Big-time pool dispute plays out in Solano courtroom

Fatboy said:
AL, with all due respect, players have to do savers now more than ever. Costs are too high and chopping it up to cover costs is just the way it is. It just aint talked about much, but with so little $$$ guys do savers 3 -4 matches in on the tournament for the entry fee is very common Some guys do savers before the first ball is hit. Its insurance you dont go 2 and out and lose 100% of your costs and time. There are more transactions going on than you would ever know. And thats what it takes to get players to show up. its their biz not ours. And I'm done talking about it.


As for Tony, I have no beef with him, but when you run a event you pay the pledged amount of $$$, no matter what the players do. Thats the weakest excuse I ever heard for not paying off. And Tony knows better, he is a great player.
Click to expand...

In what other sports does the promoter pay off if he knows the matches were fixed? I know it happens a lot, I saw a Mosconi Cup member do it on a live stream a few months ago or at least it appeared he did. If everybody is going to accept it then don't complain about pool having a shady reputation and television avoiding it like the plague.

How about in the Mosconi cup if one or more American player decides to do a "saver" and take a little cash on the side from the Europeans?
 
Last edited:
A saver is not cheating or chopping. little story...I was 18 years old and getting ready to have to play Earl Strickland.We were both out in the money rounds,we had like 1500 coming and I guess Earl saw that I was hittin em real good,well right before we walk to the table,he asks me if I want to make a 200$ saver,I said sure thing cause I didn't think I could beat him anyway.As soon as he beat me,he handed me 200$:).It's really just a gesture that some players will make with ya,if your a threat to win.
Saver favor,that's what it is really. Nothing more,nothing less.John Brumback
 
alstl said:
In what other sports does the promoter pay off if he knows the matches were fixed? I know it happens a lot, I saw a Mosconi Cup member do it on a live stream a few months ago. If everybody is going to accept it then don't complain about pool having a shady reputation and television avoiding it like the plague.
Click to expand...

There is a wording issue here. A saver is not a fixed match, if they decide that the winner gets a bit less and the loser gets a bit more, nothing in that shows that they planned who would loose or win.

If it was a 50/50 split, maybe, but 10% more to one guy or another is just the players distributing the prize money in a different way than the promoter did. If I was playing a guy and it was for the money round, why would I dump a match? It means I'd get a bit of money but then I have no chance at getting more the deeper I get. Even in the finals, unless it's a 50/50 split, I don't see an issue with the players evening out the payments between them. Winner gets 10k, loser gets 5k, what's the harm if they are OK with 9k and 6k?
 
duckie said:
The ruling had nothing to do with being right, but what could and could not be proved, ie cheating. The statement " no evidence of unfair practice" just means the defense did a poor job in proving there was cheating.

Just another example of the type of practices commonly accepted in pool that does nothing but bring dishonor to the game all for a buck.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean but my point was chopping the pot is not cheating and judge agreed.
 
Interesting post John. I didn't realize that savers went so far down the bracket (I have heard of savers between friends before the start of a tournament). I've certainly seen them in semis and finals, but your comment makes it seem much more routine, and no big deal. Thanks for sharing.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

John Brumback said:
A saver is not cheating or chopping. little story...I was 18 years old and getting ready to have to play Earl Strickland.We were both out in the money rounds,we had like 1500 coming and I guess Earl saw that I was hittin em real good,well right before we walk to the table,he asks me if I want to make a 200$ saver,I said sure thing cause I didn't think I could beat him anyway.As soon as he beat me,he handed me 200$:).It's really just a gesture that some players will make with ya,if your a threat to win.
Saver favor,that's what it is really. Nothing more,nothing less.John Brumback
Click to expand...
 
It was clearly collusion, a criminal conspiracy to defraud poor helpless Tony Annigoni!

I've gotta hand it to him. It was a lot better than saying "I spent the new money to pay the old debts" which is probably realistically what had happened.
 
Anyone calling a saver "fixing the match" is willfully pretending they don't understand what the word means. It's fine to not like them, but don't make shit up just to make it sound worse than it is.

Think of it as two guys having a gentleman's agreement that the winner will get the loser a beer, except replace "beer" with "$500".

Even if the difference in prize money were just 50 dollars... I would rather have that 50 bucks in my pocket than yours, therefore I will play to win. Even if we split it 50/50, I will play to win for the bragging rights. Nobody is throwing the match.
 
TAR matches

TAR has stated that any "savors" made will result in no more dealings with the players.

I think that would include a lot of players out of work! :nono:
 
CreeDo said:
Anyone calling a saver "fixing the match" is willfully pretending they don't understand what the word means. It's fine to not like them, but don't make shit up just to make it sound worse than it is.

Think of it as two guys having a gentleman's agreement that the winner will get the loser a beer, except replace "beer" with "$500".

Even if the difference in prize money were just 50 dollars... I would rather have that 50 bucks in my pocket than yours, therefore I will play to win. Even if we split it 50/50, I will play to win for the bragging rights. Nobody is throwing the match.
Click to expand...

I think you are naive. Lets take the U S Open or Mosconi Cup with a ton of cash being bet on the side. Players do a "saver" with the opponent so they have nothing to play for in the middle and the rail gets robbed. Or a local tourney with a Calcutta. They do a saver in private and a game gets played with the Calcutta money.

From the perspective of a fan if I drive 100 miles to watch a tournament and they cut up the money and the finals are a joke I got cheated.

I don't know the guy running this particular tournament, he may be a crook trying to rob the players but I don't blame a tournament director for cracking down on savers. At some point it becomes some guys showing up to divide up the added money and not a tournament.
 
This is really kinda odd to me..
If this is the same event that Jeff Gregory played in the finals with Jenny Lee (who also did not get paid), then I can assure you that this was not a saver.

Jenny Lee played Jeff fair and square and she lost to him, 2nd place.

db
 
I can't see where two players agreeing to do a split after each has fought their way through the field to play for first and second is a big deal unless there is an audience paying to watch the tournament? A saver is even less of a big deal.

Locally it isn't uncommon for tournaments to run very late and by the time the final matches are to be played, both players would rather just go home and go to bed. The money for first and second place is going to those two players regardless, so what difference does it make how they split it?

There is no deception, no hidden actions, no collusion beforehand... it's just a matter of splitting what is rightfully theirs anyway and going home.
 
annigoni of course knows there is nothing wrong with this. He only has done is personally himself numerous times.

This bs was about the only hail mary defense he could think of.
 
Underclocked said:
I can't see where two players agreeing to do a split after each has fought their way through the field to play for first and second is a big deal unless there is an audience paying to watch the tournament? A saver is even less of a big deal.

Locally it isn't uncommon for tournaments to run very late and by the time the final matches are to be played, both players would rather just go home and go to bed. The money for first and second place is going to those two players regardless, so what difference does it make how they split it?

There is no deception, no hidden actions, no collusion beforehand... it's just a matter of splitting what is rightfully theirs anyway and going home.
Click to expand...

This is the main reason I stopped handicap tourneys. I got tried of getting to the finals and the other player and owner wanted to go home but I wanted to play till the end. The money is of no importance to me.

It was the win that matter to me not the money, but I would look like the bad guy if I wanted to keep playing to really see who is the better player.

Imagine is everything. If you don't understand how savers, agreeing to split the pot or whatever can give the imagine of dumping even when that is not the case. The doubt will always be there.

I play for the win, to hell with the money. If more did this, pool imagine would be better.
 
alstl said:
I think you are naive. Lets take the U S Open or Mosconi Cup with a ton of cash being bet on the side. Players do a "saver" with the opponent so they have nothing to play for in the middle and the rail gets robbed. Or a local tourney with a Calcutta. They do a saver in private and a game gets played with the Calcutta money.

From the perspective of a fan if I drive 100 miles to watch a tournament and they cut up the money and the finals are a joke I got cheated.

I don't know the guy running this particular tournament, he may be a crook trying to rob the players but I don't blame a tournament director for cracking down on savers. At some point it becomes some guys showing up to divide up the added money and not a tournament.
Click to expand...

You're missing the difference between a saver and a 50/50 split. Saver is when the looser gets a bit more and the winner a bit less, they are not just splitting the pot. So if the loser gets 1k winner gets 1,500, they could arrange for another 100 to go to whoever loses. This is not a split where it does not matter who wins. Savers take place anywhere in the cash rounds, a split really only makes sense in the finals. Although I guess a split any time is OK, but you'd want to win to get to the next higher payout bracket anyway. What was in the story was that there was a "saver" done not a split. So the players would still want to win in a saver situation.
 
hang-the-9 said:
You're missing the difference between a saver and a 50/50 split. Saver is when the looser gets a bit more and the winner a bit less, they are not just splitting the pot. So if the loser gets 1k winner gets 1,500, they could arrange for another 100 to go to whoever loses. This is not a split where it does not matter who wins. Savers take place anywhere in the cash rounds, a split really only makes sense in the finals. Although I guess a split any time is OK, but you'd want to win to get to the next higher payout bracket anyway. What was in the story was that there was a "saver" done not a split. So the players would still want to win in a saver situation.
Click to expand...

I almost want to believe that but my experience has proven otherwise. I'm aware of these two scenarios happening. Player A meets player B in the finals. Player A owns himself in the Calcutta, player B is owned by a third party. Player A works out a saver with player B wherein player B makes more money than he would by winning the tournament when he adds his part of player A's Calcutta to his second place money and his saver money. The person who bought player B in the Calcutta got messed over, ruining the integrity of the entire process.

Player JH does not own himself in the Calcutta. Prior to the finals JH, who has won the tournament 3 consecutive weeks, approaches the person who owns him in the Calcutta and informs him JH wants half of the Calcutta money or he will do a saver with his opponent and dump the match.

In your perfect world none of this happens. When I watch any sporting event I want to know what I'm watching is real and no shady deals have been made between the participants.
 
alstl said:
I almost want to believe that but my experience has proven otherwise. I'm aware of these two scenarios happening. Player A meets player B in the finals. Player A owns himself in the Calcutta, player B is owned by a third party. Player A works out a saver with player B wherein player B makes more money than he would by winning the tournament when he adds his part of player A's Calcutta to his second place money and his saver money. The person who bought player B in the Calcutta got messed over, ruining the integrity of the entire process.

Player JH does not own himself in the Calcutta. Prior to the finals JH, who has won the tournament 3 consecutive weeks, approaches the person who owns him in the Calcutta and informs him JH wants half of the Calcutta money or he will do a saver with his opponent and dump the match.

In your perfect world none of this happens. When I watch any sporting event I want to know what I'm watching is real and no shady deals have been made between the participants.
Click to expand...

What if 2 guys meet in the finals and player A owns player B in the calcutta and just dumps because he'll get more money by finishing second and winning the calcutta, then the guy that owns player A never even had a chance. Hell, lets take it to an even stupider level and say Player A owns Player B and vice versa and then nobody wants to make a ball because losing pays more...lol. Don't those 2 scenarios make calcuttas themselves a potential scam and something to be frowned upon??

The same shit (Savers) happens in poker all the time with players buying pieces of each other and poker is on TV and they actually play tournaments with millions at stake and nobody gets sued because the prize money gets paid!!!...lol. The only dirtbag in my eyes is the guy that didn't make the checks to the people that won money.

The facts are that there are sports/games out there that are 1000x more crooked than pool that get media coverage and millions of dollars.
 
alstl said:
I almost want to believe that but my experience has proven otherwise. I'm aware of these two scenarios happening. Player A meets player B in the finals. Player A owns himself in the Calcutta, player B is owned by a third party. Player A works out a saver with player B wherein player B makes more money than he would by winning the tournament when he adds his part of player A's Calcutta to his second place money and his saver money. The person who bought player B in the Calcutta got messed over, ruining the integrity of the entire process.

Player JH does not own himself in the Calcutta. Prior to the finals JH, who has won the tournament 3 consecutive weeks, approaches the person who owns him in the Calcutta and informs him JH wants half of the Calcutta money or he will do a saver with his opponent and dump the match.

In your perfect world none of this happens. When I watch any sporting event I want to know what I'm watching is real and no shady deals have been made between the participants.
Click to expand...

I think the issue at hand then is the calcutta and betting on the matches, not any deal between the players.

Anything that happens outside of the players on the tables playing for the cash is on the heads of whoever chooses to do so.
 
I have no problem with savers. All they do is re-adjust the payouts. You still try your best to win for the bigger payoff.

Once in a tournament I was going to play the hot set match against Danny Madina when he asked me if I wanted to do a $500 saver. I agreed and lost that match. That saver for some reason caused me to lose my intensity and I didn't play like I had been playing. I then lost the next match to Alex P. I played well against him but still lost. To this day I believe it was that saver that kept me from winning against Danny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top