yea wound up for sure, been dealin with my girls dad in hospital...and just all the negativity on here when unnessary toward alot of things. Sorry about the quick draw brother:frown:
Ghost out....
Galveston One Pocket Payout
- Thread starter $TAKE HOR$E
- Start date
yea wound up for sure, been dealin with my girls dad in hospital...and just all the negativity on here when unnessary toward alot of things. Sorry about the quick draw brother:frown:
Ghost out....
No problem, Ghost, I'm very happy about the Galveston Classic and hope it continues. It's only 60 miles away from where I live and gives me the chance to see world class pool!!
Lets take a look at some of the theorms and principals of economics and related fields such as game theory.
Game theory is a branch of applied mathematics that studies strategic interactions between agents. In strategic games, agents choose strategies that will maximize their payoff, given the strategies the other agents choose. It provides a formal modeling approach to social situations in which decision makers interact with other agents.
Game theory generalizes maximization approaches developed to analyze markets
Via Robert Axelrod's classic book The Evolution of Cooperation, I had come upon the concept of the "non-zero-sum" game, a game in which there isn't necessarily one winner and one loser, but rather the possibility of two winners—or two losers, depending on whether the players successfully cooperate.
After reading Axelrod's book, I had gotten fascinated by the idea that relations among nations are growing more non-zero-sum.
For example: With nations getting more economically intertwined, their fortunes are more closely correlated, for better and for worse. So too with environmental problems like global warming and ozone depletion and exhaustion of the world's fisheries: Nations adversely affected by these problems will either cooperate to solve them and all win, or fail to solve them and all lose. And so on, in various policy areas—controlling the spread of nuclear and biological weapons, the spread of disease, etc.
Economic efficiency describes how well a system generates the maximum desired output a with a given set of inputs and available technology. Efficiency is improved if more output is generated without changing inputs, or in other words, the amount of "friction" or "waste" is reduced. Economists look for Pareto efficiency, which is reached when a change cannot make someone better off without making someone else worse off.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. A system can be called economically efficient if: No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, more output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs, and production ensures the lowest possible per unit cost. These definitions of efficiency are not exactly equivalent. However, they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
In the real world ensuring that nobody is disadvantaged by a change aimed at improving economic efficiency may require compensation of one or more parties. For instance, if a change in economic policy dictates that a legally protected monopoly ceases to exist and that market subsequently becomes competitive and more efficient, the monopolist will be made worse off. However, the loss to the monopolist will be more than offset by the gain in efficiency.
This means the monopolist can be compensated for its loss while still leaving an efficiency gain to be realized by others in the economy, and theoretically the monopolist could gain more by the distribution. Thus, the requirement of nobody being made worse off for a gain to others is met.
Multi-objective optimization (or programming) also known as multi-criteria or multi-attribute optimization, is the process of simultaneously optimizing two or more conflicting objectives subject to certain constraints.
Multiobjective optimization problems can be found in various fields: product and process design, finance, aircraft design, the oil and gas industry, automobile design, or wherever optimal decisions need to be taken in the presence of trade-offs between two or more conflicting objectives.
Maximizing profit and minimizing the cost of a product; maximizing performance and minimizing fuel consumption of a vehicle; and minimizing weight while maximizing the strength of a particular component are examples of multi-objective optimization problems.
If a multiobjective problem is well formed, there should not be a single solution that simultaneously minimizes each objective to its fullest. In each case we are looking for a solution for which each objective has been optimized to the extent that if we try to optimize it any further, then the other objective(s) will suffer as a result. Finding such a solution, and quantifying how much better this solution is compared to other such solutions (there will generally be many) is the goal when setting up and solving a multiobjective optimization problem.
Economic efficiency is used to refer to a number of related concepts. It is the using of resources in such a way as to maximize the production of goods and services.[1] A system can be called economically efficient if:
No one can be made better off without making someone else worse off.
More output cannot be obtained without increasing the amount of inputs.
Production proceeds at the lowest possible per-unit cost.
These definitions of efficiency are not equivalent, but they are all encompassed by the idea that nothing more can be achieved given the resources available.
An economic system is more efficient if it can provide more goods and services for society without using more resources. Market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.[2] The first fundamental welfare theorem provides some basis for this belief, as it states that any perfectly competitive market equilibrium is efficient (but only if no market imperfections exist).
The brilliant John Nash has developed work on the role of money in society. In the context that people can be so controlled and motivated by money that they may not be able to reason rationally about it.
This is Effrens case tho it seemed rational for him to choose to keep the 25k dollar first place prize, it puts the other players (lets call it PE=Pool Economy) at a higher loss/disadvantage.
Now I’m sure we can all assume that the full fields did not occur in this tournament because of prior un-ethical pratices in the IPT and other such organizations. The P.E. was/is gun shy and rightfully so, and this trickled all the way down to spectators, vendors etc.(of which are part of the PE)
If we had went with Effrens decision to keep the bulk of the money for 1st place, we cast aside the needs of the rest of the PE. So who cares right? WRONG! By the more efficient distribution of money thorought the PE, everyone gets a more FAIR share. Which makes players happy, as we all know this is not a cheap walk in the park. Hotels cost, food, travel, entries. So without this distribution the ones who didn’t get first are at a much greater disadvantage, with better distribution everyones risk values go down. Thus producing a more efficient system.
With a more efficient system, people feel more fairly treated so they will have better opinions. With better opinions, word gets around about “NEXT YEAR”
Now next year is going to look better to the entire PE, which supports the possibility that MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SHOW UP. Now if the Full fields show up, there should be no problems per se. All because the majority of the PE chose to share the limited amount of cash in a more efficient manner.
If the prize would have stayed at 25k for 1st, the PE would undoubtly be not very happy…not at all. So you know what happens, word gets out people get angry and no one shows up and Effren gets to play the janitor for $50 dollar sets. By them sharing Effren has a much increased probability of having a much larger purse next year. He thought about today and not tomorrow, and his actions/decisions would in effect create a highly possible loss for him next year.
Basic lemans economic law: In a team consisted of multiple players each with a decision to make casts a vote. Initial thought is to do whats best for the individual players self. This could and most likely cause conflict throught the team. The team prospers most when each individual on the team does what is best for themselves and the TEAM! Tho you are naturally going to have compromises, the team or PE in the end becomes more efficient thus we have a bigger better tournament next year.
Effrens choice tho initially thought by him to be logical, was inherently illogical due to the fact that he arrived at the solution to the formula with only a partial data set.
And you can’t argue with math my friends…
GreyGhost
PS....This is an undebatable FACT, whomever so choses to debate this is already BUSTED. Opinions do not matter in this matter. Case closed PERIOD
This is not a knock to effren, allison or anyone who thinks otherwise, people do make bad decisions you know, especially when they don't have all the knowledge/info. At the same time, for years its effren is amazing this and that hes really nice bla bla bla. Give the guy a break, as if an uninformed decision makes him the devils advocate or something. If anyone can have him read this post, I think he would agree with the facts. Its very simple to understand, and its not like he had the controlling vote...thats why the whole team made the right decision for the team, not just one person.
.....:yikes:.....the PS is as long as some threads. Very interesting points. In a nut shell its one unsatisfied pinoy versus the rest of the field.
Last edited:
Game theory is great for theorists and those who want to debate contradictions but that theory is not worth much until you put that into practice. And thats where Efren is supreme. He is basing his decisions on HIS own experience that covers not only one tournament but thousand and thousand of hours of playing pool for trophies, cash, and merit.
This is why great minds like Chris Ferguson or Andy Bloch would never sit at the same table as Phil Ivey or Patrick Antonius for the cash in poker because all that theory does not make you a winner.
But that debate can go on and on and Im not into that. There are those that have a need to prove their intelligent quotient. I dont care. I just totally reject the notion that Efren (and note the spelling please) is a "selfish pr#ck" for doing what he feel is right. A skilled person doesnt sell himself short not when he has put in all the hours of practicing and loses and rejection. When a pool player loses he makes that cold lonely walk out to his car alone. Why, when he wins, cannot he only expect what is promised?
This is why great minds like Chris Ferguson or Andy Bloch would never sit at the same table as Phil Ivey or Patrick Antonius for the cash in poker because all that theory does not make you a winner.
But that debate can go on and on and Im not into that. There are those that have a need to prove their intelligent quotient. I dont care. I just totally reject the notion that Efren (and note the spelling please) is a "selfish pr#ck" for doing what he feel is right. A skilled person doesnt sell himself short not when he has put in all the hours of practicing and loses and rejection. When a pool player loses he makes that cold lonely walk out to his car alone. Why, when he wins, cannot he only expect what is promised?
Is this an American janitor or a Pinoy janitor because the janitor's in the Phillippines would be top tier players in the USA.
I agree with you 100% on your effren being selfish p***k, I called it a bad decision for the sport, but your right you can't blame the man for doing what he felt was the best option for himself...its his decision informed or not but regardless shouldn't be held against him so personally offending.
just a quick analogy. those who protested that the winner should only have 15k would readily dismiss themselves as losers of the tournament. that's why champions or winners of the tournament gets or are given the bigger cheese. you wouldn't expect that Tiger Woods to be given a lesser half just because he dominated golf over the years and give others an equal break of the prize monies. this ain't no charity event where everyone gets a fair deal of the price money. if they want to get the price, then play your best. this is not a contest for "the biggest losers", where the person who loses more would be the biggest winner. of course, I don't see anyone complain about the prize monies if they lose if the loser would get more.
btw, since some people here questioned or branded Efren as a selfish person for voting to keep the 25k prize money, I would say that's pathetic and absurd. I believe that if Efren got eliminated early in the tournament, this wouldn't even be a discussion. because he never got the 25k or 15k. I would say that this is plainly sourgraping and envy at it's worst. did people here even considered where the prize money is being spent on by the winner? I believe the question of selfishness is best answered as to where the money was spent, be it for selfish reasons or helping someone. you can ask Earl if he spent his winnings on those ridiculous hockey equipment that he's wearing.
btw, since some people here questioned or branded Efren as a selfish person for voting to keep the 25k prize money, I would say that's pathetic and absurd. I believe that if Efren got eliminated early in the tournament, this wouldn't even be a discussion. because he never got the 25k or 15k. I would say that this is plainly sourgraping and envy at it's worst. did people here even considered where the prize money is being spent on by the winner? I believe the question of selfishness is best answered as to where the money was spent, be it for selfish reasons or helping someone. you can ask Earl if he spent his winnings on those ridiculous hockey equipment that he's wearing.
Efren was the only one to vote against them changing the payout so if he was eliminated early then it would have been 100% in favor of the reduced payout.
I dont think Mike Gulyasy buy's Earl"s arsenal of attire.....:grin:
LOL. it would benefit Efren, but in regards to that, he doesn't seem to care much about loser's pay-out if it's small or big. what he is more concerned is about winning. some guys are yapping because they don't have the confidence or belief that they could win. and in retrospect, they would be the one who would benefit if they prize money was set at 25k even if they wanted 15k. I don't expect them either to honor their word or may consider reimbursing or giving back the 10k to the losers. I think hypocrisy would be the term for it.
excerpt basing from a movie that I watched >>>
reporter : what do you think of this best actor competition?
actor : I don't like the idea of this award ceremony, making us actors compete like a bunch of dogs.
reporter : then what are you doing here?
actor : well, just in case I win.
classic movie ! :grin::grin::grin:
TAP! TAP! TAP! I agree with you 100%!
Exactly. If they would have asked in the begining, instead of waiting until they were down to the final 24 or 32 the vote would have still probabbly been the same. Efren knew that he had the best chance before the tournament started and you know that people on the losers side are going to be down for a bigger payout down the line. If they would have not posted any 1st place payouts and just advertised added money then none of this would have happened. That does for every tournament they had there.
hahahhaahahaa, im serious, all i can do is laugh at this point. does anyone really realize just how pitiful this sport is??? i mean it's an absolute ****ing joke. beautiful game, but we really need to all get with it in a big time way.
and people are saying efren is selfish? jesus people, you need to use your heads. fact is the opposite, efren actually has been extremely benevolent with his money over the years.
Last edited:
Is this really the case? Wow. I find it hard to believe Reyes would have to pay more than half of his travel expenses, if any at all. I really thought Puyat (if that is still his sponsor) bought the meat and shared in the gravy.
If I traveled 1/2 way around the planet to play in an event and they changed the payout in the middle of the tournament, I might be a little upset too. I guess I can't blame Efren for that.
I bet my sweet little "a$$" that if "Efren" would have been an American, nobody would be calling him a "selfish pr1ck". I would have voted to keep the prize at what was originally advertised.
Last edited:
Please tell me you are kidding. Do you REALLY think people in the pool world discriminate against Efren because he is not from America? He is only one of the biggest draws and most widely respected (for attitude and play) players ever.
Be careful with your bet, if you lose your head will go with your a$$ unless you pull it out quick
If Efren is a selfish ***** then Allison should be the same also, since she was the only woman voting against the prize distribution...
To claim this is as stupid as hiring a guy suffering of pyromania to become the chief of a fire department....
To claim this is as stupid as hiring a guy suffering of pyromania to become the chief of a fire department....
It is obvious here that the Promoters are losing a lot of money. They simply did not want to listen to "free advice" and are getting bitten on their "a$$es." They could have avoided the tournament prize fiasco, which will definitely hurt and tarnish their reputation.
I don't think the current Tournamnt Promoters are willing to go through this again in the future. Everybody is hoping it will happen again next year but that is wishful thinking.
Please tell me you are kidding. Do you REALLY think people in the pool world discriminate against Efren because he is not from America? He is only one of the biggest draws and most widely respected (for attitude and play) players ever.
Be careful with your bet, if you lose your head will go with your a$$ unless you pull it out quick
No, I am not kidding.
I could be somewhat in agreement with you juegabillar. If Efren was to articulate his reasons as a Johnny Archer, Nick Varner, or Scott Frost could in a language WE could understand we might see his point for his vote. But thats just hypothetical suppostition. But then maybe Efren would only say in his native tongue "well I voted that way because I just feel "LUCKY"!!!!!!!