Ensuring that 2 players don't split a big purse:

Few years ago I was in a tournament that had a Calcutta that was different in the payout. It was designed to stop side deals. Player , if someone else bought him the player got 60% of the Calcutta even though the player and the buyer had no arrangement.
I’ve never seen or heard of this and not only found it interesting but quite profitable ( I got lucky)
 
Bob Jewett said:
And there's no reason they shouldn't have one. But not with DE. It's a lousy format.
Click to expand...
Yea, it's silly to have a format where you know what's coming next and have the bracket all laid out for ya, who goes where after what and all... everyone should go with a similar style to the great DCC format of uncertainty and dismay? Is that what is being suggested here?
 
8cree said:
Yea, it's silly to have a format where you know what's coming next and have the bracket all laid out for ya, who goes where after what and all... everyone should go with a similar style to the great DCC format of uncertainty and dismay? Is that what is being suggested here?
Click to expand...
No. I explained it in detail elsewhere:

DCC 9 Ball - Who's left?

After the 1P final they said there are 10 players left in the 9B event. Who? Anyone have a link to the bracket?
forums.azbilliards.com
 
I had a format I started a long time ago which I liked.
The tournament can't be seeded nor ranked.
From 1 to 64 on the bracket, you are buying the slot itself.

So you buy slot 4 and then the draw happens, and you realize you got Fedor, or maybe you got the guy who just likes to play.
Same calcutta payouts via % 64x$50 each produces a really nice payout.
 
sjm said:
Agreed that chops and savers are everywhere.

One way you might handle it is this: When two players choose not to play the final, which happens all the time, there is no need for any proof. They have denied the event producer a final that the producer paid for. If first prize is $4,000 and second prize is $2,000. If they chop and forego playing the final, they get paid $2,900 each, rather than $3,000 each.
Click to expand...

Can still play the final for the "title" and split the money. In my experience there are local events that just run long and it's like 2 AM when the finalists want to just go home LOL I also have played in league finals where I split the money with the other team for two reasons, it's a bit more friendly that way for a friendly league, and now if we play in the finals to see who the winner is there is less pressure on the players, they are not worried about costing the team an extra $300 or something. Those are just my cases though, and obviously not big events with big name players.
 
Bob Jewett said:
It's up to the TD/promoter to make the event finish on time. Getting rid of double elimination is a first step.
Click to expand...
Definitely get what you are saying. In my area, most rooms have few 9 footers and most tournaments are played on coin ops. If there is added money then the TD/Room Owners are trying to recoup some/most of it through quarters. Double Elimination adds more matches which means more money for the owner which is adding the money. It's a mixed bag. A green fee can help but that benefits the stronger players versus the two and out players. I've played in many tournaments where you are on the one loss side trying to make it Sunday and in the money.

The latest one that I've played, our match to make it to the money started at 6:30 am and went hill-hill and I lost 8-9. Personally, I was glad that I lost as I would have had to play in a few hours at 10 am on Sunday. I miss the Olathe tournaments they held 3 times a year. They would routinely get 120 plus players in the open to be finished in 2 1/2 days. But did make some late night/early morning matches on Saturday.
 
Last edited:
You want on time, schedule time.
Ahead at the hour
Cumulative game count to advance
No exceptions
Finals can be race to 60 if you fkn like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top