Players playing in the same tournament arranging in any way to share in tournament and/or Calcutta monies from that tournament is wrong!
As with all post on this forum, I say it is wrong in the sense that it is bad for the sport. Now, may players will immediately bow up on this statement and defend this type of behavior. That defense, at least all the ones I have heard and tried to make, is based purely on self interests.
The idea of two players going on the road and cutting up the money is one thing, but when it comes to tournament play it is totally another.
Consider the following: You walk into your local poolroom. There are two guys from three states away traveling the road together that have stopped in your local poolroom. They are playing each other one-pocket for a nickel in the middle (As Shorty would tell you, that mean they are betting each other $500 a game). You set down on the rail to sweat the game and watch a few games in what appears to be a fairly close match up. A total stranger seated next to you , turns to you and asks, Who you like for a dollar or two?
Now wouldnt you be a little hesitant to bet on either player? You should be, it is one of the oldest hustles in the book, commonly known as two friends and a stranger. It turns out that the stranger is with the two players. You could pick either player, and you would lose. In fact, you could even pick any shot to be made, and you would lose. The signals are subtle.
Point is this type of behavior is wrong, it hurts the game. Not only would you not bet on the game, you would not pay to watch the game. If you did pay to watch such a game, and then found out what was going on you would feel cheated. And, you would have been. You would have paid good money to watch two guys play the best they could play for the cash. That is not what you would get.
Now, all of us would agree (at least all but, possibly the two friends and a stranger) that this type of behavior is wrong, no doubt about it.
There is no difference in this and two players agreeing to split monies derived from a tournament! It is wrong!
Lets take the one of the most common cases: Assume two players have entered a tournament and agreed to split the money down the middle. That is regardless of what either player wins, the money will be pooled and divided equally. Now assume further that these same two players end up playing each other in the finals. You paid a fee to watch the finals, if not an actual door or spectator pass, you encountered some costs to get to the room to watch the tournament. Regardless of how hard the players may say they are playing to win, they are NOT playing the best they can play for the CASH! This is true, for the simple fact that there is NO cash to be played for. You, as simply a spectator, were cheated, plain and simple. Now, how much you were cheated out of depends on the costs you incur in getting to the room to watch the tournament. The existence of a spectator or door fee would simply add to this costs.
Would it make any difference if the players had agreed on something less than an equal split? Well yes, but it is still wrong if their agreement makes any difference in the amount of money they would get if they win or if they lose.
Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that one player would intentionally lose to another. I am simply saying that in the simplest case, the spectator is being cheated, and that is wrong. However, the mere existence of any agreement to share monies from the tournament, will have some effect even if the two players meet up somewhere in the tournament brackets, still out of the money. Regardless of what they may say, the simple fact that the agreement exist, could and does effect their play given that on a subconscious level they think one player has a better chance to make it further than the other. We all know that at the top level of this, or any sport, performance is controlled by the subconscious. Or, on the other hand, the existence of the agreement means that regardless of how far one of the players makes it, the payoff is less than it would have been without the agreement.
Now, I have thought about this a great deal, and the only argument I could make that was not based on self interests, but rather on the interest of the betterment of the sport based on the idea that such agreements might result in a greater number of players entering a tournament, which would be good for the sport. However, I dont think that beyond two players agreeing to share expenses, any other agreement would justify the potential wrong by such agreements.
A lot of people lament about the fact that pool does not have the stature and standing that sports such as golf or tennis, or bowling do for that matter. Read the history of these sports. They didnt always have the stature, standing, and support they do today. I think you will find that they were riddled with the same problems that pool continues to suffer from today. One, being the one that is the topic of this post, split agreements between the players.
One of the first things supporters of these sports did in agreeing to sponsor (tournaments) them was to TELL them that all such agreements would STOP, and that if they didnt THEY, the sponsors, were out! Now, the strength of the player organizations and the sponsors in these sports has risen to the point today, that it is the individual player that is out today, but it was the sponsors threat to pull out originally that got them headed to where they are today. Thus, if we want the success that these sports have, rather than lamenting about not having it, we could look at how they got were they are today and take a lesson from it.
One such lesson would be that until we get a sponsor or a player organization that has the wherewithal to stop such behavior, we must try to do it on our own. Thus, we must realize that while it may be good from a self interest point of view, splits and other agreements to divide up tournament money is wrong from the games best interest point of view; and stop making and/or condoning such agreements.
Postscript: Nobody said this was going to be easy or with out costs people.
Post-postscript: This type discussion naturally leads to a similar one related to Calcuttas, but I will but that one in a separate post, for it is a totally different animal.
Professor,
Quantum ego meditatio, quantum fortunatus ego acquiro
