Badpenguin
Well-known member
Yup, and that those were WPA medals being handed out.
And also, it was the World Pool Championship, not the World 9 Ball Championship.
2024 World Pool Championship
- Thread starter jay helfert
- Start date
And also, it was the World Pool Championship, not the World 9 Ball Championship.
Calendar
wpapool.com
WPA World Nine-ball Championship - Wikipedia
don't know about the medals, but it's a WPA world championship
Oikawa
Well-known member
I know some 700-800 fargo players who sometimes do it for smaller non-professional events within the 500€-3000€ range of price money for the winner. But yeah, no idea about this case at all, and no idea if that happens/how much it happens in larger events with 5k+ or 10k+ price for the winner.Never heard of finalists splitting a top prize informally in any pro sport.
No, I don't. The Last 16 consisted, of course, of 15 matches. During the event, I watched only 7 of those 15 matches, the ones played on the feature "TV Table" -- 2 matches in the round of 16 players, 2 in the round of 8 (quarterfinals), 2 semifinals, and the final. The most B&Rs in one of those 7 matches was 4, by Chua in his win over Soufi. But one of those four was a 9-ball on the break. Matchroom may not count those. Then, after the event, I watched the Chua/Dang match on Table 1, in which Chua had 5 B&Rs. So that is the most I know about, but there were 7 other matches in the Last 16 that I have not watched.
CanadianGuy
Well-known member
how two consenting adults split their monies can never be challenged, frowned upon sure, but as long as nobody is dumping nothing illegal has occurred
i do find it a bit silly that Fedor with his earning power would do this
i do find it a bit silly that Fedor with his earning power would do this
I don’t believe for a second fedor and Kaci chopped. That’s me.
Ditto
Someone remind me, WNT/Matchroom does double elimination down to the last 32 and then its single elimination correct? If so, do they reseed?
Top 16 are seeded in Stage 1.
Double elimination down to 64. No seeding in Stage 2, but those entering Stage 2 with a loss are drawn randomly into the spots held by the undefeated players.
The WNT almost certainly has rules in the "proper behaviour" section of the player contract that forbid funny stuff with the money, including betting. I think it's entirely possible that savers are explicitly forbidden, but I haven't see the contract.
staticfire98
New member
A chop was common in the earlier days of professional road cycling when the prize money on smaller courses was small. Lance Armstrong was guilty of this. Executing a chop gets way more complicated with officially reported winnings to tax collectors and current banking laws. Divvying up a $150k is not an easy task. There will be lots of red flags going off in banking transfers that automatically block large transfers without layers of justification. Cash isn't an option either.
There must be all kinds of personal laundering available. Scores can be split via other scores way down the line or even previously. Crypto gggg (jeez) it's not like there's going to be a paper trail.
staticfire98
New member
Crypto native here and happy to chat the topic. Crypto leaves a permanent paper for the life of transfer, if doing on-chain transfers or swaps. Sure there is monero or even layers using zero knowledge proofs but after all that a person will need to convert to fiat in order to spend it. All major CEX's require KYC at any amount nearing these figures. A person can chain hop, use dex's or a tumbler but those will get wallets flagged. Use tornado or other tumblers at your own peril as most are honey pots. At the end of the day the banking laws are strict and the US does not mess around with controlling money flow. The bank will absolutely require knowledge of the source of funds. It can't be "Hey, I have this wallet and no transaction history, see its clean"
It can be done obviously, but is much harder when an official organization writes someone a check, reports the earnings to the IRS and requires a bank account to get access. It increasingly gets harder as the dollar amount goes up.
One of them *could* pay the other in a cash transaction but the recepiant really can't deposit that at the bank without a bunch of questions.
I am not well versed in laundering money and of course there are probably ways but it just doesn't seem like an easy way to do it.
Disclaimer: I realize there are people here that play high stakes gambling games that know their way around these things. I guess my point is that is not as easy as splitting up $10K in cash but there are probably ways to do it. Crypto would be the worst medium to use though...for a United States citizen.
CEX- Centralized exchange
DEX- Decentralized exchange
KYC-Know your customer, anti-money laundering rules
Monero-Privacy coin
Tumbler-Protocol that obscures wallet history
Tornado-Famous tumbler which founder is in Dutch prison
Honeypot-Type of digital sting to entrap criminals
Last edited:
Very interesting crypto facts (thanks) although I can't help but think there are (not cheap) options for the corrupt. I am otherwise ignorant. Cash on the other hand would be basically undocumented. Right? It would take the world's international agencies in a concerted and permanent effort to curb personal business and wouldn't this just create another level of corruption?
On the surface that sounds acceptable. However MR is attempting to develop a product. Having the finalist back off the potential performance anxiety by cutting a deal prior to the competition hurts the product. A full blow dump isn't needed to hurt the product. Even if the players were still playing to win like a 150k swing was in jeopardy. The optics of the deal undermine the magnitude of the match.
I don’t understand why this is so hard for people to understand. Matchroom is trying to develop a marketable product, and sometimes that goes beyond the financial interests of individual players. As an alternative, we could turn the clock a few years where the winner of the World 9-ball won $30-40K. There may be less incentive to chop, but everyone is far worse off.
I think this problem will go away or be minimized when prize money gets better. It seems it was common enough practice in golf at one point for Arnold Palmer to suggest splitting the gate with Jack Nicklaus irrespective of the outcome.
www.cbssports.com
Jack Nicklaus recounts the $1,400 he made in his first major win at Oakmont
Jack Nicklaus defeated Arnold Palmer in a playoff at the 1962 U.S. Open, and the way it went down was pretty sweet
www.cbssports.com
I think this problem will go away or be minimized when prize money gets better. It seems it was common enough practice in golf at one point for Arnold Palmer to suggest splitting the gate with Jack Nicklaus irrespective of the outcome.
Jack Nicklaus recounts the $1,400 he made in his first major win at Oakmont
Jack Nicklaus defeated Arnold Palmer in a playoff at the 1962 U.S. Open, and the way it went down was pretty sweet
when prize money gets better for other events and not only the WC. as it is now i think the suspicion will always be there, especially if the finalists are not the usual faces..
CanadianGuy
Well-known member
how could you even verify chopping?
the process would need to be like PED testing, players would need to be made aware in advance
of a testing protocols.....in this case a financial audit....with penalty for preventing the audit carrying similar weight to a failed test
come to think of it, would not even cost that much considering you would likely only test finalists
the process would need to be like PED testing, players would need to be made aware in advance
of a testing protocols.....in this case a financial audit....with penalty for preventing the audit carrying similar weight to a failed test
come to think of it, would not even cost that much considering you would likely only test finalists