The Players Should Get a Percentage of Auctions Automatically

[Tobby]

Ok i keep seeing this line ... If a player wants to buy himself/herself they should BID....

here is the problem with that.

Player bids $50 on himself... Now buyers see this and say he he will atleast buy half himself for $50 so i can Bid him up to $100 and only pay $50 myslef.. This can continue until the player finally gives up and then gets nothing or has to put up so much money he cant make squat because the rest of the firld sells for next to nothing.

The only way around this problem is to have a friend Bid for you and make sure nobody knows he is bidding for you with your money so you can get yourself at a decent price according to what you know the rest of the field will sell for.

just my thoughts

 

[catpool9]

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.

Joey I agree with everything you said, if you don't have pool players , you don't have pool tournaments, players should be taken care of, 10% from the calcutta buyer's fund should be a standard added money to the players tournament!

When me and my brother had tournaments 20 yrs ago we always took 10% of the calcutta moneys and added it to the tournament, some buyer's got upset, but they still came to our pool tournamnets to pool their money's on the top players and make huge amounts of cash.

Adding 10% is a small amount of the buyers fund to give back to the players for their participating in the tournaments, also paying more of the field in the calcutta should be the norm, not as deep as the tournament but a hell of alot deeper than just eight players!

It's a win, win stuation for all involved, you gotta take care of the players or you have SMALL tournaments, you also have to take care of the buyers too, if a player forfeits their match for any reason other than ( sickness or death in the family) ban their ASS from playing for three tournaments, and so on!

A player always has the option to buy half of themselves or any amount under that, always if your a buyer and your horse didn't buy any of themselves give them some JELLY for playing hard for your money, or you'll be looking at a doughnut next time!

Pool Players have a rough road to hold trying to make aliving at it or just trying to make it a fun pastime, take care of the player, or everyone concerned can just stay home!


David Harcrow

 

[spanky79]

Ok i keep seeing this line ... If a player wants to buy himself/herself they should BID....

here is the problem with that.

Player bids $50 on himself... Now buyers see this and say he he will atleast buy half himself for $50 so i can Bid him up to $100 and only pay $50 myslef.. This can continue until the player finally gives up and then gets nothing or has to put up so much money he cant make squat because the rest of the firld sells for next to nothing.

The only way around this problem is to have a friend Bid for you and make sure nobody knows he is bidding for you with your money so you can get yourself at a decent price according to what you know the rest of the field will sell for.

just my thoughts

It is what it is. Why can't you just try and bid on yourself , if the price gets to high, you just play the tourney and try and win like you would if there was no calcutta in the first place.
Or move to California where we have few if any calcutta's at all.

 

[Tobby]

well spanky trying to bid on yourself is very hard to do when everyone instantly understands they can bid and get in on the action because they know you will take half.

Now i ahve fixed a few at these small tournys by trying to get myself but once it passes $200 giving up and when they approach me to buy half i say no ty . I dont toss the tourny i try my best but i put alittle heat on them because they have alot of their cash up and have to sweat jsut like me .

So in cali you guys dont have cals much?

I really like them because you can get in a $25 tourny with a auction and you could win way above $1,000 if you have yourself .

 

[JoeyA]

Joey I agree with everything you said, if you don't have pool players , you don't have pool tournaments, players should be taken care of, 10% from the calcutta buyer's fund should be a standard added money to the players tournament!

When me and my brother had tournaments 20 yrs ago we always took 10% of the calcutta moneys and added it to the tournament, some buyer's got upset, but they still came to our pool tournamnets to pool their money's on the top players and make huge amounts of cash.

Adding 10% is a small amount of the buyers fund to give back to the players for their participating in the tournaments, also paying more of the field in the calcutta should be the norm, not as deep as the tournament but a hell of alot deeper than just eight players!

It's a win, win stuation for all involved, you gotta take care of the players or you have SMALL tournaments, you also have to take care of the buyers too, if a player forfeits their match for any reason other than ( sickness or death in the family) ban their ASS from playing for three tournaments, and so on!

A player always has the option to buy half of themselves or any amount under that, always if your a buyer and your horse didn't buy any of themselves give them some JELLY for playing hard for your money, or you'll be looking at a doughnut next time!

Pool Players have a rough road to hold trying to make aliving at it or just trying to make it a fun pastime, take care of the player, or everyone concerned can just stay home!


David Harcrow

David,
I'm still not completely sold on taking 10% of the Calcutta money and putting it into the tournament prize money, HOWEVER you make some excellent points.

Tobby also made a great point and if you don't think he is correct then you don't know what goes on in a Calcutta.
Calcutta buyers OFTEN form corporations to purchase players in the Calcutta and will bid up players higher than they can afford to purchase themselves. They do this for a few different reasons: One, to make the Calcutta pot larger (they know that the player will eventually quit bidding on themselves because the individual player can't outbid the corporation). The corporation knows that if the player doesn't buy half of themselves, then they can sell off a percentage of the Calcutta bid to other prospective buyers. It really isn't fair to the player that they can't keep up with the bidding of the corporation. This happens quite often, maybe, MOST OF THE TIME and the Calcutta buyers know this.
This is what I call monopolizing the Calcutta.

You have made me look at this Calcutta business another way:

Most, if not all of the Calcutta buyers in this thread have suggested that they would heartily agree to give 10%- 20% of their net winnings to their horse/player who wins them the money. If that's the case, how could they argue against moving 10%-20% of the GROSS CALCUTTA to the prize money?

I wonder how the Calcutta buyers would like it if most of the players didn't buy half of themselves or how they would like it if the bottom rung of players didn't purchase themselves for the minimum bid? I can answer that for you. They might bellow that it would be just fine with them if the players weren't involved at all but the truth is that there wouldn't be a Calcutta without everyone being involved. The Calcutta buyers REALLY wouldn't like it when the players have no money invested in the Calcutta. This would open up a whole new can of worms and if you think "business" is being done now, you would KNOW business is being done when the players don't have any money invested in the Calcutta (until they are bribed by Calcutta buyers who have large money at stake).

This discussion is making me re-think my position. I have always thought about the Calcutta as a noble, vibrant and positive addition to the tournaments but the bottom line is I believe that the entire tournament INCLUDING the Calcutta, must be FAIR TO THE PLAYERS who put in countless hours practicing and spending their hard-earned money before the tournament even starts. The argument that the Calcutta buyers risk their money (which is becoming questionable, at least in my mind) and the players don't deserve a piece of that pie is becoming lost on me. The argument that the Calcutta buyers are the only ones who risk their money is lost on me when I think about the many dollars that the players spend practicing and honing their skills to compete in these tournaments. The argument that the players have every opportunity to bid on themselves is lost on me, when you take into consideration that the corporations generally have a lot more money (than the individual player) to bid on the players and drive those prices up.

YES, the Calcutta buyers deserve enormous accolades for making these tournaments exciting by providing the extra money that dazzles many of us. By the same token, what about the players, don't they deserve to have a little taste of the table of a'plenty?

The bottom line is if Calcutta buyers think that 10-20% of their net winnings is a FAIR tip to their horse, then why wouldn't the same thing apply to having 10-20% being taken out of the GROSS CALCUTTA? AT LEAST THIS WAY, a small portion of the DONATIONS that many of the players make will go back to the players and at least a small portion of the Calcutta buyers monies will GENUINELY wind up back in the hands of the players.

I'm still on the fence but slowly leaning toward 10%-20% being moved to the tournament prize money.

 

[JoeyA]

Here's another question for the forum....

THE WAY THE CALCUTTAS CURRENTLY WORK:
If a player buys half of himself and the Calcutta buyer wins "good" net winnings on the player, should the Calcutta buyer still tip the player? If so, what percentage of the net winnings? If not, why not?

Just curious about how others think.

 

[Tobby]

Hey if i bought a guy for lets say $20 and he somehow wins and we get $2000 im personaly giving him a extra $200 on his side for the HUGE effort lol.

And if you read my posts on this thread i have made a guy a chunk of change and he bought me a COKE.

but just again my thoughts

 

[spanky79]

Like I asked before, why is pool different then any other sport, you don,t tip a team you bet on or a boxer you bet on. I know they make more money then pool players , but why should it be different. Don't get me wrong if I had it my way there would be no corporation buys and I would love to see the players get "jelly" every time, if they are not a POS with their hand out expecting something, but I know this will never happen and just wonder why its different than any other sport you bet on.

 

[bmsclayton]

tipping

I have been on all sides running the calcutta, playing and just buying players. I always tip, don't expect to get tipped, and usually give someone in the money for me quarters at the end of the tourney before I tip them.Taking money out a calcutta for tourney directors or to give to players is not good to build the calcutta's. IBA and I bought half the field a couple weeks ago(we took third only) and I know I may not participate if 10% is coming off the top. Big calcuttas help draw players, taking money out can keep backers and buyers out.

I really like Danny and Evelyn and even paid them out of a calcutta to run my tourney once, but being a player, owner, and someone that likes to buy players, I didn't like it and would hope I wouldn't do it again.

 

[Hungarian]

Ok i keep seeing this line ... If a player wants to buy himself/herself they should BID....

here is the problem with that.

Player bids $50 on himself... Now buyers see this and say he he will atleast buy half himself for $50 so i can Bid him up to $100 and only pay $50 myslef.. This can continue until the player finally gives up and then gets nothing or has to put up so much money he cant make squat because the rest of the firld sells for next to nothing.

The only way around this problem is to have a friend Bid for you and make sure nobody knows he is bidding for you with your money so you can get yourself at a decent price according to what you know the rest of the field will sell for.

just my thoughts

With all respect, it's an auction. the goal of the auction is to maximize the pot. I hope you are not suggesting that we take actions to hold the bids down so that the players can buy themselves at a bargin?

Regards to your suggestion around this problem, I don't think many known players think this way. Players like Jamie Baraks or Jeremy Jones (and there are many others) can not sneak in under the radar. They would be the pick of the liter.

 

[Hungarian]

THE WAY THE CALCUTTAS CURRENTLY WORK:
If a player buys half of himself and the Calcutta buyer wins "good" net winnings on the player, should the Calcutta buyer still tip the player? If so, what percentage of the net winnings? If not, why not?

Just curious about how others think.

Joey,

Stupid question. (joking)

I all ready answered this in my previous post. Again, the correct answer is yes, you should always tip if someone makes you money.

Happy New Year,
Hung Nut

 

[Klink]

Partners

I always considered us partners and don't tip if the player buys half of himself. I also treat him as my partner and offer to buy a few drinks or lunch during the tourney.

 

[Hungarian]

Should the player jelly his owner?

How about this....should the player offer his calcutta owner a portion of the tourney prize fund? Example, player pays $45 entry fee and wins the event. First place pays $2,500 ($1,250 for the tourney and $1,250 for the calcutta). Said player was bought for $400 in the calcutta.

Profit margin on the tourney was 96.4%

Profit margin on the calcutta was 68%

 

[houmatroy]

How about this....should the player offer his calcutta owner a portion of the tourney prize fund? Example, player pays $45 entry fee and wins the event. First place pays $2,500 ($1,250 for the tourney and $1,250 for the calcutta). Said player was bought for $400 in the calcutta.

Profit margin on the tourney was 96.4%

Profit margin on the calcutta was 68%

I do something like that with a couple players I use to stake alot...I put them in the tournement & buy at lease half of them in the calcutta...depending on what they go for & if somebody is just trying to bid me up knowing who i'm trying to buy...& we split all monies.....and if it's out of town we split monies left after expenses...works out pretty good like that....I take the risk but have a chance at a bigger payout & they get a complete freeroll.

 

[Bigtruck]

I think this thread has brought awareness to the etiquette of taking care of your horses. Im pretty sure auto jelly will never take, but greasing the wheels is alive and well.

Ray

 

[ironman]

I think this thread has brought awareness to the etiquette of taking care of your horses. Im pretty sure auto jelly will never take, but greasing the wheels is alive and well.

Ray

i agree with you here and on this point. I agree the horses should be taken care of. The buyers take a bad rap often too though. They need to be understood as well.
I ran an event a couple of years ago and a buyer who is a good friend o mine had first and second place . neither bought any part of his bid. Afterward the buyer ran down Gabe and handed hime some money and thanked him. Gobe simply thanked him and put the money in his pocket. I thought that was classy on Gabes part.
The other {i won't mention the name} looked at it and counted it and then began crying as he always does.
I left with the buyer to get something to eat and the second player called him, still crying and complaining that he deserved half. He got told to gstraight to hell. i did not blame the buyer at all.
The buyer was upset and depressed. he then confide in me that he was almost $10,000 stuck in buying players for the year. FWIW, he jellied the 2nd player as the first 20%!

 

[watchez]

The entire tournament structure needs to be changed.
Any player that goes 2 and out in the tournament, should go into another tournament.
10% of entry fee of the original (main) tournament should go into this tournament as the prize fund. So if you have a $50 tournament, 64 players - that means that $320 should go into this prize pool. 16 players will go 2 and out. Then they would play a double elimination tournament, with payouts of $160 First, $95 Second, $65 Third.

Then 5% of the calcutta would go to the person that owned the winning bid of the person that won the '2 and out' tournament. So if you had a $2000 Calcutta, $100 goes to the winning bidder.

This is how you increase attendance, getting people that are donating in tournaments to feel like they got their money's worth, and a few people actually pleased with their weekend. You also get higher bids for players that might be field bids or $10 bids in the Calcutta.

This is also how you increase purses - then you can charge $100 entry fee to a tournament - get 64 players and have a side tournament with $640 in it.

This of course also means that the tournament directors of today's weekly/monthly regional tournaments would have to do more work. I should have thought of that first - nevermind - that would never happen in the pool world.

 

[JoeyA]

The entire tournament structure needs to be changed.
Any player that goes 2 and out in the tournament, should go into another tournament.
10% of entry fee of the original (main) tournament should go into this tournament as the prize fund. So if you have a $50 tournament, 64 players - that means that $320 should go into this prize pool. 16 players will go 2 and out. Then they would play a double elimination tournament, with payouts of $160 First, $95 Second, $65 Third.

Then 5% of the calcutta would go to the person that owned the winning bid of the person that won the '2 and out' tournament. So if you had a $2000 Calcutta, $100 goes to the winning bidder.

This is how you increase attendance, getting people that are donating in tournaments to feel like they got their money's worth, and a few people actually pleased with their weekend. You also get higher bids for players that might be field bids or $10 bids in the Calcutta.

This is also how you increase purses - then you can charge $100 entry fee to a tournament - get 64 players and have a side tournament with $640 in it.

This of course also means that the tournament directors of today's weekly/monthly regional tournaments would have to do more work. I should have thought of that first - nevermind - that would never happen in the pool world.

This does seem like a very good idea to make the two and out people feel like they are respected. I like it, a LOT.

 

[ironman]

THE WAY THE CALCUTTAS CURRENTLY WORK:
If a player buys half of himself and the Calcutta buyer wins "good" net winnings on the player, should the Calcutta buyer still tip the player? If so, what percentage of the net winnings? If not, why not?

Just curious about how others think.

i have tipped the player before but i don't feel obligated to. I don't understand why I would feel obligated to. My standard is about 15-20% depending. Some I have tipped more. I maintain that that is up to the buyer. They have a side to this too and rarely represented.

 

[Stones]

Having been a player, auction buyer and tour director in the past, all I can speak from is my 49 yrs. experience n this game.

To be blunt,

Nothing should be cut out of the auction pot to be put into the tournament fund.

You have to understand the psychic of the rail bird auction buyer. It simply gives a spectator a chance to get in on the action of the tournament and sweat a bet or, in simple terms, a chance to be involved in the tourney and the life and death of the player or players they bought.

The auction buyer does it simply for one reason and one reason only, TO BE ALOUD TO BE IN ON THE ACTION.
Anyone who does this ain’t in it for the profit. I have yet to know a hard core auction buyer that has ended up in the plus column over the long run.

There is already added money to the prize fund for most major tourneys from which the players benefit. Room owners and sponsors are already hanging their nuts out coming up with the add on money for the tourney. Praying for a profit come the end of the weekend!

Are the players in favor of this?

DEFINITELY! No added risk and more money.

Are the auction buyers in favor of it, or simply, what’s in it for them?

Let’s see.

1. Dumps. IT HAPPENS! The player has bought other players. SELF EXPLANATORY!
2. The player doesn’t show for his winner side match because he got lucky the night before for a number of reasons.
3. The player is a head case after a winner side loss and doesn’t show for his one loss side match.
4. The player doesn’t buy half of themselves but still looking for a hand out afterwards if they perform well.

AND ON AND ON AND ON.

Someone needs to explain to me what the up side of this is for the auction buyer which constitutes having an auction in the first place.

Now, you’re advocating taking money from the calcutta and adding to the prize fund?????

If this happens, watch auctions be in the same category as two foul roll out.

A thing of the past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Are you insane?


Stones < always bought half of himself….