Collusion in Calcutta's

G

gordml

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.

This is starting to go on in the weekly handicap I play in.
Especially since the Calcutta is getting bigger and bigger all the time, whereas the prize money stays the same.

Anybody encountered this before? If so how do you deal deal it?

btw - there's no problem if a player buys half of himself but sometimes they don't
 
Anybody deal with it before? Ah happens all the time unfortunately.

I'd say it's a rarity when it doesn't happen.

Calcuttas are a gamble in more ways than one.
 
gordml said:
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.

This is starting to go on in the weekly handicap I play in.
Especially since the Calcutta is getting bigger and bigger all the time, whereas the prize money stays the same.

Anybody encountered this before? If so how do you deal deal it?

btw - there's no problem if a player buys half of himself but sometimes they don't
Click to expand...
It happens but not often. Brother you gotta choose the road that suits you and live with that choice.
 
. Calcuttas are a gamble in more ways than one.[/QUOTE said:
yeah thats what I figured.
Only buy yourself or ppl you trust .
No different than side betting or even betting online.
Pro snooker players have been caught dumping but not that often.
Click to expand...
 
Pool players like money, many more than pride. Has happened, and will happen wherever money is involved.
 
but then a player in the tournament should be happy if a big calcutta player loses on purpose as it then enhances the money for all remaining players.
 
That's for sure! If you think that's bad...listen to this. In Montana there is an annual barbox tournament, which serves as the Montana State Championships. It is run by the VNEA vendors/charterholders, who have a stranglehold on bar pool in MT. Every year the organizers hold a few calcuttas during this event. They rake 30% of the entry fees (about 300 players), and use that money to buy up the top players in the calcutta. This happened every year. I moved out of MT in 2006, after living there 23 years. I have no reason to believe it is not still happening. The same people still run the tournament. :angry:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

BasementDweller said:
Anybody deal with it before? Ah happens all the time unfortunately.

I'd say it's a rarity when it doesn't happen.

Calcuttas are a gamble in more ways than one.
Click to expand...
 
gordml said:
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.

This is starting to go on in the weekly handicap I play in.
Especially since the Calcutta is getting bigger and bigger all the time, whereas the prize money stays the same.

Anybody encountered this before? If so how do you deal deal it?

btw - there's no problem if a player buys half of himself but sometimes they don't
Click to expand...

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?
 
Yes - you go for 40 and take half.

You buy someone in a blind bid for 300 and have half. So you play your horse early in the tourney and he has a better chance to snap the thing off than you do.

What do you think will happen 90 percent of the time in that scenario?
 
BasementDweller said:
Yes - you go for 40 and take half.

You buy someone in a blind bid for 300 and have half. So you play your horse early in the tourney and he has a better chance to snap the thing off than you do.

What do you think will happen 90 percent of the time in that scenario?
Click to expand...

The $300 player probably has more than a 90% chance of winning the match against the $40 player even if there was no collusion. So it really doesn't matter, does it? The only thing the collusion is preventing is an extremely rare upset.
 
gordml said:
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.

This is starting to go on in the weekly handicap I play in.
Especially since the Calcutta is getting bigger and bigger all the time, whereas the prize money stays the same.

Anybody encountered this before? If so how do you deal deal it?

btw - there's no problem if a player buys half of himself but sometimes they don't
Click to expand...

"There's a lot more to this pool game than making balls."
Jimmy the rack boy, circa 1830.
 
Yes

I am sure I have seen corrupted Calcutta's and I will never trust them. The only real tournament I play in at Anchorage a couple of times a year no longer has an "official" Calcutta and I believe the owners are very sincere about keeping a very well run and fair tournament and I believe most of the players want that also.

It is unfortunate that this issue exists and is another reason for the shady image pool some times has hanging over it.

Gambling and it's effect on the players in any sport will always have it's down side and potential to corrupt. I am just fine with any one doing this being banned for life from professional sports and participation in local tournaments.

Winning is not the most important thing in life, a persons honesty, integrity and legacy mean so much more.

Some will never get that and will always be a "looser" even if they win.
 
Ak Guy said:
I am sure I have seen corrupted Calcutta's and I will never trust them. The only real tournament I play in at Anchorage a couple of times a year no longer has an "official" Calcutta and I believe the owners are very sincere about keeping a very well run and fair tournament and I believe most of the players want that also.

It is unfortunate that this issue exists and is another reason for the shady image pool some times has hanging over it.

Gambling and it's effect on the players in any sport will always have it's down side and potential to corrupt. I am just fine with any one doing this being banned for life from professional sports and participation in local tournaments.

Winning is not the most important thing in life, a persons honesty, integrity and legacy mean so much more.

Some will never get that and will always be a "looser" even if they win.
Click to expand...

You are so right Some will never get it.
 
these calcutta threads are hillarious to me, throw in your cash and whatever happens happens

if you even have to think twice about it after the fact you can't afford it, or you're not cut out for gambling

and if you want to gamble and make money anything pool related is not the way to do it
 
This happens quite a bit.. happens more where there is a potential "spot" adjustment in play. Someone goes from a B to an A for the next tourney if he wins.. he might be motivated to "play with less desire"...

JV
 
gordml said:
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.

This is starting to go on in the weekly handicap I play in.
Especially since the Calcutta is getting bigger and bigger all the time, whereas the prize money stays the same.

Anybody encountered this before? If so how do you deal deal it?

btw - there's no problem if a player buys half of himself but sometimes they don't
Click to expand...
It is what it is. As long as money is involved and there's someone smart enough to figure out they might be better off by losing, it's going to happen. Not much you can do about it.
 
FeelDaShot said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is no obligation to buy half of yourself in the calcutta.
I was just envisioning a scenario where dumping against your horse earns you more than beating him . thats all. use your imagination it gets easier to see if the calcutta prize money is a lot bigger than the payouts. From reading these responses the moral is dont buy someone you dont trust. which of course would limit your choices bigtime:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top