The Players Should Get a Percentage of Auctions Automatically

[Bigtruck]

I will say that the most successful auction that I have seen, pays the same amount of places in the tournament as the auction. I REALLY like this. If you cash, you cash in both.

In this scenario, putting 10% or 20% in the tournament, actually goes to the horse/player that got there. It does change considerably if the two pay different amount of spots.

If a tournament like this did take a % for the horse/player automatically and only offered them a chance to buy the difference up to 50%, I don't see how anyone could complain.

I don't see how it would effect anyone except the buyer who doesn't tip.

Ray

 

[Craig]

With guaranteed rebates. The deal making only gets bigger.

 

[doublej487]

i nvr usally buy any1 unless its a steal ...... but i think the players should get sumthing....... maybe instead of added money to tourneys lets do added money calcuttas

 

[Craig]

i nvr usally buy any1 unless its a steal ...... but i think the players should get sumthing....... maybe instead of added money to tourneys lets do added money calcuttas

If you have no personal gain from the tournament $$$ wise, why would you want to be the one putting up the added $$$? Just asking.

 

[Tobby]

Just a little personal side note from my past.

I hear all this talk of JELLY and JAM and really wish you guys would buy me LOL.

Example #1. I win a small local monthly tourny and sell kinda high so i dont buy half myself since i have came out LOSER after winning and doing this. The guy who bought me made over $600 and bought me a freaking COKE. im not kiddding a COKE not even a 2 liter.

Example #2. As a player its rough to try and buy yourself in a auction since once they see your bidding on yourself they start because they know you will take half and they can pump you up. So not making the player worry with bidding and still know he could get alittle of the prize fund would make it alittle more fair for the player and bidder. Bidder doesnt have to pay out as much and neither does the player.

Now i voted 90/10 and i mean comon $100 out of $1,000 isnt that bad is it?

 

[dardusm]

I'm divided on how I feel about calcutta's. On one hand, they can be very exciting adding extra $$$ to a tournament plus giving the spectators an interest in the outcome. On the other hand, I've seen some shady stuff over the years - dumps, splits, forfeits, etc. that can give the game a bad name. I've had players dump on me after buying them because they owned all of their road buddy and only half of themselves. It doesn't happen very often but does happen.

As a player, buying half myself has always been a business decision. What are my odds on the money (how much does the calcutta pay versus what I sold)? How strong is the field? etc. If I don't buy half myself then I don't expect to receive any calcutta. If I get tipped, then it's a bonus.

As stated by some earlier, whether calcutta's are "legal" is a grey area but if a rake is taken it is definitely "illegal". Of course, it doesn't matter if it isn't enforced.

 

[ironman]

I will say that the most successful auction that I have seen, pays the same amount of places in the tournament as the auction. I REALLY like this. If you cash, you cash in both.

In this scenario, putting 10% or 20% in the tournament, actually goes to the horse/player that got there. It does change considerably if the two pay different amount of spots.

If a tournament like this did take a % for the horse/player automatically and only offered them a chance to buy the difference up to 50%, I don't see how anyone could complain.

I don't see how it would effect anyone except the buyer who doesn't tip.

Ray

Well that is your opinion and you are entitled that.
i always paid half what the tournament paid. That invited some to bid higher on the players of choice and generated bigger pots. I thought that was the goal. I realize many have the mentality of keeping the calcutta pots lower. paying fewer spots in the calcutta invites much bigger pots because there is more won. After all the player antes his entry but the buyers often pay 10-times more for the player. Only a fool would spend $1000 for a player to win say $4-500.
When buyers get odds on the money it will entice them to return to do this again and again. Afterall most auction buyers realize they are in a losing proposition anyway. Not many return over and over again and again to come out ahead. As I stated earlier many calcuttas are the reason for the tournament. White Diamonds is a great example. If it weren't for the calcutta, the tournament would be lucky to see 64 players.
The players themselves have caused most of the grief over the calcuttas. They often can't/won't buy half of themselves which leaves the buyer with buyer remorse. Why would you spend so much on someone with no faith in himself? They then walk over to the buyer after cashing with his hand out as if he is owed something after investing nothing?
They show late and forfeit. They get drunk and perform horribly. They often just walk out in a tantrum telling the buyer to go to hell. If you have ever been victim to this, well, it stings.
Buyers invest and count on players to give his best effort. That is tough to count on these days. As promoters and TD"s we can do little to protect them but we surely get excited when we see them show up.
Cutting the calcutta to add to the prize fund? I don't understand this one at all. This should go to the auctioneer and keeps that fee off the facilitator and only encourages them to have more events. This keeps Promoters and TD"S from raking prize funds in order to get paid and keeps added money intact.
I just don't see the modern day reinvention of the wheel working so well or contributing to the game at all. The players and the buyers need as much protection as possible. We ask players to spend a little to win a lot. Why do we ask buyers to spend a lot to win so little?

 

[punter]

The calcutta is a risky enough proposition without cutting into it to add to the purse. Doing so will probably cause fewer people to participate in the calcutta and therefore smaller pools. Find some other way to add to the purse. JMO.

Edit: Maybe a streamer tax? J/K Ray.

 

[ironman]

The calcutta is a risky enough proposition without cutting into it to add to the purse. Doing so will probably cause fewer people to participate in the calcutta and therefore smaller pools. Find some other way to add to the purse. JMO.

Edit: Maybe a streamer tax? J/K Ray.

A great [point!! LMAO!

 

[OTB]

looks like the vote is in.........:thumbup:

 

[Bigtruck]

A great [point!! LMAO!

Well...If you notice...I voted and you did not. Does this mean you want to keep your options open?

I presented math and logic in a scenario above. No one has explained how it is any different except that the players would have a guaranteed incentive.

I'll take a stab at it.

The middle of the talent pool players that would buy half all day long would now only pay 30-40%. The buyers would only get 30-40% max return from a player, in turn making them pay 60-70% for only half chance. What is certainly a "long shot" becomes a longer shot.

People would only buy the top players for any decent amount and everyone else would go for $20 or to themselves. This would lower the overall pot, which in turn would make the end amount for the player lower than 100% to the buyer would be with a chance at a tip or selling their half to a buddy.

As for the deal making and drunken absenteeism that was mentioned......just gonna be part of it. Good thing it's only a small fraction of players that do that type of thing.

I would like to know what an event host or promoter should do when a player that went for 500-2000 in the auction just doesn't show up after his first loss??

Ray

 

[JoeyA]

I ride for the brand!

I've bought a player in the Calcutta and have them lose a match then later forfeit another match and it is not appreciated.

I've also had players who didn't care if they won or lost.

I've been so pissed with the owner of a pool room for running me up in a Calcutta (and other things), that I have threatened to dump them. I had a running feud with the owner and said that out of anger but anyone who knows me knows "I ride for the brand". Thanks Matt. I couldn't not try if you put a gun to my head. Lol It's just the way I'm built.

On the other hand, I don't like other people running me up in the Calcutta, just because I am likely to buy myself in the Calcutta. I've played in tournaments where better players than myself went for less than what I went for, not because I was expected to play better than the other players, but only because they used me (and others) to build the Calcutta. The better player going for less money (because they aren't going to buy half of themselves in the Calcutta, sucks imo.

I haven't voted in the poll because I don't know it taking money from the Calcutta to put some of it in the tournament is the right thing to do or the smart thing to do.

On one side of the consideration, I like the idea that some money gets kicked back into the player's tournament prize money from the Calcutta, simply because the tournament money isn't always what I would like it to be. Some tournaments don't add much if anything to the prize money so the payouts for the tournament prizes isn't very large.

I also don't like the idea of Calcutta buyers, purchasing players, making profits after forming a corporation to monopolize the purchasing of the best horses, (thereby increasing and practically GUARANTEEING that they make a profit at the expense of those players who actually "carry" the tournament.

Furthermore, I don't like the idea of Calcutta buyers making a profit and NOT TIPPING the player that made them the money.

I have always been for deep paying prize money for tournaments as well as deep-paying Calcuttas.

Why should players who aren't likely to win, place or show in the tournament be denied a decent portion of the Calcutta money, especially if they regularly support the Calcutta? If most of the people participate in the Calcutta (and they most always do) why should they not have an equal chance at cashing in the Calcutta? My son can't beat an egg in a pool tournament, yet I encourage him to buy himself for the minimum amount just to support the Calcutta and event. (I also tell him that is someone bids him up, to smile and buy half of himself. At least that way he can save a few bucks. )

I guess my reasoning has always been and will continue to be, if ALL money is shared more generously, up and down the line, it will benefit the whole more so than the few. If the whole is positively affected more so than the few, the tournament will continue to be healthy. When the concerns of a few are more important than the concerns of the whole group, the event will suffer.

A bigger pie, means more for everyone. A bigger slice of a smaller pie doesn't cut it for me.

Sleepers (people who's skill level varies greatly because of various reasons) like to see the Calcutta pay just a few places.

Big money corporations like to see just a few places paid in the Calcutta because THEY KNOW that this is a money maker for them. (Don't give me the excuse that they lose big sometime. It's a fact that they win more often than not, AND MONOPOLIZE THE CALCUTTA, they do.)

Players who fly under radar LOVE to see the Calcutta paid to just a few of the top players. Every now and then they can slip into a tournament and snap off a big score... That sucks too.

Bottom line: Pay more places in the tournament and the Calcutta and you'll have a successful event for a long time. Give most of the money to the same players (and Calcutta buyers) every tournament and the event will weaken and often die.

Tournament directors and pool room owners should not be involved with the Calcutta.

This next tournament in March at Lafayette, Louisiana (White Diamonds) they will auction off TWO players who are close friends for the price of one because they win it or place high in EVERY EVENT. It's a smart thing to do and the savvy Calcutta buyers will pay big for these two guys. Just for the record, this exception to the Calcutta rule is designed to protect the integrity of the Calcutta buyers and not to cast negative light upon the two players. A major announcement should accompany this exception as well as any other exceptions that might be made to the Calcutta.

While I'm on a roll, any player that forfeits their match FOR ANY REASON, they should be forced to sit out 1-3 tournaments. I have health problems that prevent me from finishing strong at the end of a long tournament but I won't forfeit a match as long as I can walk. During tournaments I have infrequently been ill but it has never kept me from finishing a tournament. The times I have had to leave a tournament because of family problems, I can count on one finger in my lifetime.

When players lose their first match, I have seen some of them "get sick" shortly thereafter. I say they should be forced to sit out a tournament or two when they pull that kind of crap. If it becomes a regular thing, ban them from the tournament altogether. (Providing there is a Calcutta).

If there is no Calcutta and they don't want to invest their time coming out of the one loss side, no problem if they forfeit. I still don't like it but that's just me and I don't see any reason to punish them for not trying to compete if there is no Calcutta.

 

[Marie's husband]

Now my theory on a calcutta and the money is pretty simple.

The person bidding is the person taking all the risk, why should that person be obligated to sell half to the player that he buys. If that player wanted himself, then he should have bid on himself or bought himself and asked anyone if they wanted half after he bought himself.


No percentage of money from the calcutta should be taken out of it to go to an auctioneer or to the tournament fund. You could take a set fee, like $5 or $10 a person or something like that, but not a percentage.

Yes I agree with the players deserving something from participating in the calcutta, but isnt that what the added money is for that the sponsor puts into the tournament?

Now most business's and tours set limitations on added money, such as $2000 for 64 players and $3000 for 96 and so on. So if you have a calcutta and you ony had 64 players playing, but 32 non players participating in the calcutta, that means you drew 96 participants and it should be $3000 added, not $2000. Seems to me that those 32 calcutta participants would be around for most of the day drinking and spending money at the business just like the 64 would be,,,and they would probably be spending more money because they dont have to worry about playing.

But then on the other hand, maybe that added money was already calculated to include the revenue made from non players during tournaments.

I just know if I was starting a new tournament at a location that has never held tournament, I would have two different added money options, one with a calcutta and one without.

 

[ironman]

Well...If you notice...I voted and you did not. Does this mean you want to keep your options open?

I presented math and logic in a scenario above. No one has explained how it is any different except that the players would have a guaranteed incentive.

I'll take a stab at it.

The middle of the talent pool players that would buy half all day long would now only pay 30-40%. The buyers would only get 30-40% max return from a player, in turn making them pay 60-70% for only half chance. What is certainly a "long shot" becomes a longer shot.

People would only buy the top players for any decent amount and everyone else would go for $20 or to themselves. This would lower the overall pot, which in turn would make the end amount for the player lower than 100% to the buyer would be with a chance at a tip or selling their half to a buddy.

As for the deal making and drunken absenteeism that was mentioned......just gonna be part of it. Good thing it's only a small fraction of players that do that type of thing.

I would like to know what an event host or promoter should do when a player that went for 500-2000 in the auction just doesn't show up after his first loss??

Ray

Well excuse the hell out of me. I thought I had voted and just voted again. I know that will make a big difference!!
The deal making is going to go on and on and there is nothing to be done about that. Some call it underhanded and some call it being very smart. I don't condone it, just a fact.
When we advertise calcuttas we therefore invite the public to attend and participate. Why should they be asked to donate to a seperate prize fund? It makes no sense to me whatsover. If we start chopping from the buyers, it will be the death of the calcuttas and the death of many tournaments. They will not tolerate it. Calcutta buying is for the most part a losing proposition anyway.
Now, for what can be done to someone who doesn't show for his 2nd match? Well that depends on several things I guess. First his reason or excuse. I suspended one previous years Player of the Year for 6 months and that cured that with him. was just so happy the buyer didn't carry a gun as he got hot at me about it, as if I had something to do with it. Gambling is just gambling!

 

[spanky79]

If a players wants to but himself he should bid like everyone else. If the person who bids on him wants to let him buy half great if not tough cookies.

A player should not expect a handout he isn't willing to buy half himself, If he gets one great.

Taking money from the calcutta and adding it to the prize pool makes no sense. The tournament and the calcutta are 2 separate things. If I choose yo but a players, why should any of the money I bought him with go into the tourney prize pool.

If i bet on a boxing match or a football game I don't send the boxer or the football team a check.

WHY ARE POOL PLAYERS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR A HAND OUT, AND NOT WILLING TO RISK ANYTHING TO GET IT.

Not all I know but WAY to many.

 

[JumpinJoe]

I would like to say, first, that this idea was presented to me by a stake horse, a man who also buys a lot of players in auctions. He had some interesting points. That is why I thought it would interesting to present this scenario here.

@ Stu & Hu - Every auction I have ever seen, the player automatically has the option for 50%. They are involved already. Many players will sell their half to someone they know will Jelly them if the buyer is known not too. With auto jelly it would stop most of that. The player could possibly only have 10% Guaranteed and an option on the other 40%.

I also think the buyer keeping the option to Jelly is best. I had a player get downright ugly before when I asked if they wanted their half. They finished 4th. I didn't give em a dime. Normally I would Jelly 10-20%. The higher end if they were really fun to sweat.

How about the other end where the player doesn't buy half and then doesn't show up after they lose once. Should the buyer have some recourse in that scenario? Should the player be banned or punished in some way?

Ray

That will not happen in any tourney I run. They are immediately barred from the next event they try and play in. Do it again and your barred for a year. A 3rd time is life. And I dont give a shit who the player is, can be SVB for all I care, he would be barred. I already got one high profile player getting barred in the tourney I'm holding soon.
Calcuttas make most events happen, start taking out of the buyers money and there will be no tourney, plain and simple.

Players know when coming to events, bring enough cash or someone that is going to buy you or your half.

 

[david(tx)]

I covered a tournament recently where 10% of the auction was put into the tournament fund.

I thought it was really good for the players.

I am constantly shocked at the large amounts that some players go for, making it impossible, in most occasions, for the player to buy a part of themselves. I recently saw a top player get only $40 for coming in second in tournament.

I know many promoters believe the auctioneer should get a cut for his efforts, which is how I was taught, but I think the players deserve a cut more than anyone. Make sure the horses get paid to run.

90% Payout
10% Added to tournament prize fund

Some people I talked to think 20% should be added to the tournament prize fund.

I am curious what the thoughts of my fellow AZ'ers is on this subject.

Thanks,

Ray

I voted , and was wondering if anyone has made any serious attempts at trying to use a side pot as way to increase tournament payouts ? I'm no math whiz , but it would seem that someone with a good math background could come up with a good graduated side pot scenario. Let's say that only the player could buy into the side pot and that the player could buy into the side pot in graduated amounts and that if he placed in the allotted spots he would draw out based on the amount invested.


Lets say the side pot payed out 6 spots and that the players could buy in at 4 amounts , 100 , 200 ,300 , and 400 dollars . Lets say player A buys in at 400 and player B at 100. Player B finishes first , while player A finishes third . It would be possible for player A to draw more money than player B based on his investment even though he finished third.

Anybody funding a player would be doing so at their own risk , and all business dealings would be between the player and his backer, only the player would be paid , if the backer had a beef then they could settle it between themselves with those running the tournament letting it be known before hand that only the player can buy in and be paid.


These buy in numbers are just an example i'm using , you could set it up based on the math.Calcuttas take alot of time with large fields , and sometimes require players to be there on Fridays , so some people may not enter if they have regular jobs thereby limiting field sizes. A side pot would no more time because a decision would be made at sign up or maybe some lee way with a time table.

Seems calcuttas are more trouble than their worth sometimes , at least for the people who enter for the entertainment value they get and for the investor with limited funds. How many people who have went for 40 dollars in the calcutta have won the tournament recently ?

 

[david(tx)]

I voted , and was wondering if anyone has made any serious attempts at trying to use a side pot as way to increase tournament payouts ? I'm no math whiz , but it would seem that someone with a good math background could come up with a good graduated side pot scenario. Let's say that only the player could buy into the side pot and that the player could buy into the side pot in graduated amounts and that if he placed in the allotted spots he would draw out based on the amount invested.


Lets say the side pot payed out 6 spots and that the players could buy in at 4 amounts , 100 , 200 ,300 , and 400 dollars . Lets say player A buys in at 400 and player B at 100. Player B finishes first , while player A finishes third . It would be possible for player A to draw more money than player B based on his investment even though he finished third.

Anybody funding a player would be doing so at their own risk , and all business dealings would be between the player and his backer, only the player would be paid , if the backer had a beef then they could settle it between themselves with those running the tournament letting it be known before hand that only the player can buy in and be paid.


These buy in numbers are just an example i'm using , you could set it up based on the math.Calcuttas take alot of time with large fields , and sometimes require players to be there on Fridays , so some people may not enter if they have regular jobs thereby limiting field sizes. A side pot would no more time because a decision would be made at sign up or maybe some lee way with a time table.

Seems calcuttas are more trouble than their worth sometimes , at least for the people who enter for the entertainment value they get and for the investor with limited funds. How many people who have went for 40 dollars in the calcutta have won the tournament recently ?

Player A and B payout should be reversed.

 

[Hungarian]

First, Merry Christmas to All..


Ray,

Interesting question. To answer directly, no, I do not agree that a fixed portion of the Calcutta should be set aside for the players.

I try to mix it up when buying players. I like to have the winning bid on at least one top favored player. I also like to shop around and get portions of other top players. And I like to get some bargain buys on good players that can win if they get a good draw or if they play real good. At no time do I want my buy portion to exceed 10% of the total Calcutta pot. If you get to the point where 20% of the Calcutta is your own money it really becomes horrible pot odds and is just foolish. But you never know how it's going to end up until the last bid is over. It's action and it's fun.

One thing I always like seeing is several picks of the litter. But these can back fire and set the tone going forward. I also know that not all auctioneers are equal. The biggest Calcutta's I have seen are with Chris Miller or Dennis Strickland as the auctioneer. One thing I've never seen is pulling a player off the auction block until later if the bids are not high enough. Also I think going in order of the sign up sheet is a very big mistake. I think the Auctioneer should strategically pick the order in which he bids off the players. One thing for sure is it's an art to pump up the pots. And the more money in the pot the more my nose opens.

Regarding jelly's...jellys don't start until I get my buy money back off the top into my pocket, PERIOD!!!. And even if a player buys half of himself I will still jelly him based on my winnings. My rule of thumb is to pay at least 10% of my winnings. But this is not a hard and fast rule. The more a player expects for free the less he or she will get. If they try to regulate what I give them they may get a goose egg. If they play hard and win the event and save me from losing my ass I will jelly hard.

Example, in the last Lonestar Tourney, in the Open Event, which only paid 4 places in the Calcutta, I had portions of 6 or 7 players. Only two made it into the Calcutta money. Jamie Baraks won the event but he did not buy half of himself. Tommy Tokoph got 4th and his road man had his half. Based on what we paid for Tommy we lost money even though he got 4th. Tommy did not get a jelly from me nor did he expect one. Jamie on the other hand kept me from losing my ass. So the corporation that bought Jamie collectively decided to give him 20% of the winnings after we all got our buy money back. Sad thing is the 20% winnings totaled $80 in Jamie's pocket. Better than nothing but we paid a lot for Jamie compared to the rest of the field.

 

[spanky79]

First, Merry Christmas to All..


Ray,

Interesting question. To answer directly, no, I do not agree that a fixed portion of the Calcutta should be set aside for the players.

I try to mix it up when buying players. I like to have the winning bid on at least one top favored player. I also like to shop around and get portions of other top players. And I like to get some bargain buys on good players that can win if they get a good draw or if they play real good. At no time do I want my buy portion to exceed 10% of the total Calcutta pot. If you get to the point where 20% of the Calcutta is your own money it really becomes horrible pot odds and is just foolish. But you never know how it's going to end up until the last bid is over. It's action and it's fun.

One thing I always like seeing is several picks of the litter. But these can back fire and set the tone going forward. I also know that not all auctioneers are equal. The biggest Calcutta's I have seen are with Chris Miller or Dennis Strickland as the auctioneer. One thing I've never seen is pulling a player off the auction block until later if the bids are not high enough. Also I think going in order of the sign up sheet is a very big mistake. I think the Auctioneer should strategically pick the order in which he bids off the players. One thing for sure is it's an art to pump up the pots. And the more money in the pot the more my nose opens.

Regarding jelly's...jellys don't start until I get my buy money back off the top into my pocket, PERIOD!!!. And even if a player buys half of himself I will still jelly him based on my winnings. My rule of thumb is to pay at least 10% of my winnings. But this is not a hard and fast rule. The more a player expects for free the less he or she will get. If they try to regulate what I give them they may get a goose egg. If they play hard and win the event and save me from losing my ass I will jelly hard.

Example, in the last Lonestar Tourney, in the Open Event, which only paid 4 places in the Calcutta, I had portions of 6 or 7 players. Only two made it into the Calcutta money. Jamie Baraks won the event but he did not buy half of himself. Tommy Tokoph got 4th and his road man had his half. Based on what we paid for Tommy we lost money even though he got 4th. Tommy did not get a jelly from me nor did he expect one. Jamie on the other hand kept me from losing my ass. So the corporation that bought Jamie collectively decided to give him 20% of the winnings after we all got our buy money back. Sad thing is the 20% winnings totaled $80 in Jamie's pocket. Better than nothing but we paid a lot for Jamie compared to the rest of the field.

IMO, this is how it should be done and the reason why I will only bid on a player I know will play hard, is not a go off, is not liable to up and quit, and is not one who is prone to getting drunk and not caring what happens. Yes, it narrows the field of who I can bid on, but I will enjoy routing for the guy I bid on and that is what it is all about in the first place.
It makes it easier to give a guy/girl some jelly when you know he played hard for it.