be that it's not as popular nationwide as the others & therefore you don't hear about it as much as the other sports.

I am not saying that there are not bad apples in the bunch...(for any sport)...I will say that it gets magnified, and this does help make my point...The JS incident was magnified, not because of what he did, but because of who he is...He is not the first person to "no show" a match..but when you become a "name" you lose you privacy...like it or not..and your actions become magnified.

Also...No showing a match is not a very good comparison to criminal activity in my opinion.....I definatley don't want to see JS's actions lumped in with Drugs and Wife Beaters......Perhaps Prosti...Nah not them either...:)...

The whole world is full of WBs , Drugs and Prostitues.....I would not say its "rampant" in pro sports, I would say its rampant in just about every "hood"......you don't hear about it from the "hood'...but when one of the "hood rats" makes it to the big time....you hear about it when he slips up....

However...even though there are the bad eggs that can't be helped...there are many that make the transition with help from the verteran players that give them guidance and help them understand what they can and can not do.

BTW...Unfortunatley, I would be willing to lay odds that per capita there are more Wife Beaters, Chemists and Sexual Adventurers in pool than there is in any other sport.

lamar25
02-06-2006, 10:10 PM
This is only true if J.S. expected to be banned from the tour instead of being allowed to come up through the one loss side of the bracket.

Unless I am missing something, J.S.'s actions did not ensure his tournament loss. He had no way of knowing that a single forfeit would essentially count as two match losses.

OK I'm Back,
John S. to let you who I am. My partner (Billy Wynn) & I lost money to you at Kennesaw Billiards on ghost games about a year ago. The next night at Hollywood we gave you 4:1 odds on the 15 ball 1-Pocket ghost, $800:$200.
Out of the gate John ran TWO RACKS. My partner pulled up.

Your performance is why I bought you even though you were on the 1-loss side (Re: previous post). I had faith in your game. John you were the #1 seed at this event and the auction buyer was the same person that bought you in the 1-Pocket event at the Southern Classic.
BTW it was not me.

Know Re: Jelly Roll's, Ask The following players how I treated them, when they won me money in the auctions:
Charlie Bryant, Stevie Moore, Brian Butler, B. J. Ussery, Larry Nevel, Shawn Puttnam.

I Have respect for players that have heart! do not have respect for players that are guitters.
"Have a nice day",
Lamar

lamar25
02-07-2006, 12:27 AM
Ahh nope, I meant who won this tournament in Duluth, and Monica, Helena and Sarah were rumoured to be going. Presumably to play, but then again maybe they decided to go golfing too.:)

Terry

Hey Terry,
Re: The Viking Tour stop 02/04-05/06 in Duluth.
79 players entered this event. A very good turn out!!!
Main Event Results:
1st: Paul Song
2nd: Cliff Jonner
3rd: Monica Webb who sent Cliff to the 1-Loss side and then lost to Paul for the hot seat was then defeated by Cliff.

Second Chance Event: ( New to the Viking Tour )
This event had 14 entries & was a ring game still format.

This is an event that comes from the old school, my main stay from the late 60's, early 70's.

Most of the entries had never played in this type of event.
What I saw was the players were having fun.

Results:
1st: Helena Thornfeldt $400
2nd: Billy Tyler $230
3rd: Diane Gabberd (Diane Crane) $100
4th: Marcus Pendly $50

jay helfert
02-07-2006, 12:44 AM
this is a little off topic, sorry to the others about that, but to Jay... i think you just unknowingly proved my point about efren getting favorable press. am i supposed to believe you because you are an honest man too (yes, right?)? it makes me laugh to think people believe efren is this perfect little angel... never purposefully racks the balls bad, never used to stand in players shot line, never coaches other philipinos during one-pocket money games in their language; never any of it, right? i'm sure he's gotten better recently because all he does is win, he doesn't need the money as bad. but 10 or 12 years ago i saw him pull quite a few seedy little moves. i just don't feel the need to put up a post about how bad a guy he is. yet, people are giving john schmidt a hard time and doubting his credibility in pasts posts because of this incident? i just feel schmidt receives an undue amount of negative press.

btw jay, did mark tadd ever get back to you?

First of all, have never heard another word from Mark after two PM's. Maybe he was just blowing off steam. We weren't. Tang was ready to play and I had my end ready. If it comes off I will let you know, on here.
I never said Efren was an angel, but I personally have never seen him give less than 100% in a match. He looks to me like he is always trying to win. And I can't remember him ever not showing up for a match. I know I never had to forfeit him. And I thought that was the point we were discussing here.

jay helfert
02-07-2006, 01:12 AM
I never mentioned giving John the 8 as i recall i said i would need a big spot. Maybe i should have considered the "Ask the Pro" section of this forum before i chose this name. Aside from those, my user name stands true. Obviously im not gonna give any pro the 8 but i will gamble with anyone breathing for any amount. If you anyone needs references to wether or not ill gamble pm me. I havent been around much lately due to some bad luck so to speak but several on this forum know ill gamble. If pool isnt your gambling game of choice me and my friends will gamble at arm wrestling, coin lagging, or beer drinking for as much money as anyone can bring.


I don't know you (or maybe I do), but I like you.

jay helfert
02-07-2006, 01:31 AM
Forgive me in advance for being the confirmed idealist that I've always been, but it always disheartens me when I read how some feel that a player has no obligation to either tournament proprietors or the game's fans. So many feel it's a player's right to not show up for a match or to unscrew whenever they please, that they have no obligations other than to themselves.

Let me open by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with those who say John Schmidt has no obligation to anyone who purchases him in a calcutta, but this is hardly the point.

As far as I'm concerned, when money is added to the prize fund, the persons or businesses adding that money should be viewed as sponsoring the players, and players should feel at least some obligation to them. Second, there are fans of this game who come to watch their favorite players, and it is regrettable that players don't feel a greater obligation to their fans. Finally, a professional player must behave with professionalism, whether playing in the WPC or a Viking tour event.

Frankly, I just don't get it. Scott Frost can skip his first round match at the 2004 US Open because some good action came along, and everyone's OK with it. Corey Deuel can unscrew in mid-match at the 2004 Hilton event in Florida to go golfing, and everone's OK with it. Larry Nevel unscrewed on the same day of the same event during mid-match, and everyone's OK with it. Jeremy Jones unscrewed in mid-match in Grand Central Station during the 2004 World Summit, and that's OK with everyone, too. Danny Harriman concedes to Corey Deuel at the UPA Championships, and that's OK with everyone. John Schmidt, yes this John Schmidt, unscrewed in mid-match at the 2004 Big Apple Nine Ball Challenge, and that's OK, too. This is all very puzzling.

Some suggest that the formation of the IPT has ushered in a new age in which etiquette, demeanor, respect for the game and respect for the fans will rule. Some have argued that now the players are being treated like professionals, they'll behave with professionalism. Well, at least for me, it will take quite a bit more convincing.


You know, maybe I'm old fashioned but this kind of stuff is not okay with me. I was there when Danny H. didn't show for his match with Corey and everyone was buzzing about it. People paid money to see two great players
compete and they were disappointed and left with a bad taste in their mouth.
I've been around this game a long time and I think it's the greatest game on Earth. I still would rather watch a great pool match than any other sporting event, including the (once again) lack luster Super Bowl. I competed professionally when the prize money was even smaller than it is today.
And I gambled at pool almost every day for ten years. I needed to survive and winning $50 or $100 bucks a day in the 60's and 70's was enough to make it. But I loved playing pool and the freedom I had to live my life on my own terms. Like many others I eventually realized that being a pool player was a difficult way to make a living and raise a family. Few have done it successfully. So I took what little money I had and bought a poolroom. Four poolrooms later I am still involved in the game I love.
So there are opportunities in this game and maybe even a chance for a great player to succeed. I don't think Allison, Earl and Efren have done to badly, not to mention Jeanette.
I'm not sure what my point is, but I would hope that the greatest players would show respect for the game and appreciation for the opportunities that come their way.

jay helfert
02-07-2006, 02:03 AM
boy people sure are quick to rag on me even though they were not there.if janis could not have auctions he would not have tourneys you think he just loves pool,he does them because he makes a percentage .auctions do guys like me no good because we go for high amounts so its a bad move to buy halve ourselves because we are not getting much odds on the money.then some guy who cant play and is jealous and probably hates good players anyway buys you and then acts like he owns you,it cracks me up.and for the record helfort you were not putting me in the tourney and neither was anybody else so whats with you chiming in oh thats right your a td so of course your going to take janis side because you make money off auctions too,and another thing you do not need to speak on my behalf about me expecting a piece when i win a tourney.as a matter of fact ive won around 20 tourneys that had big auctions and got jellied twice so no i dont expect shit. and as far as me acting like a professional southpaw if that was actually what i consider a pro event than maybe i would not have brought golf clubs.another thing southpaw you keep saying derogatory things about me but it seems out of the norm for you are you sure someone is not using your keyboard someone who maybe got banned from this forum .huh just something to think about.people told me years ago that wannabe nobodys who have never been able to be great at too much will secretly hate and be jeolous of people who are im starting to see what their talking about,now that ive pissed off guys like southpaw watch how much crap they bring up now bravely behind their keyboard. john schmidt

Thank you John for having the guts to get on here and defend yourself. You and I may not agree and that is okay with me. I kinda like the fact that there is an open forum in Pool to discuss things. To me that is a good thing and that is why I'm on here.
Say what you want John, but you made the choice to be a participant in the tournament. No one forced you to play, or to be a pool player for that matter. You can always choose another line of work.
Having said that, only you John can make the choice to show up and play your matches. Often a player who loses in the first round will not try to weather the storm on the loser's side of the board. It is ultimately a matter of personal conscience whether to continue or withdraw. You made your choice and I respect it, even If I don't agree with it.
And it is true that the person that bought you in the Calcutta has to accept the consequences of that purchase. He may not like it, but that is between you and him. As for me, I have always thrown the player I bought in any Calcutta a 10% bone if they did good. Same goes for successful side bets.
But that's just me and I'm not saying that's what someone else should do.
If I have any doubts about a player's willingness to hang tough on the loser's side, I will probably be very careful in bidding on them.
And as for siding with Mike Janis because he is a TD, that is just not the case. You obviously don't know me very well, but I try my best to hear both sides of an argument, before passing any judgement. There have been many times when I made an unpopular call but it was the correct one as I saw it. And I would do it again. Just ask Nick Varner about the foul I called on him in Kentucky in the Finals against Jose, with the hometown crowd screaming bloody murder.
Anyway, good luck to you John. I admire your talent at Pool and I hope it brings you much success and happiness.

cuetechasaurus
02-07-2006, 02:36 AM
Hey Mike Janis, I have an idea that is amazing, revolutionary, incredible, and it might leave some of you speechless! How about if a player is not present at the time of the calcutta, YOU DONT INCLUDE HIM. And Southpaw, I think deep down you have a crush on John Schmidt but unfortunately he doesn't swing that way. Better luck next time.

watchez
02-07-2006, 03:35 AM
I have to disagree. One of the reasons I can hardly stand pro football anymore is because the league is infested with criminals that think they can get away with anything because they're "pros". By the time I had given up on the NFL, guys were being busted with drugs, prostitutes, and beating their wives.

If you or I get busted for any of the above, we go to jail and we lose our jobs. These guys get a slap on the wrist with a fine of what amounts to pocket change for these guys.

The NFL isn't the only "pro" sport full of criminals, it's just the 1st that comes to mind. NBA, NFL, MLB, all of them... full of guys that do illegal things because they're "pro". Out of the whole lot of them, the NHL seems to have less than the others but that could just be that it's not as popular nationwide as the others & therefore you don't hear about it as much as the other sports.

Wanna take a look at the IPT/Pro Pool player list & tell us there are no criminals? People make mistakes in life no matter what their status is.......if you are OJ, Jayson Williams, Allen Iverson, Jamal Lewis, etc. then in this country, you have the $$ to buy your way out of it.

Flex
02-07-2006, 03:57 AM
Let's see if I got this right. Mike Janis did not make it clear at the players' meeting that anybody missing their match/forfeiting a match would not only lose that particular match, but also the possibility to play in the other events at the venue, i.e., the 8 ball and 9 ball events, and in addition would be expelled from the tour altogether unless *they* paid whoever might eventually *buy* them in the *player auction*. Is that correct?

Or did Mike Janis come up with that in the middle of the tournament?
Also, if I understand it well, Mike Janis takes 10% of all moneys placed into the player auction (kind of like selling slaves, I guess... hmmm...) so he had a direct conflict of interest in the outcome of whether John Schmidt played or not. Let's see, 10% of $400 is $40, not chump change for most people.

If I had been John Schmidt in that circumstance and Mike Janis had attempted to strong arm me into playing under threat of expulsion from the tour altogether, what would I have done. I'm not sure, but I sure wouldn't allow him to get away with it...

This whole thing leaves a very sour taste in my mouth, especially making up these coercive rules on the fly.

My two cents worth.

Flex

Timberly
02-07-2006, 04:54 AM
Wanna take a look at the IPT/Pro Pool player list & tell us there are no criminals? People make mistakes in life no matter what their status is.......if you are OJ, Jayson Williams, Allen Iverson, Jamal Lewis, etc. then in this country, you have the $$ to buy your way out of it.
I never said that there were no criminals in pool. :rolleyes: He said that "pro" players in other sports acted like professionals as opposed to pro pool players. I disagreed with the pro players in other sports acting like professionals. Never once did I say that there weren't criminals in pool. Please read what I say. This is twice in this thread you've insinuated that I said something that I didn't.

Does anyone here remember the outcry of the guys that play in the NBA when they were given a dress code? Some players held a news conference! I don't recall hearing one pool player on the IPT complain about their dress code. I'm sure it happend, I just didn't hear it. Pro players of other sports IMO, do not act professional. Yes, there's some bad seeds and there's some that do act professional.... it's the same thing in pool. BRKNRUN, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. ;)

Southpaw
02-07-2006, 06:50 AM
again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour thats exactly what should happen to me or anyone else who does not show ,i just did not know i could be excluded from the auction .what im mad about is southpaw coming on here and constantly saying im bad for the game,unproffessional,think i can do what i want because i play good .me posting on here has nothing to do with my being banned i could not care less ,what i dont like is southpaw trying to ruin my careerand rep and if he keeps it up me and him are going to have alot bigger problem than me not being able to make minimum wage on the viking tour.and yes i type bad i can only type 10 wpm so i have to be pissed to even write this much as took me like thirty minutes believe me i have better things to do than try to defend myself to southpaw every 8 minutes,im going to try my best to never look at these forums because it gets me in a bad mood .every day someone new basically says im a piece of crap on here and they know hardly anything about me .pool sucks im going golfing

I love how its ALWYAS just about Mr. Schmdit! If any other person that had a "PROFESSIONAL" status had done this, I would be saying the exact same things. It just so happens that I have now seen 2 instances that involved Mr. Schmidt.....Hmmmmm! And as for me having bigger problems with you....I have already had to help save your little ass from being kicked once in Nashville a few years ago so, if you would like to discuss this in person....you know where to find me. I will not speak on this subject again.

Southpaw

TheOne
02-07-2006, 07:17 AM
drinking, getting laid, penis size

Timberely I think we need a referee?

:eek: :D

cuetechasaurus
02-07-2006, 07:25 AM
penis size

I think your entire rant was based on the fact that you want to see John's private parts and you have a secret crush on him. John Schmidt if I were you, I would stay away from this guy.

smurf
02-07-2006, 07:29 AM
It's a real simple deal. If you play in someones' tournament, you abide by their rules. If you disagree with their rules...DON'T PARTICIPATE!!!!
Sure seems simpler than a lot of pointless whining.

ironman
02-07-2006, 07:29 AM
I don't think bumping this thread is really necessary.

In answer to your question.... Ask it it again when pool is as big as football. When pool players make football players salaries. Also, John is one person, not a whole team.

Obviously, his actions proved that!

9ballhustla
02-07-2006, 07:32 AM
i dont understand why not take the 400 from the calcutta pot and just pay the guy back, no big deal.

Hustla

chefjeff
02-07-2006, 07:57 AM
This discussion is getting away from the real problem....

The calcutta is a known gamble...so that's not the problem---the $400 bettor lost his bet. That's what gambling is all about, right? I'd wanna break some thumbs if it happened to me, but that's between the gambler and the (non)player who walked, moreso than it is for the TD, imho.

THE problem, that destroyed real value, is that spectators PAID MONEY FOR SOMETHING and then they didn't get it because _________did __________.

Jeff Livingston

Gee whiz, now I'm quoting my own post.:confused:

It came to my attention that someone thought that I was advocating using violence, in my post, above. I wasn't advocating the literal (see English thread:cool: ) breaking of thumbs; I was using that pool term for expressing what my disappointment would've been had I bet on John and how I would've let him know in no uncertain terms how I felt about his leaving and the future negative consequences of his (non)actions. Sorry for any confusion.

I've seen this crap happen before...that's why my money stays in my pocket and would never go anymore to "professional" men's pool as gate receipts, or amateur calcuttas, or anywhere else pool (non)players want some of it....:mad: hint hint. May the IPT change all of this soon. ;)

And, again, that bet didn't start the problem, did it?

Jeff Livingston

BlowFish
02-07-2006, 08:07 AM
Whoa !!! This thread has gotten way outta line. There are way many speculations.

Here are a few facts to help clear up the speculations.

JS stated that there isn't enough money in the sport.

John, I couldn't agree with you more but the event in question paid out over $53,000 the the overall winner received over $12,000 in winnings. I personally don't think that a bad payday in our sport.

After reading as much as I could on this thread I assume that some think JS never played a match at the event in question. If he didn't play in the opening rounds this wouldn't be an issue. I would have simply gave the funds back to the person that posted the fee.

JS did play Putnam in the opening round but lost and hit the 1-loss side. That's when the I want to go glofing with JA came into play. Additionally, several other professional players made the same request as JS because they were all going to the same place. However, JS was the only one that made the decision to forfeit out of the pool event.

To JS........ We had this discussion at the event. You were specifically told of the penalties for such actions. You and CD made the exact same request about the golfing situation and I specifically mentioned to you that you would be making a bad choice. If you recall, I told you to ask CD about this because he was on a similar ban a few years ago on the Viking Tour.

John, from what I recall you have only participated in 2 of our splash events on the V-Tour. #1. The $25,000 National Championship. At this event you didn't place high but you did win the Brunswick Gold Crown IV in the raffle. #2 the SCO which is the event in question. I hope you will realise all of the issues on the table and come to an amicable solution so you can once again enjoy participating with us.

I aslo suggest that the next time you JS participate in an event that has either a Player Auction, Calcutta or Audience Participation involved with the event that you remove yourself from the list so you are not bound by the rules of participation and mutual respect that is associated with them.

Respectfully,

Mj


3 Questions on this thread already answered:

1) Did JS acted Professionally?

Answer: No (As per above.)


2) Was the penalty from Viking Tour (MJ's) harsh?

Answer: No (As per above.)


3) Can the $400 be returned?

Answer: No (As per above.)


Case close. Back to lurk mode.

-----------------
I love pool. I love this board. It's like watching a soap.

uwate
02-07-2006, 08:11 AM
i dont understand why not take the 400 from the calcutta pot and just pay the guy back, no big deal.

Hustla

1) Its not fair to the winners of the calcutta.
2) The calcutta is gambling, everyone should take their lumps if their horse is a quitter. Thats the risk you take when you buy a player.
3) To do a payback would set a bad precedent where someone could just quit if they got to the one loss side and their calcutta bettors could argue that they deserve their money back. Imagine how many would do this if their next match was Efren.

watchez
02-07-2006, 08:12 AM
Timberely I think we need a referee?

:eek: :D


WOW.........

john schmidt
02-07-2006, 08:17 AM
im saying this to babys arm i understand you hate me and your smarter ,better looking,better golfer and richer more endowed get girlfriends easier and all that and maybe if im lucky you will sign a tshirt for me or something.but as far as you making up these lies about i dont appreciate it and i have even seen people get sued for slander but im sure you know that already because your smarter than me.

chefjeff
02-07-2006, 08:20 AM
(snip)maybe if im lucky you will sign a tshirt for me or something.(snip).

lol...You've got a good sense of humor, John. :)

Jeff Livingston

watchez
02-07-2006, 08:21 AM
im saying this to babys arm i understand you hate me and your smarter ,better looking,better golfer and richer more endowed get girlfriends easier and all that and maybe if im lucky you will sign a tshirt for me or something.but as far as you making up these lies about i dont appreciate it and i have even seen people get sued for slander but im sure you know that already because your smarter than me.

Hey John,
Just to help you out. Slander is something you say. Libel is something you write.

macguy
02-07-2006, 08:25 AM
Very simple solution, all players insist their names not be in the calcutta. Why should they let themselves be prostituted by gamblers and Mr. Janis for nothing, and on top of that they could be penalized, screw that, they came, paid their entry to play pool for themselves and no one else plain and simple. Do they have an obligation to the spectators and fans, yes to a degree but not to the degree Mr. Janis seems to think. They are not a bunch of whores of monkeys for his amusement and profit.
By the way, I hope Mr Janis at least gave the guy back his 10% ($40.00) or does he want to keep that as well and have John have to also pay him?
Screw the calcuttas, the players can stop this themselves real quick and stop their ass's from being sold like a bunch of whores. That is my opinion and I hope they take it.

ironman
02-07-2006, 08:34 AM
im saying this to babys arm i understand you hate me and your smarter ,better looking,better golfer and richer more endowed get girlfriends easier and all that and maybe if im lucky you will sign a tshirt for me or something.but as far as you making up these lies about i dont appreciate it and i have even seen people get sued for slander but im sure you know that already because your smarter than me.

What did he say that was so smart? I missed it?

Travis Bickle
02-07-2006, 08:42 AM
Better read fast! Soon it'll be back to threads on tip diameter and shaft composition. But hell, that's in here, too.

Chris
02-07-2006, 09:10 AM
I would be willing to lay odds that per capita there are more Wife Beaters, Chemists and Sexual Adventurers in pool than there is in any other sport.

What kind of odds are you talking about?

JG-in-KY
02-07-2006, 09:34 AM
I am afraid I am quite slanted toward the tournament director and player auctions side. Like anything else, player auctions have their downsides. But until there is sufficient money for pool players to make a good living, auctions and gambling will still play a big part of the game. I personally love that aspect of the game and always will. Also how many players have you seen that take part in the auctions? A very high percentage from my experience. Most players are gamblers, whether it be cards, dice, golf,sports betting, etc.

It also brings in a lot of people who love to participate, that for one reason or another can't play. They often times put players in the tournament, stake matches and generally spend money freely. This helps the bottom line of the poolroom/tournament.

I have tremendous respect for someone like Jay Helfert who has devoted his whole life to the game. He certainly hasn't done it for the money(Matt Janis either). I know where he is comming from(although on a much smaller scale). I have supported tournaments, the pool industry, ran smaller tourneys, had a couple of pool rooms and put a few players in action. If this is the game you love and choose make the most of it - or make a career change.

** Remember if you want to be treated as a professional, you must act the part. Actions speak louder than words**

supergreenman
02-07-2006, 10:26 AM
Very simple solution, all players insist their names not be in the calcutta. Why should they let themselves be prostituted by gamblers and Mr. Janis for nothing, and on top of that they could be penalized, screw that, they came, paid their entry to play pool for themselves and no one else plain and simple. Do they have an obligation to the spectators and fans, yes to a degree but not to the degree Mr. Janis seems to think. They are not a bunch of whores of monkeys for his amusement and profit.
By the way, I hope Mr Janis at least gave the guy back his 10% ($40.00) or does he want to keep that as well and have John have to also pay him?
Screw the calcuttas, the players can stop this themselves real quick and stop their ass's from being sold like a bunch of whores. That is my opinion and I hope they take it.


We don't have a stack of calcuttas around here in pool, but over the years I've seen my fair share of them at the the golf course and this is my opinion of them. Calcuttas are run by the "Old Boys Club" for the "Old Boys Club", and the "Old Boys Club" has always padded it's pockets on the sweat and labor of others. why make money doing something when you can make money from someone else doing something.

Calcuttas have an uncanny way of effecting the outcome of any event, and are bad for the sport.

ScottR
02-07-2006, 10:32 AM
He missed 1 match and you're upset? It happens. Passing judgment on his professionalism isn't necessary. People make mistakes. John didn't twist that guy's arm to pay $400 into the player auction and chances are that John would not have seen a dime if the guy made any money back. That's reality. That's how players view it. You bring up Johnny Archer... that's probably the guy John went golfing with. lol

David, I truly can't believe that you are defending this position. You. The person who is always advocating positive change to elevate the status of the pool world. I don't get it. :confused:

Yep. Johnny plays golf. But, he didn't forfeit a match to do it in this case, did he? C'mon.

I know you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. However, this post sure appears to be 180 degrees from your previous communications.

Tbeaux
02-07-2006, 11:09 AM
Hey Terry,
Re: The Viking Tour stop 02/04-05/06 in Duluth.
79 players entered this event. A very good turn out!!!
Main Event Results:
1st: Paul Song
2nd: Cliff Jonner
3rd: Monica Webb who sent Cliff to the 1-Loss side and then lost to Paul for the hot seat was then defeated by Cliff.

Second Chance Event: ( New to the Viking Tour )
This event had 14 entries & was a ring game still format.

This is an event that comes from the old school, my main stay from the late 60's, early 70's.

Most of the entries had never played in this type of event.
What I saw was the players were having fun.

Results:
1st: Helena Thornfeldt $400
2nd: Billy Tyler $230
3rd: Diane Gabberd (Diane Crane) $100
4th: Marcus Pendly $50

Thanks Lamar,

Glad to see Helena did okay too.:)

Terry

pokerhammer
02-07-2006, 12:04 PM
seems funny that the dump incident in Miss. , the Josh Arieh episode, and now this all involve John Schmidt. There was also talk of a dump to Tony Watson? Where did that post go? Its not on here anymore.

watchez
02-07-2006, 12:36 PM
There was also talk of a dump to Tony Watson? Where did that post go? Its not on here anymore.
Seems that gotmilf is now gotbanned.....all his posts are deleted.

George
02-07-2006, 12:47 PM
First of all, have never heard another word from Mark after two PM's. Maybe he was just blowing off steam. We weren't. Tang was ready to play and I had my end ready. If it comes off I will let you know, on here.
I never said Efren was an angel, but I personally have never seen him give less than 100% in a match. He looks to me like he is always trying to win. And I can't remember him ever not showing up for a match. I know I never had to forfeit him. And I thought that was the point we were discussing here.


I hate to burst people's bubble about Efren but I personally witnessed him dump 2 matches at a Joss event at Snookers in Providence a few years ago. It was the first time I ever saw him play and he dumped twice, both times to Bustamante. I knew who had what in the calcutta and suspected this would be the case(made some nice beans betting on Bustamante, everyone wanted to take Efren). To make things worse they were extremely obvious dumps. Efren missing multiple very easy shots at crucial times in the match. I mean he literally played like a "B" player, it was bad.
Unfortunately it`s all about how to end up with the biggest slice of the money. Bustamante had half of himself in the calcutta(which was HUGE) and Efren didn`t have any of himself. I guess he figured it was to expensive. He went for almost double what Bustamante went for. If I had bought Efren I wouldn't have been a happy camper.

George

pokerhammer
02-07-2006, 12:56 PM
Seems that gotmilf is now gotbanned.....all his posts are deleted.


What did he get banned for? I didn't see anything out of line in his posts. It seems he was responding to John S.

cuejoey
02-07-2006, 12:57 PM
Better read fast! Soon it'll be back to threads on tip diameter and shaft composition. But hell, that's in here, too.
LOL............................................... ....................................:eek:

George
02-07-2006, 01:08 PM
What did he get banned for? I didn't see anything out of line in his posts. It seems he was responding to John S.

gotmilf = the baby's arm = already banned

George

Rude Dog
02-07-2006, 01:25 PM
gotmilf = the baby's arm = already banned

George
I wonder how many pm's were titled, "The Baby's Arm is gotmilf" in Mike's and Mr. Wilson's box?

uwate
02-07-2006, 01:30 PM
I hate to burst people's bubble about Efren but I personally witnessed him dump 2 matches at a Joss event at Snookers in Providence a few years ago. It was the first time I ever saw him play and he dumped twice, both times to Bustamante. I knew who had what in the calcutta and suspected this would be the case(made some nice beans betting on Bustamante, everyone wanted to take Efren). To make things worse they were extremely obvious dumps. Efren missing multiple very easy shots at crucial times in the match. I mean he literally played like a "B" player, it was bad.
Unfortunately it`s all about how to end up with the biggest slice of the money. Bustamante had half of himself in the calcutta(which was HUGE) and Efren didn`t have any of himself. I guess he figured it was to expensive. He went for almost double what Bustamante went for. If I had bought Efren I wouldn't have been a happy camper.

George

We were sitting in the lounge at the Derby City and my buddy was chatting with another fellow who staked Parica to play in the 10ball Ring game. My buddy asked him why he didnt stake Efren. The replay was that Parica was the only Filipino that he trusted since all the others had done some business against his interests in the past. It seems that as long as pool players struggle to make money, even the best are subject to cutting up their backers, dumping matches or otherwise acting in a manner with questionable ethics. This is unfortunate but people just need to be aware of this so that they can make better choices when they lay their money on the line in the pool room.

pokerhammer
02-07-2006, 01:55 PM
gotmilf = the baby's arm = already banned

George

Oh, ok. thanks. I wish they would have left his post up though. I'm curious about the entire John Schmidt trials and tribulations.

pokerhammer
02-07-2006, 01:57 PM
I wonder how many pm's were titled, "The Baby's Arm is gotmilf" in Mike's and Mr. Wilson's box?


Didn't seem he was too worried about getting caught since he used his real name in the post. lol

ScottW
02-07-2006, 02:01 PM
..........

enzo
02-07-2006, 02:02 PM
I hate to burst people's bubble about Efren but I personally witnessed him dump 2 matches at a Joss event at Snookers in Providence a few years ago. It was the first time I ever saw him play and he dumped twice, both times to Bustamante. I knew who had what in the calcutta and suspected this would be the case(made some nice beans betting on Bustamante, everyone wanted to take Efren). To make things worse they were extremely obvious dumps. Efren missing multiple very easy shots at crucial times in the match. I mean he literally played like a "B" player, it was bad.
Unfortunately it`s all about how to end up with the biggest slice of the money. Bustamante had half of himself in the calcutta(which was HUGE) and Efren didn`t have any of himself. I guess he figured it was to expensive. He went for almost double what Bustamante went for. If I had bought Efren I wouldn't have been a happy camper.

George

This has been my point all along. Many players I can think of I've seen do some horrible things (much worse than not showing up for a match!). Yet I rarely see these other players indiscretions being posted on this forum. John, despite how good a guy he is, seems to be constantly bombarded on this forum for whatever reason. I think its because there are a few people on here that don't like him and they fuel these threads.

Egg McDogit
02-07-2006, 02:27 PM
We give the fine back to the individual or corporation that posted the entry fee for the player to make sure that there is absolutely no thought of the tour banning players for profit and no sense of improprieties on our part.


is that really true? let's see. 400 in the calcutta - er player's auction. you take 10%. the rest gets paid out I guess? then it's the player's responsibility to cover the 360. oh wait, that's 400. where did the rest go again? just out of curiosity, did you pay the guy who bought him back? or is that between john and him? makes a lot of sense to me. personally, I think the rule is bullsht. but your tour, your rules.

watchez
02-07-2006, 02:44 PM
Oh, ok. thanks. I wish they would have left his post up though. I'm curious about the entire John Schmidt trials and tribulations.
I knew it would get deleted so I copied it. $5.00 and I'll let you read it.

watchez
02-07-2006, 03:21 PM
Watchez sed:
I knew it would get deleted so I copied it. $5.00 and I'll let you read it.


Cool. The check is in the mail. I'm going to play golf.
Doug
I hope you mailed the check directly to me. I don't want Janis to get his hands on it & take 10%.....or some pool player to get ahold of it & dump the entire thing.

pokerhammer
02-07-2006, 03:46 PM
I hope you mailed the check directly to me. I don't want Janis to get his hands on it & take 10%.....or some pool player to get ahold of it & dump the entire thing.


Thanks watchez, I got the posts. I've read over them a couple of times now and I still don't get why this guy was banned. He said almost the exact same things that I've heard, but he quoted right from the horses mouth. I personally haven't met John, so I'll refrain from passing judgement, but I should be able to post anything I've heard as this is a public forum open to peoples opinions.

Timberly
02-07-2006, 03:50 PM
Thanks watchez, I got the posts. I've read over them a couple of times now and I still don't get why this guy was banned. He said almost the exact same things that I've heard, but he quoted right from the horses mouth. I personally haven't met John, so I'll refrain from passing judgement, but I should be able to post anything I've heard as this is a public forum open to peoples opinions.

If gotmilf was an alias that belonged to the person that was originally TheBabysArm, that's why they were banned. TheBabysArm was banned prior to this thread for something totally different than anything to do with this thread. Regardless of what good or bad things gotmilf said, if it's the same ip as TheBabysArm, that's grounds for being banned because that person was already banned.

Blackjack
02-07-2006, 05:37 PM
David, I truly can't believe that you are defending this position. You. The person who is always advocating positive change to elevate the status of the pool world. I don't get it. :confused:

Yep. Johnny plays golf. But, he didn't forfeit a match to do it in this case, did he? C'mon.

I know you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. However, this post sure appears to be 180 degrees from your previous communications.

Scott,
First off, my stance is this: From here on out I'm just another player, no different than you or anybody else. My involvement in "elevating the status of pool" is non-existent at this time. Some of my posts you will agree with, some you won't agree with. I can't promise you that you will like everything I will post, but I can promise you that I will express myself honestly.

I consider John a friend. That will make my perspective slanted in this situation. Some of the recent threads that have questioned his character are ridiculous if you ask me. Much like John (and many other players) I fail to see where I am committed to a person that buys me in a calcutta or 'player auction". Historically, players have been screwed by these "auctions" for years. Personally, I don't feel as if I "have to" trust anybody I have never met before just because they bought me in a calcutta - I don't care who it is. I don't owe them anything. Even if you buy half of yourself back from some of these guys, they are insulted that you took away some of their earning potential. You may not like hearing me say that, but that's reality. It is no secret that the TD's take a percentage of the player auction. That's life. Unless I participate in the auction, what good is it for me? I've already paid my entry, travel, hotel, food, etc, etc, etc... Now I have to worry about being whored out? As a player, I just ignore it most of the time. Its just a distraction.

I don't have much pity for the guy that lost $400 because that was a deal between him and The Viking Tour, not between him and John Schmidt. The guy gave his $400 and things didn't work out for him. That's the risk you take when you bet on horse. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses, sometimes it trots in the wrong direction. That is what makes gambling so exciting - the unexpected might happen. John missing his match was unexpected. It happens. Mike's hands were tied because this happened after the tournament started and he was committed to the Auction payout. John was wrong for missing his match, but then again I know how much John loves to golf, so I'm really not surprised at how he missed his match. He went golfing with Corey and Johnny and I know he probably had a blast. Welcome to wonderful world of pool. Never a dull moment.

Bill O
02-07-2006, 06:14 PM
David, the only tour (that I know of in the NE) that takes a cut of the calctta is the Joss Tour. All the "opens" or "ABCD's" I've been to leave all the calcutta for the players. Another thing I've seen at these tournaments is the Buyers ability to get his money back if the player doesn't take 1/2. In the wonderous world of pool, if a player doesn't want a piece of the action you need that option. And the player must buy 1/2 or he is barred from future calcuttas. Is this a NY thing?

Having said this, do you know if the Viking tour takes a piece of the calcutta? Are players offered 1/2?

JustPlay
02-07-2006, 06:44 PM
Please note that Mike Janis offers to all players, that if a player does not want to participate in the calcutta, that player can take his or her name off that list. john Schmidt should have taken that option when he signed up for the calcutta. As I recall, if a player participates in the calcutta, he has to pay a minimum of $10 on himself if no one bids on them. Mike has made the rules clear for this.


John and any other top player knows, that people will bid on them in a calcutta and most of the time its for a good chunk of change. If John had played and did not want to buy half himself is one thing, to just let the TD, players and bidders, waste a good amount of time bidding, an absentee player without notice, he should be penalized! So I do not blame Mike for his decision, regardless of my thoughts on pool calcuttas.

Blackjack
02-07-2006, 07:10 PM
David, the only tour (that I know of in the NE) that takes a cut of the calctta is the Joss Tour. All the "opens" or "ABCD's" I've been to leave all the calcutta for the players. Another thing I've seen at these tournaments is the Buyers ability to get his money back if the player doesn't take 1/2. In the wonderous world of pool, if a player doesn't want a piece of the action you need that option. And the player must buy 1/2 or he is barred from future calcuttas. Is this a NY thing?

Having said this, do you know if the Viking tour takes a piece of the calcutta? Are players offered 1/2?

Some tours do and some tours don't. It has been stated in this thread that Mike Janis does (none of my business really) but he has every right to take a piece if that is the case. I'm sure that Mike can answer those questions in regards to the Viking Tour. The Viking Tour is the best tour out there because he does a great job.

wahcheck
02-07-2006, 07:13 PM
I think I'm the 224th poster for this thread....what is the record for most posts on a thread? Just curious.....

sjm
02-07-2006, 07:20 PM
I think I'm the 224th poster for this thread....what is the record for most posts on a thread? Just curious.....

The thread "Faces for the Names" presently has 445 replies, but I don't know if that's the record.

Bill O
02-07-2006, 07:22 PM
Some tours do and some tours don't. It has been stated in this thread that Mike Janis does (none of my business really) but he has every right to take a piece if that is the case. I'm sure that Mike can answer those questions in regards to the Viking Tour. The Viking Tour is the best tour out there because he does a great job.

I should have written Mike privately.

sjm
02-07-2006, 07:38 PM
[sjm]The thread "Faces for the Names" presently has 445 replies, but I don't know if that's the record.


I think someone (now banned) had a thread about whether or not he should be banned and using all his different aliases,he had thousands of replies between he and himself and a million 'views' (by clicking on the thread himself every 8 seconds for over a week without sleeping. All to avail....

I seem to remember a thread called "Who are the Five Best Players in Your State?" that had tons and tons of posts in it, too.

Tbeaux
02-07-2006, 08:33 PM
:) :) Congratulations to Helena Thornfeldt for winning the LAMAR (second chance)OPEN!
Thanks to LAMAR for his support of the players and the sport. Thanks to Mike Janis and the room owners for having the event. NOW, lets go play some golf.:)

Terry

ribdoner
02-07-2006, 09:41 PM
JS should not have been banned for no show unless consequences explaned during plyr mtg,etc. Calcutta/side/rail betting has always been, and will probably always be, a buyer BWARE endeaver. Fewer issues of moral turpitude if calcutta/player auctions eliminated. Downside is fewer $ to be skimmed.

lamar25
02-07-2006, 11:14 PM
Hey Lamar,:)

First regarding your football question. The advertisers and network would own that team after they sued.The fans would never attend a game again.
The players and/or owner would be banned for life and no "Hall of Fame".

Given this statement above by you I'd like to hear your thoughts. What would you think if a player you put your money on walked? Who's responsibility would you think it is to make it right, the player or the tour?
Do you think you take your chances and "oh well" this time I picked a lame horse?

I think Mike J. has been put into a difficult situation. It is bad for him, bad for the tour (and their willingness to continue having a tour), bad the backer, bad regarding the willingness of the pool room and maybe other rooms to have events, bad for John S.'s reputation, bad for the fans.


Terry

Hey Terry,
Ok you ask for It. "Feb. '05"
John S. was the first round blind bid winner at a cost of $1,000. (BTW, The same person bought him in the Southern Classic 1-pocket event for $400).
2nd blind bid went my way at a cost of $900, I picked who I thought was one of the best 9-ball players in the world.
My next 3 Picks were Charlie Bryant, Stevie Moore, & BJ Ussery.
Come Sunday (final event day), all my players were still on the winners side.
Guess what, C.B. vs S.M. & B.J. vs $900 player.
$900 player dumped to B.J. and then dumped to S.M.

I recieved $75 on my $900 investment in EARL STRICKLAND. What I learned here was not to pick E.S. in an auction!

I would like to thank the following:
For holding the best events I've attented.
The Pool Room I , Mike Janis

ribdoner
02-07-2006, 11:27 PM
Hey Terry,
Ok you ask for It. "Feb. '05"
John S. was the first round blind bid winner at a cost of $1,000. (BTW, The same person bought him in the Southern Classic 1-pocket event for $400).
2nd blind bid went my way at a cost of $900, I picked who I thought was one of the best 9-ball players in the world.
My next 3 Picks were Charlie Bryant, Stevie Moore, & BJ Ussery.
Come Sunday (final event day), all my players were still on the winners side.
Guess what, C.B. vs S.M. & B.J. vs $900 player.
$900 player dumped to B.J. and then dumped to S.M.

I recieved $75 on my $900 investment in EARL STRICKLAND.

I would like to thank the following:
The Pool Room I , Mike Janis
Real tough to get a FAIR gamble when players dump,quit and u have to fad a 10 pt rake. :(

lamar25
02-07-2006, 11:41 PM
Terry, the most immediate Viking event, Paul Song won without a loss, Cliff Joyner for second, and Monica Webb for third.

I'm confused now, not knowing which Viking tournament you might be referring to.:p

JAM

Hey Jam,
I believe most of the posts in this thread relate to the "THE SOUTHERN CLASSIC" which was held 10/17-23/05.
Lamar

MikeJanis
02-07-2006, 11:43 PM
JS should not have been banned for no show unless consequences explaned during plyr mtg,etc. Calcutta/side/rail betting has always been, and will probably always be, a buyer BWARE endeaver. Fewer issues of moral turpitude if calcutta/player auctions eliminated. Downside is fewer $ to be skimmed.

Actually, the downside of not having player auctions or calcutta's is less players at events, less spectators at events and ultimately less events.

On the V-Tour if you don't want to be involved then you need to remove yourself from the auction list. It's that simple. No ands, if's or butt's.

Mj

enzo
02-07-2006, 11:57 PM
Mike Janis,

We don't really have player auctions out here, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with them, but don't you feel they create gigantic conflict of interet problems that probably often change the outcome of tournamnets? Not trying to put you on the hotseat at all, but am just curious what you'd say to a young fan who found out his favorite player dumped a match for a cut of the auction money (for example).

MikeJanis
02-08-2006, 12:21 AM
Mike Janis,

We don't really have player auctions out here, so I am somewhat unfamiliar with them, but don't you feel they create gigantic conflict of interet problems that probably often change the outcome of tournamnets? Not trying to put you on the hotseat at all, but am just curious what you'd say to a young fan who found out his favorite player dumped a match for a cut of the auction money (for example).

Actually, they are a huge draw and the problems are very minimal. In all 12 years of the tour it has only been an issue on 5 occasions.

I won't name names but we have banned only 5 players for various reasons.

1. 2 players for Dumping
1 of them is on a lifetime ban and the other payed his fine and currently plays on the tour. It wasn't an all out dump for profit but more of an I'll show you type of thing.
2. 3 players for the same reason as JS. Out of these 3 players all but 1 has paid the set fine and to this day continue to play on the V-Tour.

If anyone remembers, the tour in it's beginning only had $13,000 added in total for each year and only 6 sponsors. Because we listened to the players, spectators, room owners and sponsors we now add about $93,000 per tour year to our events and have 36 sponsors.

I don't plan on making any changes except to continue looking for more sponsors and getting more monies added to the events.
Mj

Koop
02-08-2006, 06:53 AM
I seem to remember a thread called "Who are the Five Best Players in Your State?" that had tons and tons of posts in it, too.

I believe the biggest hitting thread was the one JAM created where everyone would tell a little about themselves. I could be wrong but that one was huge.

pillage6
02-08-2006, 07:12 AM
Maybe you could take a poll at the next Viking tournament, those in favor of having a calcutta and those who are not?

Stating that the tour is now bigger and better than before is not a very valid arguement for holding a calcutta, there is a reason why they are illegal.

Tbeaux
02-08-2006, 07:17 AM
I believe the biggest hitting thread was the one JAM created where everyone would tell a little about themselves. I could be wrong but that one was huge.

Actually it's-

VEIWS 1) Top 5 players in your state
2) Faces for Names
3) Azbilliards Survey

Posts 1) Azbilliards Survey
2) Faces for Names
3) Top 5 players in your state

Terry

ScottR
02-08-2006, 07:27 AM
Scott,
First off, my stance is this: From here on out I'm just another player, no different than you or anybody else. My involvement in "elevating the status of pool" is non-existent at this time. Some of my posts you will agree with, some you won't agree with. I can't promise you that you will like everything I will post, but I can promise you that I will express myself honestly.

I consider John a friend. That will make my perspective slanted in this situation. Some of the recent threads that have questioned his character are ridiculous if you ask me. Much like John (and many other players) I fail to see where I am committed to a person that buys me in a calcutta or 'player auction". Historically, players have been screwed by these "auctions" for years. Personally, I don't feel as if I "have to" trust anybody I have never met before just because they bought me in a calcutta - I don't care who it is. I don't owe them anything. Even if you buy half of yourself back from some of these guys, they are insulted that you took away some of their earning potential. You may not like hearing me say that, but that's reality. It is no secret that the TD's take a percentage of the player auction. That's life. Unless I participate in the auction, what good is it for me? I've already paid my entry, travel, hotel, food, etc, etc, etc... Now I have to worry about being whored out? As a player, I just ignore it most of the time. Its just a distraction.

I don't have much pity for the guy that lost $400 because that was a deal between him and The Viking Tour, not between him and John Schmidt. The guy gave his $400 and things didn't work out for him. That's the risk you take when you bet on horse. Sometimes it wins, sometimes it loses, sometimes it trots in the wrong direction. That is what makes gambling so exciting - the unexpected might happen. John missing his match was unexpected. It happens. Mike's hands were tied because this happened after the tournament started and he was committed to the Auction payout. John was wrong for missing his match, but then again I know how much John loves to golf, so I'm really not surprised at how he missed his match. He went golfing with Corey and Johnny and I know he probably had a blast. Welcome to wonderful world of pool. Never a dull moment.
David,
I really appreciate the thoughtful and well-stated response.

I guess my naive hope is that, in spite of the past workings of the pool world, we can all help move past that and into the realm of "professional" conduct. Before I get hammered, let me say that I realize that "professional" is a term that has been stretched beyond recognition by athletes (all the references Timberly states above) and business people (Enron, Worldcom, etc.), among others.

HOWEVER...... there are still people in the world who rise above that and conduct themselves without stepping on others, destroying their own integrity and are still successful. Ask Lee Trevino whether his life as a golf hustler was better or worse than as a "professional" golfer. AND, he didn't have to give up his colorful personality and become a robot. It is possible to have both worlds and I want to see that goal realized for all the talented men and women who are good enough to play at the "professional" level of the game we all love.

I've never met John and am not bashing him. And, we could argue whether a Viking tournament is a "professional" event or not (I think it is), or whether John had any obligation to the player auction buyer (in my opinion, he didn't). But, I hope that we can soon get to an environment where the players feel an obligation to the fans that come to watch them play, because of the thrill of performing for fans AND because they (the pros) are being fairly compensated for their talents and fulfillment of that obligation.

I'll put down my crack pipe and go back to my "bubble" world now. :rolleyes: :D

Tbeaux
02-08-2006, 07:28 AM
Hey Terry,
Ok you ask for It. "Feb. '05"
John S. was the first round blind bid winner at a cost of $1,000. (BTW, The same person bought him in the Southern Classic 1-pocket event for $400).
2nd blind bid went my way at a cost of $900, I picked who I thought was one of the best 9-ball players in the world.
My next 3 Picks were Charlie Bryant, Stevie Moore, & BJ Ussery.
Come Sunday (final event day), all my players were still on the winners side.
Guess what, C.B. vs S.M. & B.J. vs $900 player.
$900 player dumped to B.J. and then dumped to S.M.

I recieved $75 on my $900 investment in EARL STRICKLAND.

I would like to thank the following:
The Pool Room I , Mike Janis

Hi Lamar,

That's a rough one Lamar. Kinda like going in for scheduled surgury and having the doctor decide he's not getting paid enough so he doesn't sew you up.
Of course this incident is different...it's more like the doctor decided to leave the patient on the table, other patients in the waiting room and go golfing. Don't ya just love professionalism.

Terry

onepocketchump
02-08-2006, 08:31 AM
Actually, the downside of not having player auctions or calcutta's is less players at events, less spectators at events and ultimately less events.

On the V-Tour if you don't want to be involved then you need to remove yourself from the auction list. It's that simple. No ands, if's or butt's.

Mj

In fairness I have to say at that the Viking Events I have been to Mike has always made it clear at the beginning that any player who didn't want to be in the auction could opt out.

John

mapman72
02-08-2006, 09:55 AM
After reading almost this entire thread, I have come to several conclusions that I believe are true:

1. John Schmidt is generally thought of as a good guy, a great pool player, and someone who is good for the game of pool.
2. Mike Janis is a reputable tournament director who works very hard to promote the game and provide a great environment for pool players to compete and earn money.
3. John Schmidt was not aware that he could withdrawl his name from the Players Auction. Though that is not a legitimate excuse, it is something to be considered.
4. Mike Janis is trying to uphold the integrity of the Viking Tour and there are times that he needs to make decisions that will be difficult for one particular player but will benefit and sustain the tour overall.
5. Mike Janis warned John Schmidt that it would not be prudent to skip out on the match to play golf.
6. John Schmidt contends that it is his right to not participate in a match if he decides that it is not in his best interest.

After looking at these points and thinking about this particular situation, I think John and Mike should talk in person or on the telephone and come to a reasonable compromise. While I'm sure that Mike and others were very upset when this event occurred, some time has passed and it really is easy to see both sides of the story. I would encourage Mike and John to work this out because, as I've stated before, there are too many goofballs in this sport, and it would be a shame to have a rift between two decent, dedicated pool enthusiasts.

For John:
I think it is your decision to participate or not participate in any match where you have put up your own money to enter the tournament. I think your idea to not be involved in player's auctions in the future will solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Like you said before, it's not even a good deal for a player of your caliber since you go for such a high price anyway.

For Mike:
I completely understand your feelings and the need to establish and enforce rules on your tour. In this case, I suggest that you consider the fact that John was not aware that he could opt out of the player's auction before the event. I know you feel a certain responsibility to John's buyer, but I think an explanation of the things that came out of this thread may help to alleviate his contempt. While you did warn John about not skipping his match, I'm sure John felt like he had a right to skip his match if it was in his best interest. I believe John Schmidt when he says that he was unaware that he could opt out of the players auction and I think that needs to be considered.

I think this is something that the both of you can come to some resolution on because the alternative is the Viking Tour losing a great player and someone that will draw crowds and John Schmidt losing one of the few available money earning opportunities in this country.

So, although it's not my place, I will recommend one course of action...

Mike, my understanding is that you believe that John should pay the buyer the $400. From knowing a lot of professional players, I have come to undertand that $400 is not merely $400, but entry fee and two nights motel for their next tournament. So I can understand that most pros would not want to give up $400 for what they believe is nothing in return.

My Recommendation
I am assuming that the buyer of John Schmidt probably isn't as skilled as him but could possibly be as passionate about the game. The next Viking Tour, allow John to participate and exclude himself from the players auction. John, who I'm sure wants to clear his name from this episode with AZers and the buyer, agrees to dedicate four hours over the course of the weekend to the buyer for lessons or "free play". If the buyer is not interested in the lessons or the "free play", perhaps John could autograph some memorabilia and find some sponsor (assuming he has one) to donate a cue or a case.

I think this is a reasonable compromise to this situation and I am curious if John and Mike would be open to it. Remember, there is a mutual benefit to the both of you continuing your association. Think on these things.

Travis Bickle
02-08-2006, 10:08 AM
Great suggestions, mapman. Maybe something like that could satisfy the parties involved.

And if you've got time to spare NEXT week, there's this little disagreement over in Iraq ... :D

stick8
02-08-2006, 10:08 AM
dont wont to upset the ship, but was this john first vicking tourny??? I have been to many and have heard mike always anounce if you didnot wont to be in players auction, please tell him!!!! so what the big deal john??/ give the man money back and end all, be a sport. OLD MAN STICK

Actionhound
02-08-2006, 10:28 AM
heres an idea... why doesnt everyone leave this alone and let the parties involved work this out... nothing that is said on here is going to make any difference anyway and all your doing is Bashing a pool player that MAYBE 10% of you have met personally... its none of your buisness or mine (thats why i stayed out of the conversation) so just let it go. this thread has gone on WAY to long and too many poeple have put in there input without

A. Knowing all the information (all 3 sides)
B. Knowing the outside details (why John didnt play)
C. Knowing the parties involded.

So just let it go... its none of anyones buisness...
Sorry if i upset anyone by this but i hate GOSIP which is exactly what this is.

George
02-08-2006, 02:16 PM
After reading almost this entire thread, I have come to several conclusions that I believe are true:

1. John Schmidt is generally thought of as a good guy, a great pool player, and someone who is good for the game of pool.

Agreed

2. Mike Janis is a reputable tournament director who works very hard to promote the game and provide a great environment for pool players to compete and earn money.

Agreed

3. John Schmidt was not aware that he could withdrawl his name from the Players Auction. Though that is not a legitimate excuse, it is something to be considered.

I don't agree with this for several reasons. 1). I've played in a couple of MJ's events and he always announces that you can opt out so I don't believe JS didn't know what I do think is 2). He originally had no intention of playing golf when the tournament started so opting out wasn't considered during the player auction, the golf match was a spur of the moment kind of thing. 3). A player who considers himself to be or aspires to be a professional would play his matches in any tournament he enters for reasons that have nothing to do with a player auction. I don't think anyone can argue this.

4. Mike Janis is trying to uphold the integrity of the Viking Tour and there are times that he needs to make decisions that will be difficult for one particular player but will benefit and sustain the tour overall.

Agreed

5. Mike Janis warned John Schmidt that it would not be prudent to skip out on the match to play golf.

Agreed

6. John Schmidt contends that it is his right to not participate in a match if he decides that it is not in his best interest.

While it may be true that he can't be forced to play his matches I don't agree that this is how a "professional" should act. Lets remember, this was not an emergency situation for JS. No illness or family things that would warrant not showing for a match in a "professional" tournament.

After looking at these points and thinking about this particular situation, I think John and Mike should talk in person or on the telephone and come to a reasonable compromise. While I'm sure that Mike and others were very upset when this event occurred, some time has passed and it really is easy to see both sides of the story. I would encourage Mike and John to work this out because, as I've stated before, there are too many goofballs in this sport, and it would be a shame to have a rift between two decent, dedicated pool enthusiasts.

I couldn't agree more, they should be able to work this out between themselves.

For John:
I think it is your decision to participate or not participate in any match where you have put up your own money to enter the tournament. I think your idea to not be involved in player's auctions in the future will solve the problem mentioned in this thread. Like you said before, it's not even a good deal for a player of your caliber since you go for such a high price anyway.

For Mike:
I completely understand your feelings and the need to establish and enforce rules on your tour. In this case, I suggest that you consider the fact that John was not aware that he could opt out of the player's auction before the event. I know you feel a certain responsibility to John's buyer, but I think an explanation of the things that came out of this thread may help to alleviate his contempt. While you did warn John about not skipping his match, I'm sure John felt like he had a right to skip his match if it was in his best interest. I believe John Schmidt when he says that he was unaware that he could opt out of the players auction and I think that needs to be considered.

I think this is something that the both of you can come to some resolution on because the alternative is the Viking Tour losing a great player and someone that will draw crowds and John Schmidt losing one of the few available money earning opportunities in this country.

So, although it's not my place, I will recommend one course of action...

Mike, my understanding is that you believe that John should pay the buyer the $400. From knowing a lot of professional players, I have come to undertand that $400 is not merely $400, but entry fee and two nights motel for their next tournament. So I can understand that most pros would not want to give up $400 for what they believe is nothing in return.

My Recommendation
I am assuming that the buyer of John Schmidt probably isn't as skilled as him but could possibly be as passionate about the game. The next Viking Tour, allow John to participate and exclude himself from the players auction. John, who I'm sure wants to clear his name from this episode with AZers and the buyer, agrees to dedicate four hours over the course of the weekend to the buyer for lessons or "free play". If the buyer is not interested in the lessons or the "free play", perhaps John could autograph some memorabilia and find some sponsor (assuming he has one) to donate a cue or a case.

I think this is a reasonable compromise to this situation and I am curious if John and Mike would be open to it. Remember, there is a mutual benefit to the both of you continuing your association. Think on these things.


This is a very well thought out and written post, too bad we can't all express our opinions in this fashion.

My Recommendation:
I would think $360 from JS and $40 from MJ returned to the unforunate person who bought JS. If this had been some type of medical or family emergency then I would say the buyer would have to bite the bullet but due to the reasons for JS not playing his match(as I see them) I feel he has to be culpable. JMHO FWIW

George

Ratchet
02-08-2006, 03:08 PM
hogwash. Most players show BECAUSE there's a calcutta or side-pot. It's what makes these events worthwhile for most of them. I know the Joss Tour simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for them.

The Player Auction is the guts for a tournament , If it is a no money added tournament like some of the ones I attend there would be no money for a decent purse without it . Lets face the facts ,There is no "decent" money in pool
and we all know it, The Auction is a means unto itself , Most "pro" or road players need that money to get to the next tournament and to feed themselves and their families .They only hurt themselves and the image of the game when this kind of crap arises.

Mike Janis done what I think was right for the tour . When some one is bought and no shows that is bad for everyone involved and firm action must be taken quickly !


Ratchet - JMHO

Snapshot9
02-08-2006, 04:14 PM
Mapman had an excellent post. But I do not think JS should have to pay the whole $400 per se. What if JS played the whole tournament, but was just not playing his best, would he then owe the guy that bought him because he did not play his best .... no, he wouldn't or if he had been called away on a family emergency, no, he wouldn't.

If this were a divorce (from a marriage of sorts), the judge would say, okay
JS, you can not just walk out, your responsibility would be half or $200 to pay. The 4 lessons would be a 'good faith' gesture by JS to offset the $200
loss that the guy suffered. But, really the guy that bought him knew the risks going into the calcutta, and bought in 'good faith' that JS would be there at the end of the tournament. As players are in the spotlight more
(IPT driven), they will find themselves being expected more and more to behave in a 'professional manner' regarding their play and even in their private lives. This is really going to irritate the 'Hustler' in some of them.

Timberly
02-08-2006, 04:16 PM
Mapman72 said:
After looking at these points and thinking about this particular situation, I think John and Mike should talk in person or on the telephone and come to a reasonable compromise. While I'm sure that Mike and others were very upset when this event occurred, some time has passed and it really is easy to see both sides of the story. I would encourage Mike and John to work this out because, as I've stated before, there are too many goofballs in this sport, and it would be a shame to have a rift between two decent, dedicated pool enthusiasts.

George said:
I couldn't agree more, they should be able to work this out between themselves.


Timberly says:
The sad part is they did this. I was standing next to John when Janis came over to him, stuck his hand out and said "no hard feelings man, I was just doing what I had to do". John shook his hand & said something to the effect of "it's cool, I understand". I don't know about you guys but to me that says "We agree to disagree" and they went about their business.

A month later Southpaw starts this thread it and it was like starting back over from day one. :rolleyes: (FTR, southpaw has 30 posts. All but 6 are in a lets bash JS thread. What does that tell ya? :rolleyes: )

sjm
02-08-2006, 04:45 PM
For John:

I think it is your decision to participate or not participate in any match where you have put up your own money to enter the tournament.



John disagrees with you, as evidenced by this post of his.

again for the record i have no problem getting banned from the tour thats exactly what should happen to me or anyone else who does not show...

John impressed me with this post, admitting that his dismissal from the Viking Tour was justified. I hope other professionals will take a similar view to that stated here by John.

Rude Dog
02-08-2006, 04:53 PM
Is it just me, or is there always a nice feeling about things after sjm makes a post? I gotta give it to ya sjm, somehow, some way, you always make things just a little bit brighter in the room after reading one of your posts. You are 1 cool dude and I really do mean that!!! Peace, John.

vagabond
02-08-2006, 05:03 PM
Is it just me, or is there always a nice feeling about things after sjm makes a post? I gotta give it to ya sjm, somehow, some way, you always make things just a little bit brighter in the room after reading one of your posts. You are 1 cool dude and I really do mean that!!! Peace, John.


What are you upto!!!!
:D

Rude Dog
02-08-2006, 05:06 PM
What are you upto!!!!
:D
C'mon Vag, why would you think such a thing? Every once in awhile Ole Rude Dog likes to come down from his "wreak havoc on all man" mentality and give props to those, like sjm, that truly deserve it. He's cool, that's all I can say. Somebody tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya!:D Peace, John.

vagabond
02-08-2006, 05:13 PM
C'mon Vag, why would you think such a thing? EverPeace, John.
Think what?

sjm
02-08-2006, 07:14 PM
Is it just me, or is there always a nice feeling about things after sjm makes a post? I gotta give it to ya sjm, somehow, some way, you always make things just a little bit brighter in the room after reading one of your posts. You are 1 cool dude and I really do mean that!!! Peace, John.

Thank, Rude Dog, for your very generous words.