Calcutta Payout

crav'in action said:
This past weekend I played in a $40 entry 10-ball tournament at a local bar which included a Calcutta. They had 2 blind bids and my buddy and I bought the second bid and chose one of the favorites. The player bought half of himself from us and ended up winning the tournament. So he gets the first place money for winning and half of first place in the Calcutta and my buddy and I split the other half. Monday I see a post by him on Face Book bashing us for not giving him a percentage of our share in the Calcutta that "HE" won for us. Am I missing something here? I thought the concept of the Calcutta, requiring us to allow him to buy half of himself, insures that he gets his fair share. If he wanted more than half, he could have bid and bought himself and had the whole thing. If we had all of him and got all the 1st place Calcutta money, of course we should give him a percentage but with him getting half, I don't agree with his way of thinking. Please tell me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he has a really messed up way of thinking, if he thinks he deserves more then 50% of the calcutta money. He did not buy himself in the calcutta. He purchased half of himself back, so he got his fair share of his half of the calcutta money back, after winning the tournament. You are also correct about the other thing. If you would have bought him in the calcutta, and he did not buy half of himself back, then you would be entitled to 100% of the calcutta money. In that case, some calcutta buyers are really nice, and will give the winner maybe 20% of that money (like maybe $20 from a $100, or $50 from $200), if they are feeling nice and generous, but they are not morally entitled to do that. Why should they be? The player did not put any money into the calcutta, so why should he get any money out of it? Most buyers have been nice and generous with me in the past though, after I won, and did not get any of myself in the calcutta. They would usually give me a small % of it.
 
Scott Lee said:
First, there is no "requirement" that you must allow a player to buy 1/2 (or any amount) of themselves in the calcutta. It is a courtesy. The guy was a total dick for calling you out online for not tipping him, when he got a jam up payday.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

I always thought it was required (to offer the player half of himself back, if you purchased them in the Calcutta). I have never been to a tournament where they did not do it that way. You might be right though, since it is always the buyer who comes up to the player, and asks if they want to buy half of themselves back. The player might also come up to the buyer, and tell them that they want to pay half of the calcutta bid. I can't imagine a buyer ever refusing to accept the players half, even if they are not required to do so.
 
Black-Balled said:
Dammit, humans. Do you have no ability to look past right now?

The horse is a winner, but hes gotra be fed. And he eats money.

How much did the friggin dude win for the calcutta? 1000$? All split up, that is 500 a side...250 fo you and your buddy. Throw the dude a 20 or 50...he might share a piece of winning with you again, down the road.
Click to expand...

Why should he deserve more then 50% of the Calcutta money? Maybe because he is the one who played and won the tournament? Yeah, that is true, but he did get 100% of the prize money from the tournament. Why should the person who won the Calcutta bid not get at least his half of the Calcutta money? The player who won still did good. He got the tournament winnings, plus half the Calcutta money.
 
JOEY said:
So if u buy let's say Justin Hall for 5k, and he wins you and your buddy $1250 each, you don't think he deserves some jelly? If someone know u don't believe in that, they may just "split" 1st and 2nd place money next time, or worse yet, dump just so u don't get paid at all. Like black balled said, that measly 10% will usually keep your horse on the square. Ppl need to not be so nitty!
Joey
Click to expand...

Okay, so even though the player did not put in a penny over half of the winning bid, if they win, they deserve 50% of the calcutta winnings, plus an extra % of the other half of the calcutta winnings? Nobody ever explained to me that that was the fair way of doing things, and I have never gotten a tip from the other half of the Calcutta winnings (if I paid my half of the Calcutta). That has never been the norm in my experience. Why is it not enough that the player get his tournament winnings, plus his half of the Calcutta money? Is it really the norm that he should get maybe 60% of it?
 
jojopiff said:
I'd say the nit in this example is the guy who would consider dumping cause he didn't get tossed an extra few hundred after just winning several thousand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. A player who dumps (maybe because he did not have any of himself in the Calcutta, or to just screw over the person who purchased him in the Calcutta, or for any other dis honorable reason) is the worst kind of no good slime.
 
Last edited:
Black-Balled said:
You don't have to be wrong, but sometimes, when full effort is needed, player may not be able to muster it all for someone else's benefit.

Maybe the loss is not a dump as obvious as shooting a combo into the rail?
Click to expand...

The player has half of himself in the Calcutta. Why would he dump, just to screw over the person who has the other half of the Calcutta? I do not understand what the benefit for the player would be, to dump in that situation. He would not only be dumping the tournament winnings, but also dumping his 50% of the Calcutta prize money. I do not understand how any player could benefit from that. Maybe only if the player got into the finals with another player who had 100% of himself in the Calcutta, and then they got together in private, and made a deal to dump, in order to split the entire 1st and 2nd place, plus all of the 1st place Calcutta money. It would take not 1, but 2 scumbags in order to pull this off.
 
No, you don't owe him anything. On the other hand, if he hadn't taken half, I would have thrown him about 10% for winning.
 
JOEY said:
So if u buy let's say Justin Hall for 5k, and he wins you and your buddy $1250 each, you don't think he deserves some jelly? If someone know u don't believe in that, they may just "split" 1st and 2nd place money next time, or worse yet, dump just so u don't get paid at all. Like black balled said, that measly 10% will usually keep your horse on the square. Ppl need to not be so nitty!
Joey
Click to expand...

I've known the guy 27 years.....the guy who they are posting about would never dump as far as I know.
 
Black-Balled said:
You don't have to be wrong, but sometimes, when full effort is needed, player may not be able to muster it all for someone else's benefit.

Maybe the loss is not a dump as obvious as shooting a combo into the rail?
Click to expand...

To me, it Doesn't matter if buyer knows or not, nor how obvious the dump is. If guy in scenario chooses to dump because he's not given an extra 10% of half of the Calcutta then he is the "nit". Let's say 1st place pays $2000 & Calcutta pays $2000 & say entry is $50 & guy goes for $400 in Calcutta. Player has put in $250 with return of $3000. The "nit" here is the guy dumping for not getting an extra $100 after netting $2750. And if the argument is well he did all the work then I can't argue that. But,what if all these sorry ass, nitty buyers just didn't show up? And Calcutta is 1/2 the size? Pool players will cut off their nose to spite their face. Hypothetical guy just won the tourney, just netted 2750, and is focused on not getting a 100 jelly. Focused on the buyers keeping their whole 1000. I'm literally awe struck by this.

As a rule, I push back pretty hard against any "rule" or "common practices" that pool players have established. Pool players are some of the most cut throat, ungrateful, cheap, and petty people around.

I don't purchase others in Calcutta's cause after I lose out then I'm usually all pissy & wanna go home. And I'm not the guy going for big dollars so maybe I "just don't know". I have money, whatever I would win via tourney and/or Calcutta is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Scott Lee said:
First, there is no "requirement" that you must allow a player to buy 1/2 (or any amount) of themselves in the calcutta. It is a courtesy. The guy was a total dick for calling you out online for not tipping him, when he got a jam up payday.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

As soon as I started reading this nonsense, I knew it was you - not sure if anybody posts more bad info than you....nah, not possible
Jason
 
How do these events get away with these calcuttas which are nothing but open gambling, in states where gambling is illegal?
I'm surprised that some sourpuss or complainer who thinks "he didn't get a fair deal" doesn't report it to the police or even worse to the tax people.
Looks like a fun thing to me and a chance to pick up some $$$. No harm being done to anyone.
Just like any gambling...nobody FORCES someone to make a bet or "pick a horse".
 
Its only wrong if you get caught?

Low500 said:
How do these events get away with these calcuttas which are nothing but open gambling, in states where gambling is illegal?
I'm surprised that some sourpuss or complainer who thinks "he didn't get a fair deal" doesn't report it to the police or even worse to the tax people.
Looks like a fun thing to me and a chance to pick up some $$$. No harm being done to anyone.
Just like any gambling...nobody FORCES someone to make a bet or "pick a horse".
Click to expand...
 
I don't know why you say this. It has always been a courtesy to offer the player 1/2...never a requirement...unless the TD made it so. I've seen many calcuttas where there the buyer did not have to offer (or could turn down the offer) to split with the player. So...what exactly makes this "bad info"?

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

jasonlaus said:
As soon as I started reading this nonsense, I knew it was you - not sure if anybody posts more bad info than you....nah, not possible
Jason
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
I don't know why you say this. It has always been a courtesy to offer the player 1/2...never a requirement...unless the TD made it so. I've seen many calcuttas where there the buyer did not have to offer (or could turn down the offer) to split with the player. So...what exactly makes this "bad info"?
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...
Will the horse I bought, if he gets beat, turn around and offer me 1/2 of what I blew when I lost?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top