Calcutta Collusion - Please Explain The Logic

F

FeelDaShot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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?
 
Say there are four players left you have a quarter of yourself n 1/2 of your buddy. Say you went for 200$(A randomn guy bought you and u paid him 50$ for a quarter of your action) now say your buddy went for 50$ so you paid him 25$ and he has the other half. If you go to play the match to get into 3rd place and you have to play your buddy. you might say to urself well I can only potentially win 25% of the Calcutta if I win but if my buddy wins I'd get twice as much. This is a situation where if you truly only care about the money and have figured out the math and some players would rather lose to there buddy in order to win more money. Again if your goal is to make as much money as possible it's actually the smart move. But it is collusion and the guy who bought u in the Calcutta gets screwed.

In a situation like this who have to know who ur buying and know how the horse is and if he will throw u off a cliff for a few hundred. As far as I'm concerned(and I assume the vast majority) getting deep into a tournament and then winning is the goal and the money is a bonus. I'd rather win less money but actually win the tournament then come in 3rd but make a few hundred extra. The difference is with me(and most weekend tournament warriors) that we have jobs and a paycheck and are honest anyway but of course some are down on luck or money and collusion can and will happen so the best advice is to just buy yourself or if u buy multiple horses wish them all luck but don't ever hold back and you ll be fine. And if your worried about how your horses will act then you probably shouldn't have bought them
 
barrymuch90 said:
Say there are four players left you have a quarter of yourself n 1/2 of your buddy. Say you went for 200$(A randomn guy bought you and u paid him 50$ for a quarter of your action) now say your buddy went for 50$ so you paid him 25$ and he has the other half. If you go to play the match to get into 3rd place and you have to play your buddy. you might say to urself well I can only potentially win 25% of the Calcutta if I win but if my buddy wins I'd get twice as much. This is a situation where if you truly only care about the money and have figured out the math and some players would rather lose to there buddy in order to win more money. Again if your goal is to make as much money as possible it's actually the smart move. But it is collusion and the guy who bought u in the Calcutta gets screwed.

In a situation like this who have to know who ur buying and know how the horse is and if he will throw u off a cliff for a few hundred. As far as I'm concerned(and I assume the vast majority) getting deep into a tournament and then winning is the goal and the money is a bonus. I'd rather win less money but actually win the tournament then come in 3rd but make a few hundred extra. The difference is with me(and most weekend tournament warriors) that we have jobs and a paycheck and are honest anyway but of course some are down on luck or money and collusion can and will happen so the best advice is to just buy yourself or if u buy multiple horses wish them all luck but don't ever hold back and you ll be fine. And if your worried about how your horses will act then you probably shouldn't have bought them
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. I see what you’re saying but there is a piece of the puzzle that you’re overlooking. You went for $200 in the calcutta and your buddy went for $50. This means you are at least two balls better than your buddy unless the calcutta bidders are wayyyy out of line. With that being said, the odds of your buddy winning the tourney arent that great compared to you. So it makes much more sense to win the match, take your buddy’s 4th place calcutta money and then go on to try to win the tourney rather than dump and likely end up with 4th and your buddy taking 3rd.

It’s also important to note that your buddy who is a $50 horse likely would have never even made it this far in the tournament unless the calcutta bidders were way out of line.

I’m still not conviced that dumping is logical. But I know it happens so I appreciate the discussion. Let’s keep it going. There’s gotta be more situations out there that we’re overlooking.
 
FeelDaShot said:
Thanks for the reply. I see what you’re saying but there is a piece of the puzzle that you’re overlooking. You went for $200 in the calcutta and your buddy went for $50. This means you are at least two balls better than your buddy unless the calcutta bidders are wayyyy out of line. With that being said, the odds of your buddy winning the tourney arent that great compared to you. So it makes much more sense to win the match, take your buddy’s 4th place calcutta money and then go on to try to win the tourney rather than dump and likely end up with 4th and your buddy taking 3rd.

It’s also important to note that your buddy who is a $50 horse likely would have never even made it this far in the tournament unless the calcutta bidders were way out of line.

I’m still not conviced that dumping is logical. But I know it happens so I appreciate the discussion. Let’s keep it going. There’s gotta be more situations out there that we’re overlooking.
Click to expand...

What did you not understand about his quote: "so the best advice is to just buy yourself or if u buy multiple horses wish them all luck but don't ever hold back and you ll be fine. And if your worried about how your horses will act then you probably shouldn't have bought them .."?

This covers all possible scenarios..

If you decide to deviate from this guidance and get screwed, you have no one to blame but yourself. As far as "logic" goes, I've seen a lot of pool players air barrel someone because they were taking a shot in a matchup they had NO chance of winning, because they were looking to get enough $$ to buy a hit of crystal meth... Where the fook does "logic" play into all this?

Short Bus Russ
 
ShortBusRuss said:
What did you not understand about his quote: "so the best advice is to just buy yourself or if u buy multiple horses wish them all luck but don't ever hold back and you ll be fine. And if your worried about how your horses will act then you probably shouldn't have bought them .."?

This covers all possible scenarios..

If you decide to deviate from this guidance and get screwed, you have no one to blame but yourself. As far as "logic" goes, I've seen a lot of pool players air barrel someone because they were taking a shot in a matchup they had NO chance of winning, because they were looking to get enough $$ to buy a hit of crystal meth... Where the fook does "logic" play into all this?

Short Bus Russ
Click to expand...

Lol don’t worry, I never have and never will dump. I’m asking the question since there have been a few posts recently regarding tournament dumping and I think it makes no sense what so ever. I think 90% of the time people just assume someone is dumping when they’re not.

Your post did get me thinking though. It would makes sense for someone to dump in the above situation if they had someone lined up on the side that they are itching to gamble with.

P.S. I may or may not have wrote this while on the toilet, taking a dump
 
Pool players have been dumping and carving games up ever since they invented leather tips and chalk. A black cloud still floats overhead. They named a memorial tournament after a player that died young from a Heroin overdose. Don't be surprised at any of the antics that they can come up with. Look at the good side, they have less pro players with felony convictions than the NFL.
 
Last edited:
Cracktherack said:
Pool players have been dumping and carving games up ever since they invented leather tips and chalk. A black cloud still floats overhead. They named a memorial tournament after a player that died young from a Heroin overdose. Don't be surprised at any of the antics that they can come up with. Look at the good side, they have less pro players with felony convictions than the NFL.
Click to expand...

Yet you still cannot come up with a logical reason as to why a player would dump in a tournament to make more money.
 
FeelDaShot said:
Yet you still cannot come up with a logical reason as to why a player would dump in a tournament to make more money.
Click to expand...

Making more money isn't logical?

Then define logical

I stay out of local tournaments if there is a Calcutta because I don't want to get stuck with myself, or leave someone hanging if they buy me and I have no intention of staying until the end even if winning. Yeah, I did that once when I just wanted a "tournament fix", play a few matches to experience the competition, then go home. The bar owner bought me for $10, I did not buy half. I later put $5 up on a challenge table and gave him $5 (he broke and ran, so I didn't have to dump the game)
 
Inaction said:
Making more money isn't logical?

Then define logical
Click to expand...

Making more money is definety logical. I’m asking you to provide an example where you would be finacially better off by dumping. I provided all of the scenarios I could think of above and none of them would lead to more money by dumping.
 
FeelDaShot said:
Yet you still cannot come up with a logical reason as to why a player would dump in a tournament to make more money.
Click to expand...

How about when you have to play someone far better than you and you have that person in the cal-cut-up?

It is reasonable to think he would go farther than you in the event...so it is logical one might choose to lose an early match for later and greater payoff.
 
FeelDaShot said:
Making more money is definety logical. I’m asking you to provide an example where you would be finacially better off by dumping. I provided all of the scenarios I could think of above and none of them would lead to more money by dumping.
Click to expand...

You are either not explaining yourself well, or being obtuse.
 
Black-Balled said:
How about when you have to play someone far better than you and you have that person in the cal-cut-up?

It is reasonable to think he would go farther than you in the event...so it is logical one might choose to lose an early match for later and greater payoff.
Click to expand...

This is definetly a situation where someone would dump but it really makes no difference since you would have likely lost anyways. All dumping is doing is preventing a rare upset. Still not an issue in my opinion.

All you’re doing is intentionally losing a match that you wouldn’t win if you tried.
 
Last edited:
Here it is KISS.

You buy me in the calcutta. I buy 1/2 my self.

I play Johnny for first. He has himself in the calcutta.

I play better then Johnny.

Johnny says let me win and we split 1st and 2nd in both trnmnt and calcutta.

FEELDASHOT DO THE MATH.
 
alphadog said:
Here it is KISS.

You buy me in the calcutta. I buy 1/2 my self.

I play Johnny for first. He has himself in the calcutta.

I play better then Johnny.

Johnny says let me win and we split 1st and 2nd in both trnmnt and calcutta.

FEELDASHOT DO THE MATH.
Click to expand...

Interesting! I’ve never consider this scenario, thank you! I guess I would have to look at the payouts to see how much money you would be saving by splitting compared to winning. With a big calcutta and small tourney this is logical. With your average open tourney I dont think it would make sense but I could be wrong. Thanks again.

But also note that splitting and dumping are completely different. There’s nothing wrong wirh splitting in my opinion. As a calcutta buyer it can screw you though.
 
Last edited:
FeelDaShot said:
This is definetly a situation where someone would dump but it really makes no difference since you would have likely lost anyways. All dumping is doing is preventing a rare upset. Still not an issue in my opinion
Click to expand...

You can't run around asking for examples and then discounting them on technicalities. You asked for an example and have gotten a few.

Perhaps your exposure to calcuttas is not all knowing? There are absolutely situations where it benefits one to see the better player remains standing.
 
FeelDaShot said:
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?
Click to expand...

Unless it's the finals I'd try to win. Bird in the hand theory. "pretty sure Dave will win" doesn't get you paid.
 
You make some valid points about the futility of dumping because of the calcutta payouts but one thing to keep in mind is that at least half of the people that bid up players in a calcutta to begin with are mathematically challenged. I don't know how many times I've seen a couple of slight favorites get bid way up only to have the rest of the field go for peanuts. The return on their investment vs the risk can be so absurd.

So when you start off with a room full of mathematically challenged people to begin with -- a lot of things that don't necessarily make sense end up happening in the end.

I think one thing that happens from time to time is favorites end up not even buying half of themselves because of what I explained above. Then they end up playing the guy one of their buddies bought for nexr to nothing in the finals or someone that they actually have a part of. Then it just becomes about the numbers.

Another move I've seen is someone sort of strong arm a bidder in to selling ALL of themselves back for more than they paid with the implication that if they don't -- they can't promise to play good. It's sort of a way to get all of yourself without bidding your self up in the process.

Interesting stuff to think about though. I do agree that the dumping card gets way overplayed in the pool world.
 
FeelDaShot said:
Interesting! I’ve never consider this scenario, thank you! I guess I would have to look at the payouts to see how much money you would be saving by splitting compared to winning. With a big calcutta and small tourney this is logical. With your average open tourney I dont think it would make sense but I could be wrong. Thanks again.

But also note that splitting and dumping are completely different. There’s nothing wrong wirh splitting in my opinion. As a calcutta buyer it can screw you though.
Click to expand...

YOU NOTE, I am aware of what is goung on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top