Calcutta

I feel Calcuttas are bad for the game. Chops often occur as Calcutta money is equal to or greater then trnmnt prize money.
Also players are "working" for nothing .Take 15 to 20 % of the calcutta money and spread it out to everyone paying a entry fee.
 
alphadog said:
I feel Calcuttas are bad for the game. Chops often occur as Calcutta money is equal to or greater then trnmnt prize money.
Also players are "working" for nothing .Take 15 to 20 % of the calcutta money and spread it out to everyone paying a entry fee.
Click to expand...
Players usually have an option to bid on themselves or at least buy half of themselves from the high bidder. Beyond that, it has nothing to do with the players. It is a side arrangement for the added entertainment of the spectators. It would be different if it cut into their money.

I remember Mike Carella demanding money from side betters who had won betting on him. His reasoning was, they were betting with the stakehorse of the player he beat. If I remember right it was Larry Hubbard but it could have been Jim Mayaya. He beat them both for a lot of money that same month.

Carella was playing for around $300.00 a game but there was at least another $1000.00 a game being covered on the side. The stakehorse lost around $30,000, much more the Carella himself had won.

Now you could say, then Carella should have been betting $1000 a game himself. Carella has the right to manage his money anyway he wants. He may have at a point raised the bet and busted them himself over time but didn't have the chance.
 
All players should share in the Calcutta as without them there is nothing to auction. Now maybe you see the point of my arguement?
 
alphadog said:
All players should share in the Calcutta as without them there is nothing to auction. Now maybe you see the point of my arguement?
Click to expand...
They have that option. I've seen GOOD players go dirt cheap and not have the $ to buy half themselves. Too bad so sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top