From the other thread:
"Ok here's the scenario.
Happens when players can buy other players and they wind up playing each other.
And the prize money is significantly higher for the Calcutta than first place for tourney.
So I buy Dave for $400 and the 1st place is $2400 in Calcutta.
First place for the tourney pays say $1000.
Next I'm playing Dave deep in the money.
I crunch the numbers and realize I make more money by dumping as long as I'm pretty sure Dave wins the tournament -- or even gets second I'm still up.
Now suppose Jeff buys me in the Calcutta - well Jeff gets thrown under the bus"
My question:
I know this kind of stuff happens but I don't quite understand the logic. In the example above, if you bought half of yourself, you would make more money by winning the match.
Let's go through some situations where you WOULDN'T buy half of yourself in the calcutta:
1. You have no extra money: If you had no money you would not buy any other players in the calcutta.
2. You suck and have no chance of cashing: If you have no chance of cashing then you aren't going to cash anyways so it doesn't matter if you purposely lose.
3. Someone bought you in the calcutta for a lot of money and you can't afford to buy half of yourself: In this case, you must be one of the favorites to win the tournament. The player you bought for less than yourself is likely a weaker player than you. So why would you purposely lose, giving up on the $1,000 of tournament money in hopes that the weaker player upsets someone to win the tournament so that you can make half of the $2,400 calcutta payout?
4. You have no extra money to buy yourself but you have extra money to buy someone else: In this situation, the player you bought must play a lot better than you, in which case you would likely lose anyways.
Am I missing something here? Why is collusion even an issue?
"Ok here's the scenario.
Happens when players can buy other players and they wind up playing each other.
And the prize money is significantly higher for the Calcutta than first place for tourney.
So I buy Dave for $400 and the 1st place is $2400 in Calcutta.
First place for the tourney pays say $1000.
Next I'm playing Dave deep in the money.
I crunch the numbers and realize I make more money by dumping as long as I'm pretty sure Dave wins the tournament -- or even gets second I'm still up.
Now suppose Jeff buys me in the Calcutta - well Jeff gets thrown under the bus"
My question:
I know this kind of stuff happens but I don't quite understand the logic. In the example above, if you bought half of yourself, you would make more money by winning the match.
Let's go through some situations where you WOULDN'T buy half of yourself in the calcutta:
1. You have no extra money: If you had no money you would not buy any other players in the calcutta.
2. You suck and have no chance of cashing: If you have no chance of cashing then you aren't going to cash anyways so it doesn't matter if you purposely lose.
3. Someone bought you in the calcutta for a lot of money and you can't afford to buy half of yourself: In this case, you must be one of the favorites to win the tournament. The player you bought for less than yourself is likely a weaker player than you. So why would you purposely lose, giving up on the $1,000 of tournament money in hopes that the weaker player upsets someone to win the tournament so that you can make half of the $2,400 calcutta payout?
4. You have no extra money to buy yourself but you have extra money to buy someone else: In this situation, the player you bought must play a lot better than you, in which case you would likely lose anyways.
Am I missing something here? Why is collusion even an issue?