Is it "Common Practice" to Split the Money in the Finals These Days?

All the local tournaments are played on weekdys. This means people have to go to work the next day. Now, i known of you are saying, work, job, what are these words. Considering that 7 start time means sometime between 8 and 8:30 , factor in smoke breaks, by midnight players are thinking about going home. Hence last two split.
Sometimes the split is not even. The player in the hot seat gets a little bigger piece.
 
CJ Wiley said:
This wasn't any kind of rules violation, the tournament director was fine with us not playing......and if there was any type of "gallery" I would have played for sure.

This was the end of a LONG DAY of playing and there was no one left on that side of the building (they have two sides and the gamblers were all playing on the other side).
Click to expand...

In the these circumstances, then fair enough
 
I think that it has gotten to the point where everyone splits and I have felt the pressure to split from others. I was even ridiculed for not wanting to split. I think tournaments should say no split at beginning or play winner take all.
 
CJ Wiley said:
After losing my first round I battled back to the finals today at Rusty's Billiards Bar Table Event in Ft. Worth Texas. I had to beat my opponent twice (playing races to 4) and he ask me if I wanted to just "split" the money and not play - this put me in an awkward position.

Since I had to beat him twice in relatively short sets (races to 4, then race to 3) I agreed, but now I'm wondering if I should have just went ahead and tried to win. In reality it caught me off guard when I was ask and I made a snap decision based on just being happy to go all the way through the loser's side.

What do you think? Should the players even be allowed to split the money in the finals of a tournament? There was also a sizeable calcutta involved too....does this make a difference?
Click to expand...

It is a serious problem for pool because the money is not much, and players always do it, under the table deal!! at times it is dome 2/3 to 1/3 if one of the players is much better. I wonder if this happened at the last snooker match between Ronnie and Mark the other player!! who knows..
 
It all depends on the situation for me... for big tournaments with spectators it should never be allowed IMO. For local events where people go out and support the pool room and tournament, and play for long periods without a huge payout and Calcutta I don't see an issue.

No matter what the situation is, the 2 players should consult with the people that bought them in the Calcutta before even considering to split.
 
CJ Wiley said:
This wasn't any kind of rules violation, the tournament director was fine with us not playing......and if there was any type of "gallery" I would have played for sure.

This was the end of a LONG DAY of playing and there was no one left on that side of the building (they have two sides and the gamblers were all playing on the other side).
Click to expand...

I go along with this. Most don't give a darn for the people that bet on them. I wish there were more players that thought like you. JT
 
You are in a horse race but apparently don't have the stamina for the distance.

If both of you are willing to take less than you would get if you won, why don't you make it more interesting - and possibly profitable - by making it winner take all. :grin:
And play for all the money and all the bragging rights.
 
Last edited:
CJ Wiley said:
After losing my first round I battled back to the finals today at Rusty's Billiards Bar Table Event in Ft. Worth Texas. I had to beat my opponent twice (playing races to 4) and he ask me if I wanted to just "split" the money and not play - this put me in an awkward position.

Since I had to beat him twice in relatively short sets (races to 4, then race to 3) I agreed, but now I'm wondering if I should have just went ahead and tried to win. In reality it caught me off guard when I was ask and I made a snap decision based on just being happy to go all the way through the loser's side.

What do you think? Should the players even be allowed to split the money in the finals of a tournament? There was also a sizeable calcutta involved too....does this make a difference?
Click to expand...

I have not read all of the replies, but under no circumstances should a split be allowed if there is a Calcutta since other people have something to gain or lose based on the outcome of the finals.
 
The calcutta is the only problem that I have seen with the split. I sometimes play 2 local bar box tourneys where one starts at 1pm and the other at 430pm. We are kind of asked if we would be willing to chop so everyone can get to the second tourney before it starts. I have played it 6 times, won the winners side all 6 times and chopped 6 times so we could all make the second tourney. There wasn't a calcutta so I didn't mind, but if there was and we both didn't have all of ourselves then I feel the people that were involved with the calcutta should be included in the decision. If someone doesn't agree then play it out. Sometimes it is late and the chop feels like a relief after playing all day and you are dead on your feet too though. The only other problem with the chop is if you are playing a handicapped tourney in which the winners' handicap will go up due to the win.
 
The very last tournament i played in I came all the way through the losers and played the guy who beat me first round. It was already 3:30 am and both of us we were dog tired. Being older guys, who both had ourselves in the auction with 150.00 the difference between first and second, a split would have been easy and its not a lot of cash. But I play to win. And at 5:30 am i did. Back about 30 yrs ago a road player from OK. nicknamed "Shaggy" once told me if you ever want to be good at this game John it doesn't matter if your playing the stiff at the bar for a dollar or the best player in the world for 1000, you give every shot your best effort. Its the only way to ever be a winner. I feel the same way about splitting. As soon as you give in you give up. I don't do savers either...
 
Play for it all? What are you stuck in the 80's LOL. Not many gamble these days. JT
 
Yet another reason that pool is never going anywhere. Instead of the players getting to the finals having the desire and drive to win they sell out for what, $20, $40, or $60? Instead of having a deep pride in accomplishment somehow grabbing an extra few bucks is more important than winning. So, what other "sport" does this happen in? Work yourself all the way to the finals and don't have the guts to play to be the winner. Just play it safe. Anyone that splits is a coward.

Bob
 
No calcutta - no problem. If there is a calcutta then it should be played out. If it is late maybe one long race instead of maybe two longer matches.
 
CJ knows better than this.

This has been going on for decades. Almost all of the pro events years ago was split.

The "Challenge of Champions" was a winner take all, supposedly, now you don't really believe that this wasn't chopped up?

Ken wasn't born yesterday, or the day before.:rolleyes:

I have split several times, if there was a Calcutta or not. Usually, it was because the tournament was going very late, I was dead tired, and the difference in money was nearly nothing.

I do remember once I was playing in Jack and Jill tournament, and we were in the winners side so they had to beat us twice to win it. I felt we had a lock and they offered to split. Being the smarta$$ that I am I replied back, "I didn't come here for 2nd place, I came here to win this damn thing!"

They then beat us two sets in a row. Let's just say crow doesn't taste a thing like chicken....:D

Ken
 
I like what they do in some of the big poker tournaments online. 2 players will agree to do a chop based on quantity of chips but still put something on the side to play for. An example being first place is $100k, second place is $75k. Player one has a 2-1 chip advantage of 2 million chips to 1 million chips so they decide to do a chop. Player one who has more chips gets (just as an example) $90k, and player two gets $80k...they decide to play for the remaining $5k.

In pool that would be equivalent to who feels they have the edge...now they may both disagree as they think they both have the edge so it may not work as easily as it does in poker. Even in poker sometimes a player refuses to chop so they play it out for the 1st and 2nd place standard prize pool amounts.
 
CJ Wiley said:
I can spot the guy the 6 and the last 4 playing 9-Ball, but this was 8-Ball on a bar table......of course in a race to 4, then a race to 3 anyone could possibly win....I can beat Shane, Johnny, or Earl a race to 4/alternate break at least 40% of the time.

I'd say I was a 70/30 favorite to win both races.....but no one can know for sure of course.
Click to expand...

You made the right choice, unless you really reaallllyyyy wanted to gamble on it.

Short race bar table 8-ball is like flipping a coin.

Houstoer said:
No calcutta - no problem. If there is a calcutta then it should be played out. If it is late maybe one long race instead of maybe two longer matches.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
Last edited:
CJ Wiley said:
I can spot the guy the 6 and the last 4 playing 9-Ball, but this was 8-Ball on a bar table......of course in a race to 4, then a race to 3 anyone could possibly win....I can beat Shane, Johnny, or Earl a race to 4/alternate break at least 40% of the time.
I'd say I was a 70/30 favorite to win both races.....but no one can know for sure of course.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are accurate in your assumption : it's barbox 8-ball short race as you mentioned, who care if you can spot him the 6 and the last 4 on the 9-foot if he ran tables on barbox 8-ball (I guess so because he's there in the final). And you u say he got lucky and you were unlucky, I'm sorry but everybody know that even it's race to 4, it's incredibly hard to beat an overwhelming player, so the overall level of that tourney must be good, you were still the big favorite no doubt but not by a 100 miles :wink:.

SO, to say that you have 70/30 chance to beat him, I don't think so. It's like Shane says he has 70/30 chance to beat you on BOTH race to 4 and 3, I'll take your side without any hesitation, hence Shane can spot you the 6 or 7 I guess ? ( another assumption, based on what he gave Corey ).

So the odd is not correct, and even it's close, let's go to a little of odds calculation, 70/30 = 70%, you need to win twice so that will be 49%, not a good odd either, you knew it best when you said yes.

Back to the main question, many factors involved to decide if you want to split or not. Me personally sometimes I split sometimes not.

I split when :
- I like the guy :smile:
- I don't want to bear the feeling of being double-dipped :rolleyes:
- Someone's waiting for me to gamble and I like that game :wink:
.....

And not when :
- I hate the guy lol :grin:
- Lose the 1st set and want to test my nerve, sometimes I refuse to split after the 1st set because I want to know it I can get over it. That's a good feeling even if I lose :cool:
.....
 
Last edited:
CJ Wiley said:
if there was any type of "gallery" I would have played for sure.
Click to expand...

It's good that you factored in the spectators (or lack thereof in this case). But someone should have been thinking about the calcutta. Whoever bought you and the other guy in the finals should have been consulted. If they also agree to split, then no problem. If they want to play it out, then no split should be allowed.

-Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top