If you were in last 4 in US OPen????

T

tommyceilings

The Netherland Nihilator
Silver Member
I saw JAM's post about the last 4, great write up as usual.

Wondering what you personally think about this scenario.

You are in the last 4 of the US Open. You all 4 get together and say look, we can add the money for the top 4 places and divide by 4 so each of us receives $15,500

Would you do that if the other 3 agreed? Why or why not. You can put yourself in any position you want Hotseat, losers, doesn't matter.

The only offer is for a proper 4 way split, no adjusting the amounts.
 
If I were the weaker player of the 4, yes! However if I played like Shane, I'd take my chances and play it out :-)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
No, if I make it that far, I want it all and the title that goes with it and I want the other 3 to give me their best games in return. Anything less would just cheapen it when I win the championship.
 
I wouldn't, regardless of my actual chances. Although at this point, I think anyone of these 4 are capable of winning.

I actually hate splits. Say what you want about how important winning the title is, but a guy is going to try harder if he's not guaranteed a 1/4 of the remaining prize fund.
 
It's been tried, of course by a player with one loss. The two undefeated players would not agree. Now in the finals, deals are prevalent with a 15K spread between first and second. A 5K "saver" is almost normal, happens about half the time. Guys like Shane and Dennis won't deal!
 
jay helfert said:
It's been tried, of course by a player with one loss. The two undefeated players would not agree. Now in the finals, deals are prevalent with a 15K spread between first and second. A 5K "saver" is almost normal, happens about half the time. Guys like Shane and Dennis won't deal!
Click to expand...

Aren't the fans/spectators essentially being screwed in such situations? Have successful means been used to put the kibosh on such activities?

Fatz
 
First time I ever saw Pros chop up the finals was when I was working a yearly 14.1 event, and Rempe, Sigel made the finals. They were in the back by the counter discussing how to chop up the $$$......which I have no issues with.....it is their money, but I did have an issue with them discussing how pissed the owner would be if they didn't play the final and just asked to get paid!:cool:

We had maybe 50 paid spectators there, but they didn't mention them...

Class is hard to find sometimes....especially when these two guys were my heros in pool.

G.
 
tommyceilings said:
I saw JAM's post about the last 4, great write up as usual.

Wondering what you personally think about this scenario.

You are in the last 4 of the US Open. You all 4 get together and say look, we can add the money for the top 4 places and divide by 4 so each of us receives $15,500

Would you do that if the other 3 agreed? Why or why not. You can put yourself in any position you want Hotseat, losers, doesn't matter.

The only offer is for a proper 4 way split, no adjusting the amounts.
Click to expand...

With international players who are not American, those who do not have a Social Security number or American tax ID, they sometimes have an automatic one-third taken out of their check. I know Barry Behrman did that with Fabio Petroni one year in his winnings at the Open. The IPT did the same thing, removed one-third for taxes. I saw them remove one-third from Efren's $100,000 win at the King of the Hill in Orlando, Florida, December 2005.

For the players who do pay taxes -- and today, most pros who play pool full-time in a tournament setting -- this wouldn't work out. If you cut up the winnings, and then had to pay taxes on the full amount, even though you were only getting a fourth of the total purse of four players, it would not be advantageous.

Savers, however, is another thing. Most players do savings between each other if they are good friends to help the other with expenses. In my experience, most savers I have been witness to are usually 10 percent on average of the total winnings.
 
Its their living so I can see professionals splitting it might be their only income.

What I don't understand about this thread is amateurs complaining about pro's splitting when amateurs will split on the finals of a $5 bar tournament with 12 entries. pro's are trying to make money and amateurs are trying to just compete or have a good time.

I do think pro's whether they split or not should be made to play the finals.

What's more aggravating to me is when players on live stream matches refuse to play on the stream table or did that issue get settled?
 
Most every split I have ever seen work like this. Calculate the nut deduct that n play for the rest. Sometimes the players will calculate the odds on the gravy.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
jay helfert said:
It's been tried, of course by a player with one loss. The two undefeated players would not agree. Now in the finals, deals are prevalent with a 15K spread between first and second. A 5K "saver" is almost normal, happens about half the time. Guys like Shane and Dennis won't deal!
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem with splitting at the final four is precisely what Jay points out. They're all not on equal footing. Assuming all four play the same speed, their chances of winning the whole thing are as follows:

Winners Side Player 1: 33.3%
Winners Side Player 2: 33.3%
Losers Side Player 3: 16.7%
Losers Side Player 4: 16.7%

Splitting 62k this way would yield about 20.7k for both winners side and 10.3k for both losers side which isn't very far from the way the funds were distributed (1st and 2nd got 45k and 3rd and 4th got 17k). Any deal with more equal distribution should be rejected by winners' side players.


In terms of the ethics behind a pre-arranged split, I think unless you play pool for a living, you're not in position to judge. I've heard countless stories of pool players having a difficult time making ends meet. What they do with the cash they earn is their business, not mine.
 
I think most players want the title without any asterisks or stipulations.
It's still a title that means something.

Still, a $7,000 swing is no joke. Would these guys bet half their innings on a shot at the
most prestigious title? Probably. It's technically a free roll. They are getting paid either way.
They come out 8 grand ahead of their entry fee, split or not. Why not let it ride and get something
that will stay with them for a lifetime and keep them warm long after the 7 grand dries up?
 
gerry said:
first time i ever saw pros chop up the finals was when i was working a yearly 14.1 event, and rempe, sigel made the finals. They were in the back by the counter discussing how to chop up the $$$......which i have no issues with.....it is their money, but i did have an issue with them discussing how pissed the owner would be if they didn't play the final and just asked to get paid!:cool:

We had maybe 50 paid spectators there, but they didn't mention them...

Class is hard to find sometimes....especially when these two guys were my heros in pool.

G.
Click to expand...

zing.......!!
 
Needing weight said:
zing.......!!
Click to expand...

I know in many poker tournaments, deals often require that a portion of the prize-fund remains on the table. In this example with 62k remaining, the director could simply say, 10k must remain on the table. Do what you want with the rest. That way, they can evenly split 52k (not a bad payday for everyone) and players are still fighting for a first-place prize of 10k. I think such an arrangement would satisfy players looking to make a deal and spectators wanting to see a nail-biting match worth money.
 
A lot of chops produce great finals for everyone. The players are loose and will usually play their top speed. The open would be a good chop: 45k, each gets 20k, play for the 5k and the title. Only problem now is the tax you pay. No tax in my day...lol.
 
I said this in another thread a while ago:

Savers are good for the player who feels they are the underdog.

Savers are not good for the spectators.

Savers are not good for the fans.

Savers are not good for the calcutta participants.

Savers are not good for pool's image.

Savers are not good for promoters.

Savers are not good for sponsors.




Its amazing how people rationalize shit like this as being not a big deal.
 
jay helfert said:
It's been tried, of course by a player with one loss. The two undefeated players would not agree. Now in the finals, deals are prevalent with a 15K spread between first and second. A 5K "saver" is almost normal, happens about half the time. Guys like Shane and Dennis won't deal!
Click to expand...

I like your idea the best Jay, when playing in the finals ask your oponent if he wants to bet winner takes all, thats how i would do it if i played like KM or Svb, Dennis.

Cause more likly your opoment will say no (whats he nuts), then as Jay had said, that would put the fear in anybody! (except maybe KM or SVB, DENNIS!)
 
Gunn_Slinger said:
A lot of chops produce great finals for everyone. The players are loose and will usually play their top speed.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. A lot of people assume players will halfass it when they have a split happening.
It's quite the opposite. We get to see who plays amazing pool, not see players dog it
(which has its own entertainment value, but I still prefer amazing pool).

MahnaMahna said:
I said this in another thread a while ago:

Savers are good for the player who feels they are the underdog.

Savers are not good for the spectators.

Savers are not good for the fans.

Savers are not good for the calcutta participants.

Savers are not good for pool's image.

Savers are not good for promoters.

Savers are not good for sponsors.

Its amazing how people rationalize shit like this as being not a big deal.
Click to expand...

I think part of the reason is because there's no realistic way to stop it.
Why get worked up over something that will happen no matter what you say or do?
It's an agreement between two consenting adults about how to spend their own money.
You know, like a bet.

Saying "We should stop savers" is like saying "we should stop tornados,
they suck and do a lot of damage."
 
MahnaMahna said:
I said this in another thread a while ago:

Savers are good for the player who feels they are the underdog.

Savers are not good for the spectators.

Savers are not good for the fans.

Savers are not good for the calcutta participants.

Savers are not good for pool's image.

Savers are not good for promoters.

Savers are not good for sponsors.




Its amazing how people rationalize shit like this as being not a big deal.
Click to expand...

Do you mean savers or chops? I see them differently. A saver is often agreed to before the event starts by road partners to help defray expenses. Most often a saver involves someone already out of the tournament. Not saying a saver can't affect a tournament, especially when both guys are still in it, but generally speaking they are distinct from each other.

I personally don't care for chopping, but it's tough that in the world of professional pool these guys aren't playing for PGA Tour money where they're all millionaires anyway so no one discusses chopping. It is against the rules of the PGA Tour in any event. Besides, even if it was against the rules of the tournament, who's necessarily gonna know and why should a rule stop them from cutting a deal when it doesn't even stop them from pattern racking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top