Chop-Chop, Savers, and Splits -- Yes, No, Maybe So

[JAM]

What are you thoughts on chop-chops, savers, and splits?

A "chop-chop" means the competitors, whether it is one, two, three, or four of them, agree to cut up all monies paid out to them in a tournament in an even split.

A "saver" means one competitor agrees to give his opponent a saver of, say, 10, 15, or 20 percent of what he pockets at the end of the tournament. This saver agreement occurs *before* they begin their match.

Some feel that a split made at the end of the night is okay in regional or weekend tournaments. Oftentimes, these tournaments are held in pool rooms, and there is not enough tables, resulting in long wait times. When this happens, the finals may begin at midnight or the wee hours of the morning on a Sunday. In this instance, competitors may decide to split the money 50/50 and not play the finals match, so they can drive home and get ready for work the next day. This is known as a "split" and occurs at the end of the tournament, which makes this different than a chop-chop agreement made before the tournament begins.

I have witnessed some split negotiations at the end of the night where one player says he will split 60/40, and the other player who is supposed to get the 40 percent says, "No way. We'll play it out, then." IOW, the split is not always a 50/50 split or even.

The opinion poll is all across the board on what people think is right and wrong. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a saver between two players made before a match. Usually, this is done between friends to help with expenses. I compare it to a jelly roll. It is oftentimes a small percentage. When the losing saver player gets knocked out of the tournament, he can then root for the winning saver player that just beat him. The losing player will collect a 10-percent saver of however much money that player gets, and the further along the other player goes, the more that 10 percent will be.

I do not agree with chop-chop agreements made before a tournament begins. I think the way to combat chop-chops is for tournament promoters to require all players who collect more than $600 to provide their Social Security number, postal address, and other tax information before they receive their money. International players should have one-third cut out of their winnings for Uncle Sam automatically if they don't have a Social Security number. Each player should receive an IRS 1099 form for the event. It just might give some a little food for thought about the chop-chop if this were to happen.

Pool is not golf or tennis or baseball. The payouts are nowhere near the same amount, and this is why savers, chop-chops, and even splits occur. I understand the reasoning, but should they be stopped?

This is a blind poll, so lurkers can feel free to vote. This is a multiple choice poll.

I would love to give this poll to pool players who compete full-time, as I think the results would be quite different than what they will be here on AzBilliards.

TIA to any and all responders. :smile:

 

[elvicash]

Nothing wrong with any of that if pool is going to stay a small time game.

None of the above are good or even close to OK if we were to want to attract major sponsorship, The Vegas book and TV.

TAR has it right with their current no split policy.

Historical truth I have traveled with players and done a trip split so I am as guilty as any but I think none of the above are a good idea if pool is to go to the next level.

JAM - The tax idea would just send a 1/3 of the cash out of pool into the neverland that is the US government. What would it do for pool. I would prefer to keep government out of pool tournaments. The people that actually profit from pool at level such that their tourney winnings outrun their expenses is very small perhaps less than 50 people in the US. I disagree with the idea of taxing winnings to improve anything in pool especially as all of the funding is currently player money or perhaps from a promoter. The time for taxing pool winnings is when the funding is external to pool and coming from Budweiser, Chevy and Marlboro until then there is not enough in the game for any but a select few to even consider taxing pool.

 

[fastford]

I think that the reason the pros think that it's okay is because they spilt chop ect in the smaller tounaments and now they cant see past that. I say small tournaments that a split is okay but for the pros not a chance.

 

[Diamond69]

What do you call it if the final two players decide to split and play it out? I didn't see that option. I've seen that where the losers side has to double dip and gets the first match. Before they play the 2nd, they agree to split, but have to play out due to calcutta, trophy, or whatever.

 

[cardiac kid]

Jen,

Have to admit. Once a year I make a point of offering a saver to my opponent. Super Billiard Expo. Once I reach the money line, always offer 20%. The Open pays $500 for 33 -64. 65 - 128 pays NOTHING. $100 pays the entry fee plus a little. As you only get one chance (single elimination), seems like a reasonable thing to do. A double elimination event is another story. Depends on the situation AND the individual. Very rare for me.

Lyn

 

[poolguy4u]

:thumbup:

And this is the reason why first place money and second money should be closer to the same amount. Almost all tournaments are top heavy with the money. Take some away from first place and spread it more evenly.

Darn shame that from 4th place on back doesn't get more money.

The better players will not like this, but not so good players will appreciate it.

 

[ShootingArts]

We just saw the chop-chop

What are you thoughts on chop-chops, savers, and splits?

A "chop-chop" means the competitors, whether it is one, two, three, or four of them, agree to cut up all monies paid out to them in a tournament in an even split.

A "saver" means one competitor agrees to give his opponent a saver of, say, 10, 15, or 20 percent of what he pockets at the end of the tournament. This saver agreement occurs *before* they begin their match.

Some feel that a split made at the end of the night is okay in regional or weekend tournaments. Oftentimes, these tournaments are held in pool rooms, and there is not enough tables, resulting in long wait times. When this happens, the finals may begin at midnight or the wee hours of the morning on a Sunday. In this instance, competitors may decide to split the money 50/50 and not play the finals match, so they can drive home and get ready for work the next day. This is known as a "split" and occurs at the end of the tournament, which makes this different than a chop-chop agreement made before the tournament begins.

I have witnessed some split negotiations at the end of the night where one player says he will split 60/40, and the other player who is supposed to get the 40 percent says, "No way. We'll play it out, then." IOW, the split is not always a 50/50 split or even.

The opinion poll is all across the board on what people think is right and wrong. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a saver between two players made before a match. Usually, this is done between friends to help with expenses. I compare it to a jelly roll. It is oftentimes a small percentage. When the losing saver player gets knocked out of the tournament, he can then root for the winning saver player that just beat him. The losing player will collect a 10-percent saver of however much money that player gets, and the further along the other player goes, the more that 10 percent will be.

I do not agree with chop-chop agreements made before a tournament begins. I think the way to combat chop-chops is for tournament promoters to require all players who collect more than $600 to provide their Social Security number, postal address, and other tax information before they receive their money. International players should have one-third cut out of their winnings for Uncle Sam automatically if they don't have a Social Security number. Each player should receive an IRS 1099 form for the event. It just might give some a little food for thought about the chop-chop if this were to happen.

Pool is not golf or tennis or baseball. The payouts are nowhere near the same amount, and this is why savers, chop-chops, and even splits occur. I understand the reasoning, but should they be stopped?

This is a blind poll, so lurkers can feel free to vote. This is a multiple choice poll.

I would love to give this poll to pool players who compete full-time, as I think the results would be quite different than what they will be here on AzBilliards.

TIA to any and all responders. :smile:

We just saw the four-way chop-chop which was ridiculous but what if ten or twelve top players formed a combine? Say members of a certain social club that alleges to be a pro organization. Effectively tournaments have became exhibitions because the top players have no incentive to win. Another issue is a team has been formed. Teams playing against individuals always figure out a way to benefit the team. We are seeing that more and more in NASCAR. Dale Earnhart Sr is dead not because of a fluke or because he was trying to win a race, he died to benefit a fellow team member. That is about as extreme an example as it is possible to have but I object strongly to teams of competitors against individuals.

Savers and splits I voted for but the real way I feel is it depends. If a player has 25%-30% of himself out in savers with one or more players I don't object, smart when dealing with Dolly Parton purses. More than that I start questioning the effect on competition just like chop-chops. I always assume that "winner take all" events even with expenses paid and maybe a small appearance fee are just an invitation for the players to make deals to suit themselves. Recently at a poker event eight out of the nine players at a final table got a nice payday, the ninth player got nada. Right out in the open and announced in the TV coverage all nine agreed to a equal payout to the ninth place player. Not exactly a saver or split but pretty much in the same spirit as a saver.

Splits again depend on the circumstances. A split at three in the afternoon seems like BS to me. A split at 3AM seems a lot more reasonable. I have never had it happen to me in a tournament not playing many but I have went to work more than a few mornings with no time for even a shower after gambling all night. Working outdoors then but I can see where folks working in a more civilized environment might feel better about a split, a shower, and two hours sleep.

Hu

 

[SUPERSTAR]

It all depends.

I've been in weekly tournaments, where one bracket is just taking forever, and the winner waiting for the final match, would negotiate a chop with the 2 people playing to get to the final match, where whoever won, would split it 50/50 because it was so late and everyone wanted to go home.

Seen the same situation where the the underdog (by a couple of speeds) wants to chop, and the favorite says 60/40 or something similar, because for them to chop, they are doing the lesser player a favor.

OR, where a regional tournament is still going on at 3+am, and the TD, room owner, and everyone else, want to go home.
Where the losers side guy wants to chop evenly, and the guy who has to get beaten twice in the hotseat says no, we'll split it up the prize money and the calcutta THIS way, otherwise, try and beat me twice. Where a big argument ensues, but a deal has to be done because the doors are closing.

It's just business. I don't see anything wrong with it if it's not a paying spectator situation.
Totally different story if fans are involved who don't get to watch a match as a result, or it's obvious that the players are just trying to get it over with so they can leave.

But people are deluding themselves if they feel that they can somehow prevent chopping.
Players are perfectly capable of keeping quiet if they want to.
I would think that if there is some form of enforcement, that it would only give incentive to players to "make sure" they keep quiet, instead of telling a couple close friends, who then spill the beans when they go get plastered.

How would anyone prove it anyway? Are they going to run a background check of all the bank deposits in the past few months for the players involved?

Business isn't that hard to keep quiet, especially when keeping quiet leads to MORE opportunities.
Sure you'll have some stupid players who like to brag, who will get found out as a result. But there are plenty of shrewd individuals out there, who are perfectly capable of zipping it shut.

 

[ShootingArts]

I agree

It all depends.

I've been in weekly tournaments, where one bracket is just taking forever, and the winner waiting for the final match, would negotiate a chop with the 2 people playing to get to the final match, where whoever won, would split it 50/50 because it was so late and everyone wanted to go home.

Seen the same situation where the the underdog (by a couple of speeds) wants to chop, and the favorite says 60/40 or something similar, because for them to chop, they are doing the lesser player a favor.

OR, where a regional tournament is still going on at 3+am, and the TD, room owner, and everyone else, want to go home.
Where the losers side guy wants to chop evenly, and the guy who has to get beaten twice in the hotseat says no, we'll split it up the prize money and the calcutta THIS way, otherwise, try and beat me twice. Where a big argument ensues, but a deal has to be done because the doors are closing.

It's just business. I don't see anything wrong with it if it's not a paying spectator situation.
Totally different story if fans are involved who don't get to watch a match as a result, or it's obvious that the players are just trying to get it over with so they can leave.

But people are deluding themselves if they feel that they can somehow prevent chopping.
Players are perfectly capable of keeping quiet if they want to.
I would think that if there is some form of enforcement, that it would only give incentive to players to "make sure" they keep quiet, instead of telling a couple close friends, who then spill the beans when they go get plastered.

How would anyone prove it anyway? Are they going to run a background check of all the bank deposits in the past few months for the players involved?

Business isn't that hard to keep quiet, especially when keeping quiet leads to MORE opportunities.
Sure you'll have some stupid players who like to brag, who will get found out as a result. But there are plenty of shrewd individuals out there, who are perfectly capable of zipping it shut.

We are talking about what we feel is right or wrong here. Practically speaking there is no way to prevent deals. With better organization in pool and real future penalties possible for illegal(by the rules) deals made it can be slowed down. When things get tight at the end of an event sometimes there is no real opportunity to make a private deal either.

I have turned down deals in pool but I cut a deal when it was offered to race two laps instead of six in a match race before two cash events. I was trying to nurse a car with a mechanical problem into the cash events and the other driver came with the offer. The crowd was ready to lynch us when we stayed at parade speed for four laps when the green flag dropped, they were on their feet the last two laps. Good deal all around in my opinion.

Hu

 

[Island Drive]

savor;
When your deep into an event and your matched up with a friend or your road partner, and either one of you advancing has a chance to win the event I find it acceptable. If it's 3 in morning, and is a local event and you've gotta work tomorrow, split it and leave....no fun playing till the sun comes up, work is more important.
If your matched up with an idiot, savors etc. are out of the question.

 

[CreeDo]

It's clear you dislike these things, but why? I'd argue that in most cases it's not a huge amount of money, so they're playing for the pride/recognition. In which case they'll probably play out the finals and it doesn't much matter what happens to the small sum of cash after that.

But if the money does matter, how does it hurt anyone when two consenting adults decide it's worth it TO THEM to split it?
If one guy decides it's not worth it, the saver/etc. doesn't happen. But if both guys like it, both end up happy. Nobody else... the fans, the promoter, the other players... gets a vote in the matter. Why does the tournament promoter need to step in and interfere and tell two people how they should spend or not spend their money?

Beyond that, there's simply no practical way to enforce it. Maybe you can force them to play the final match instead of skipping it, by threatening to withold the prize money for both 1st and 2nd, but they'll never enter your event again. And even if they choose to play it out, it won't be the same. No matter what, after the money is distributed, either guy can pay the other in private without the tournament promoter knowing. Having them jump through some red tape or trying to force them to pay their taxes on it (wtf??) can't prevent that.

 

[Johnnyt]

20 or more years ago you could sneak into towns, hide your speed till all the honey was on the table. Then you took if off and got the hell out of Dodge. Same with doing biz. Years ago two or more player could do business and very few if anyone would here about it. These days with the Internet and the cellphone if one person finds out about it the whole pool world knows by the next day. Too many players are still living in the old days or they just don't care who sees or knows. Johnnyt

 

[JAM]

JAM - The tax idea would just send a 1/3 of the cash out of pool into the neverland that is the US government. What would it do for pool. I would prefer to keep government out of pool tournaments. The people that actually profit from pool at level such that their tourney winnings outrun their expenses is very small perhaps less than 50 people in the US. I disagree with the idea of taxing winnings to improve anything in pool especially as all of the funding is currently player money or perhaps from a promoter. The time for taxing pool winnings is when the funding is external to pool and coming from Budweiser, Chevy and Marlboro until then there is not enough in the game for any but a select few to even consider taxing pool.

After finishing my taxes this morning, I totally empathize with your stance. :angry:

That said, it is necessary that pool players do pay taxes, ESPECIALLY the pros. If they do not, they would never be eligible for Social Security or Medicare.

Those who play pool full time, many of them do save their receipts for travel, lodging, food, and entry fees. That way, these expenses can be written off.

Take the U.S. Open 9-Ball Championship. Let's say I came 3rd place and pocketed $8,000. I then receive a 1099 from Barry Behrman at the end of the year. The government sees I have an $8,000 income from this event. Well, I'm damn sure going to make sure to deduct my $500 entry fee, $1,000 for lodging, $300 for travel, and $200 for food. That is a $2,000 deduction.

If a saver of 10 percent with one friend and 10 percent with another friend were made, I have to payout $1,600. Well, guess what? I can't claim that $1,600 as a deduction on my taxes. That means instead of paying taxes on $4,400 -- $2,000 for expenses and $1,500 for savers -- I'm paying taxes on the entire enchilada, the $8,000.

Multiply that to a half dozen or so tournaments a year where you make savers. Believe me, it adds up!

If each player were given a 1099 at the end of the tournament -- and I'm talking about higher paying tournaments -- there would be less chance they would make savers or do the chop-chop.

If it is an international player, they would have to get a third taken out of their tournament payout. They are going to be less likely as well to do the save or chop-chop.

Just an idea, though I'm not sure how effective it would be in the instance of those players who do *not* pay taxes.

 

[JAM]

It's clear you dislike these things, but why? I'd argue that in most cases it's not a huge amount of money, so they're playing for the pride/recognition. In which case they'll probably play out the finals and it doesn't much matter what happens to the small sum of cash after that.

But if the money does matter, how does it hurt anyone when two consenting adults decide it's worth it TO THEM to split it?
If one guy decides it's not worth it, the saver/etc. doesn't happen. But if both guys like it, both end up happy. Nobody else... the fans, the promoter, the other players... gets a vote in the matter. Why does the tournament promoter need to step in and interfere and tell two people how they should spend or not spend their money?

Beyond that, there's simply no practical way to enforce it. Maybe you can force them to play the final match instead of skipping it, by threatening to withold the prize money for both 1st and 2nd, but they'll never enter your event again. And even if they choose to play it out, it won't be the same. No matter what, after the money is distributed, either guy can pay the other in private without the tournament promoter knowing. Having them jump through some red tape or trying to force them to pay their taxes on it (wtf??) can't prevent that.

I strongly believe if a player shoots pool for living, then, by golly, that player needs to pay taxes, like everybody else. In the long run, it is a good thing for the player to pay taxes.

 

[JAM]

When your deep into an event and your matched up with a friend or your road partner, and either one of you advancing has a chance to win the event I find it acceptable. If it's 3 in morning, and is a local event and you've gotta work tomorrow, split it and leave....no fun playing till the sun comes up, work is more important.
If your matched up with an idiot, savors etc. are out of the question.

I agree with you. Most events that go late like that are small regional events.

 

[JAM]

Jen,

Have to admit. Once a year I make a point of offering a saver to my opponent. Super Billiard Expo. Once I reach the money line, always offer 20%. The Open pays $500 for 33 -64. 65 - 128 pays NOTHING. $100 pays the entry fee plus a little. As you only get one chance (single elimination), seems like a reasonable thing to do. A double elimination event is another story. Depends on the situation AND the individual. Very rare for me.

Lyn

For sure, Lynn. I think all players make savers from time to time with their friends. I don't see anything wrong with it if it's a small amount. Plus, if I get knocked out of a tournament, it is fun to hang around and root for the guy that beat me, so I can collect my 10 percent. The further he goes, the more I get.

I feel differently, though, about the chop-chop agreement that is made BEFORE the tournament begins.

 

[JAM]

We just saw the four-way chop-chop which was ridiculous but what if ten or twelve top players formed a combine? Say members of a certain social club that alleges to be a pro organization. Effectively tournaments have became exhibitions because the top players have no incentive to win. Another issue is a team has been formed. Teams playing against individuals always figure out a way to benefit the team. We are seeing that more and more in NASCAR. Dale Earnhart Sr is dead not because of a fluke or because he was trying to win a race, he died to benefit a fellow team member. That is about as extreme an example as it is possible to have but I object strongly to teams of competitors against individuals.

Savers and splits I voted for but the real way I feel is it depends. If a player has 25%-30% of himself out in savers with one or more players I don't object, smart when dealing with Dolly Parton purses. More than that I start questioning the effect on competition just like chop-chops. I always assume that "winner take all" events even with expenses paid and maybe a small appearance fee are just an invitation for the players to make deals to suit themselves. Recently at a poker event eight out of the nine players at a final table got a nice payday, the ninth player got nada. Right out in the open and announced in the TV coverage all nine agreed to a equal payout to the ninth place player. Not exactly a saver or split but pretty much in the same spirit as a saver.

Splits again depend on the circumstances. A split at three in the afternoon seems like BS to me. A split at 3AM seems a lot more reasonable. I have never had it happen to me in a tournament not playing many but I have went to work more than a few mornings with no time for even a shower after gambling all night. Working outdoors then but I can see where folks working in a more civilized environment might feel better about a split, a shower, and two hours sleep.

Hu

Great minds think alike, Hu, and I agree with you, 100 percent.:smile:

 

[JAM]

It all depends.

I've been in weekly tournaments, where one bracket is just taking forever, and the winner waiting for the final match, would negotiate a chop with the 2 people playing to get to the final match, where whoever won, would split it 50/50 because it was so late and everyone wanted to go home.

Seen the same situation where the the underdog (by a couple of speeds) wants to chop, and the favorite says 60/40 or something similar, because for them to chop, they are doing the lesser player a favor.

OR, where a regional tournament is still going on at 3+am, and the TD, room owner, and everyone else, want to go home.
Where the losers side guy wants to chop evenly, and the guy who has to get beaten twice in the hotseat says no, we'll split it up the prize money and the calcutta THIS way, otherwise, try and beat me twice. Where a big argument ensues, but a deal has to be done because the doors are closing.

It's just business. I don't see anything wrong with it if it's not a paying spectator situation.
Totally different story if fans are involved who don't get to watch a match as a result, or it's obvious that the players are just trying to get it over with so they can leave.

But people are deluding themselves if they feel that they can somehow prevent chopping.
Players are perfectly capable of keeping quiet if they want to.
I would think that if there is some form of enforcement, that it would only give incentive to players to "make sure" they keep quiet, instead of telling a couple close friends, who then spill the beans when they go get plastered.

How would anyone prove it anyway? Are they going to run a background check of all the bank deposits in the past few months for the players involved?

Business isn't that hard to keep quiet, especially when keeping quiet leads to MORE opportunities.
Sure you'll have some stupid players who like to brag, who will get found out as a result. But there are plenty of shrewd individuals out there, who are perfectly capable of zipping it shut.

You've seen both sides of the fence, and you're right in that is what happens.

Most players that do not shoot pool for a living wouldn't even consider a saver. For example, could you imagine, say, Mike Miller doing a saver or a split? He's want to play that match to the finish line for pride. Some players do have a lot of pride, and the money part ain't as important, but these kind of players aren't the pros. They're the weekend warriors.

 

[CreeDo]

Wait so, this is about people dodging taxes? That's the main gripe? Pool players are not giving the government its due and that really bugs you?

I honestly am not getting it, not in a jackass pretending-not-to-get-it way, but in a I'm-literally-baffled way.

What's so great about making sure they pay 100% of their taxes, do you feel it will make pool less shady, more publicly legit, and eventually more popular? Sorry to be dense but I'm not understanding why we're worried about guys dodging taxes who don't make much to begin with. There are certainly groups of people out there who need to be singled out to pay their fair share, we've had some major protests over people ducking their financial responsibility to uncle sam.

But it seems like if we're gonna single out a group and say "you need to pay your taxes! This has to stop." it should not be a group of people who have the same annual income as your local plumber. It should be groups of people who are exploiting loopholes to keep millions out of the hands of the gov't.

 

[JAM]

Wait so, this is about people dodging taxes? That's the main gripe? Pool players are not giving the government its due and that really bugs you?

I honestly am not getting it, not in a jackass pretending-not-to-get-it way, but in a I'm-literally-baffled way.

What's so great about making sure they pay 100% of their taxes, do you feel it will make pool less shady, more publicly legit, and eventually more popular? Sorry to be dense but I'm not understanding why we're worried about guys dodging taxes who don't make much to begin with. There are certainly groups of people out there who need to be singled out to pay their fair share, we've had some major protests over people ducking their financial responsibility to uncle sam.

But it seems like if we're gonna single out a group and say "you need to pay your taxes! This has to stop." it should not be a group of people who have the same annual income as your local plumber. It should be groups of people who are exploiting loopholes to keep millions out of the hands of the gov't.

I think you are not understanding my point.

My point is that in order to prevent a chop-chop -- four players agreeing before a tournament commences that they will each chop up all their payouts and pay each one of the four in equal amounts -- they should be given 1099s on their tournament payouts to prevent this chop-chop from happening.

I am targeting the chop-chop, not that players need to pay taxes, though I think they should pay taxes, but this is not the reason I think they should get a 1099.

When players chop-chop before a tournament, it could result in them not shooting to their full capacity. Let's say two of the chop-chop boys come in the finals. Well, one chop-chop boy might let the other one win, since he needs, say, Mosconi Cup ranking points. So this player might allow the other player to win. What the heck, he's still pocketing the same amount as per the agreement of the chop-chop.

A 1099 issuance would prevent this from happening.