Jimmy M.]"Late" John McChesney??? I hadn't heard that. 
I believe it's been about a year that John passed away.(or possibly 2004)
I believe it's been about a year that John passed away.(or possibly 2004)
John Schmidt BANNED from Viking Tour
- Thread starter Southpaw
- Start date
John was wrong, let's face it
As someone who likes and admires John Schmidt it saddens me to have to say he is wrong, but he is. I ran many big tournaments at my pool hall in New Orleans (Racketeers) and we had some calcuttas over $30,000. I too, would have suspended any player who didn't show for his match and Mr. Janis definetly did the right thing for pool. I can really understand John Schmidt's disgust with pitiful payouts and hopefully the IPT will put an end to this, if not John probably should pursue a golf career because pool has not been to good to it's superstars, of which John Schmidt definetly meets that criteria. 
As someone who likes and admires John Schmidt it saddens me to have to say he is wrong, but he is. I ran many big tournaments at my pool hall in New Orleans (Racketeers) and we had some calcuttas over $30,000. I too, would have suspended any player who didn't show for his match and Mr. Janis definetly did the right thing for pool. I can really understand John Schmidt's disgust with pitiful payouts and hopefully the IPT will put an end to this, if not John probably should pursue a golf career because pool has not been to good to it's superstars, of which John Schmidt definetly meets that criteria. 
I am not sure what happen but speaking of CALCUTTAS Its bad for the game of Pool. I have seen players dump games and split money / I have seen pool rooms stop players in the middle of a torunment and change their rating ... because they are shooting to good. It just gives pool another black eye..... A tournment alone without a CalCutta will work much better than one with.... in the long run..
macguy said:
Let me tell you something my friend. If John Schmidt won the tournament, he would expect a piece from the guy who bought him in the Calcutta. That is, if he wasn't already in for half. These "Player Auctions" have been around in pool forever. They are part of the game, just as money games in the backroom are. And the players are willing participants. Have you ever been to the U.S. Open, the biggest tournament in the US? If you have, you know of what I speak.
Whether Calcuttas or Auctions are legal is not the issue here. The issue, as I see it, is for a "professional player" not to show up for his match. How do you think they deal with this on the PGA Tour and the ATP tennis tour? Major fines for a no show, unless it's medical or serious family emergency, and even then they must communicate with the tournament director beforehand. I salute Mike Janis for the stand he has taken. To forfeit a match for no reason other than a golf date is way wrong in a pro tournament. People paid money to see the Pros play. I suspect on the IPT that might be cause for expulsion from the tour.
I like John Schmidt and think he is a great player. How I would handle this situation I'm not sure. Yes it has happened in tournaments I've run and things have gotten ugly sometimes. But I will not second guess Mike Janis judgement in making this call. He has to do what he believes is best for the integrity of his tour.
Here is why I don't think that would work or be fair either. Say a top player goes for $1000 and buys half himself. If loses his first round match he might decide getting a sure $500 back now would be good and not show up for his next match. After all he might have to win 8 to 10 matches in a row to hit Auction money. Under your suggestions the Director would give back the bidder $1000 and the player would then go to the bidder to get back his half. I suggest letting the players have their name held out of the Auction and not penalize those who are bought in the field, no matter how much money the field brings. Viking puts those who don't want to be bid on in the field. You could have huge amounts bid on the field with John or Shannon or Cliff in the field, but I think if someone opts out and you then put them in the field that they should be held blameless, especially if they are going to bring back players that have not cashed as they did this weekend. My son had to make the 3 hour round trip to go back and lose his first match on Sunday. At all other Viking events we did not have to go back on Sunday unless we were in the money.billiardspro said:
Mike, please shorten the races to where we can all be in the cash if we have to come back. That makes your event too expensive for many amateurs. We have to get a hotel or drive a long ways and cancel Sunday plans all the while not knowing if we are going to cash. I noticed we quit fairly early Saturday. I understand John (the pool room owner) needs to make table time money and wants the tournament to end a little earlier, but race to 7 and 5 instead of 9 and 7 would have done the trick.
Please consider it.
Chris
www.cuesmith.com
www.internationalcuemakers.com
Last edited:
Aside from the specifics of John Schmidt's situation, a player walking away from a tournament where there is a seperate prize fund that involves other persons brings up very serious issues.
In New York City, calcuttas have all but been banned from tournaments and part of the reason for this has to do with situations like the one John Schmidt unintentionally created. You see, players have deliberately walked away from tournaments as a way of exerting political power when they failed to purchase themselves. Either they don't like the buyer, fail to successfully negotiate with the buyer for a cut or wish to lower their auction-value in future events.
Regardless of their reasons, when players deliberately walk away from events, it threatens the integrity of the entire event. Buyers suddenly become vulnerable and the event takes on an aura of vulnerability which, in-turn proceed to yield smaller purses which end up hurting the other players. Once it's established that there is to be a calcutta (or side-pot), maintaining its integrity becomes one of the Tournamnet Director's greatest responsibilities. No player, no matter how respected, is more important than that responsibility.
For the sake of argument, lets suggest that it was another player. We'll call this hypothetical player "Billy Bob". Billy Bob goes for $500 in the calcutta and proceeds to ask the buyer for half of the purse yet refuses to donate 50% to the purchase. Billy Bob says, "If you don't give me half, I won't show." The buyer refuses this ridiculous offer and finds himself holding the ticket to an absentee horse. On top of that, if this negotiation happens after the draw, the player can add to his position by saying, "Hey, I've got nobody in my bracket until the money."
The bottom-line is, the moment other people are involved, the player has a responsibility that goes beyond his own volition. Oftentimes, even if he didn't actually purchase a portion of himself, he can expect a gapper from the buyer if he ends up winning the event. I'm willing to assume John Schmidt honestly did not intend to harm anyone when he didn't show for his match but regardless of his reasons for not being there, his actions resulted in such.
Regarding the legality issue, all I have to say about that is that it is a necessary evil of most pool tournaments. Arguing that John Schmidt might have walked away from the event because of the moral or legal issues is hogwash. Most players show BECAUSE there's a calcutta or side-pot. It's what makes these events worthwhile for most of them. I know the Joss Tour simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for them. Bringing up the legality of it all would be like arguing why the sky has to be blue. That's the way it is and that's the way it's gonna be whether you like it or not and talking about it will change NOTHING.
In New York City, calcuttas have all but been banned from tournaments and part of the reason for this has to do with situations like the one John Schmidt unintentionally created. You see, players have deliberately walked away from tournaments as a way of exerting political power when they failed to purchase themselves. Either they don't like the buyer, fail to successfully negotiate with the buyer for a cut or wish to lower their auction-value in future events.
Regardless of their reasons, when players deliberately walk away from events, it threatens the integrity of the entire event. Buyers suddenly become vulnerable and the event takes on an aura of vulnerability which, in-turn proceed to yield smaller purses which end up hurting the other players. Once it's established that there is to be a calcutta (or side-pot), maintaining its integrity becomes one of the Tournamnet Director's greatest responsibilities. No player, no matter how respected, is more important than that responsibility.
For the sake of argument, lets suggest that it was another player. We'll call this hypothetical player "Billy Bob". Billy Bob goes for $500 in the calcutta and proceeds to ask the buyer for half of the purse yet refuses to donate 50% to the purchase. Billy Bob says, "If you don't give me half, I won't show." The buyer refuses this ridiculous offer and finds himself holding the ticket to an absentee horse. On top of that, if this negotiation happens after the draw, the player can add to his position by saying, "Hey, I've got nobody in my bracket until the money."
The bottom-line is, the moment other people are involved, the player has a responsibility that goes beyond his own volition. Oftentimes, even if he didn't actually purchase a portion of himself, he can expect a gapper from the buyer if he ends up winning the event. I'm willing to assume John Schmidt honestly did not intend to harm anyone when he didn't show for his match but regardless of his reasons for not being there, his actions resulted in such.
Regarding the legality issue, all I have to say about that is that it is a necessary evil of most pool tournaments. Arguing that John Schmidt might have walked away from the event because of the moral or legal issues is hogwash. Most players show BECAUSE there's a calcutta or side-pot. It's what makes these events worthwhile for most of them. I know the Joss Tour simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for them. Bringing up the legality of it all would be like arguing why the sky has to be blue. That's the way it is and that's the way it's gonna be whether you like it or not and talking about it will change NOTHING.
jay helfert said:
Could not have been put any better than this. Everyone wants to cry the "calcutta is gambling......" Im sure John's little golf escapade was only for fun.....yeah right. You cant cry about the calcutta or player auction being gambling when thats how most pool players have to make their money...in the backrooms gambling. The bottom line is that John wants to be called a "professional", but wants to be able to pull a stunt like this and everyone just turn their heads. You cant have it both ways my friend. Im really starting to wonder what is the truth in the whole Mobile incident too.
Southpaw
Calcutta is gambling a risk no mater what….It is a way to create more revenue for the players and spectators. A player is not own by an association or a bidder in a Calcutta. The Calcutta operators likely owes the money and a refund to the bidder is in order. If there is rules for the tour that are CLEAR then there is a case to revoke participation in the tour. Is there any rules to this???
Hey Everyone,
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!
What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???
Lamar
Just for the fun of it I would like to ask a question. I in no way mean to start a word fight here. I'm also not trying to get any debates started. JUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION!!!
What would happen if either of the two teams, Steelers or Seahawks, decided to play golf in lieu of showing up for the Super Bowl???
Lamar
sharandrew said:
The player is automatically responsible the moment he enters the event. He has agreed to play and betting is based upon this agreement. The moment someone else purchases him, he has an agreement that goes beyond himself and the tour. A tour holds the right to revoke membership for almost any reason that would be deemed unwanted behavior. Forfeiting a match under the forementioned circumstances can easily be defined as such.
lamar25 said:
Did you ever see "Eight Men Out"?
I agree
This is a controversial subject, but I think consideration should be given to the following points:
1) Many tournaments would not be worth the risk and expenses without a calcutta. The calcutta money many times puts a player over the top for what he considers to be 'good payback'. I REPEAT, calcuttas makie MOST
tournaments worth it, otherwise many many tournaments would not be worth it.
2) TD's and other tournaemnt and calcutta people do a lot of work for little pay. They all can't work for free. Sorry players, that's life.
3) TD's have to balance a lot of factors regarding the players, payback, railbirds, etc.. Noone's perfect, and everyone makes mistakes.
4) JS makes his living, I assume, by playing pool. If I missed my job to go play golf, my job would be in jepordy. I doubt if he had a high stakes money match scheduled that he would have gone to play golf. Unless he is going for the PGA, he needs to reconsider his priorities. Yes, everyone gets tired of their job, but it still puts bread on the table.
5) The calcutta bidder on John is just out the $400, and should have bet on a better horse normally, but the point about John not being there by the time the calcutta is over, normally means he would not be included in the calcutta, and the money refunded. Players ARE REQUIRED to be there to play before the calcutta is over.
6) When you are a professional, you are expected to behave like a professional, and people have expectations from you. This creates responsilbilities for the player. If you don't live up to those responsibilities, then you get frowned upon, simple as that.
7) Quit nitpicking the law about calcuttas, we are talking real life here folks, and how Pool has to exist to make it. People bet on all kinds of sports, and most is illegal. What are you gonna do, bring back prohibition?
That went over well, didn't it?
billiardspro said:
This is a controversial subject, but I think consideration should be given to the following points:
1) Many tournaments would not be worth the risk and expenses without a calcutta. The calcutta money many times puts a player over the top for what he considers to be 'good payback'. I REPEAT, calcuttas makie MOST
tournaments worth it, otherwise many many tournaments would not be worth it.
2) TD's and other tournaemnt and calcutta people do a lot of work for little pay. They all can't work for free. Sorry players, that's life.
3) TD's have to balance a lot of factors regarding the players, payback, railbirds, etc.. Noone's perfect, and everyone makes mistakes.
4) JS makes his living, I assume, by playing pool. If I missed my job to go play golf, my job would be in jepordy. I doubt if he had a high stakes money match scheduled that he would have gone to play golf. Unless he is going for the PGA, he needs to reconsider his priorities. Yes, everyone gets tired of their job, but it still puts bread on the table.
5) The calcutta bidder on John is just out the $400, and should have bet on a better horse normally, but the point about John not being there by the time the calcutta is over, normally means he would not be included in the calcutta, and the money refunded. Players ARE REQUIRED to be there to play before the calcutta is over.
6) When you are a professional, you are expected to behave like a professional, and people have expectations from you. This creates responsilbilities for the player. If you don't live up to those responsibilities, then you get frowned upon, simple as that.
7) Quit nitpicking the law about calcuttas, we are talking real life here folks, and how Pool has to exist to make it. People bet on all kinds of sports, and most is illegal. What are you gonna do, bring back prohibition?
That went over well, didn't it?
there was once a question of the legality of calcuttas where I used to live, and if I recall correctly, as long as all monies are placed in the pot and are returned in full to the players, it is not illegal. to the guy that mentioned something to the affect that Mike may be messing with John's ability to make a living - I can't imagine that one tour would establish that fact, but who knows....in this day and age, well, you can sue for just about anything and potentially win......
to jay...
this is a little off topic, sorry to the others about that, but to Jay... i think you just unknowingly proved my point about efren getting favorable press. am i supposed to believe you because you are an honest man too (yes, right?)? it makes me laugh to think people believe efren is this perfect little angel... never purposefully racks the balls bad, never used to stand in players shot line, never coaches other philipinos during one-pocket money games in their language; never any of it, right? i'm sure he's gotten better recently because all he does is win, he doesn't need the money as bad. but 10 or 12 years ago i saw him pull quite a few seedy little moves. i just don't feel the need to put up a post about how bad a guy he is. yet, people are giving john schmidt a hard time and doubting his credibility in pasts posts because of this incident? i just feel schmidt receives an undue amount of negative press.
btw jay, did mark tadd ever get back to you?
jay helfert said:
this is a little off topic, sorry to the others about that, but to Jay... i think you just unknowingly proved my point about efren getting favorable press. am i supposed to believe you because you are an honest man too (yes, right?)? it makes me laugh to think people believe efren is this perfect little angel... never purposefully racks the balls bad, never used to stand in players shot line, never coaches other philipinos during one-pocket money games in their language; never any of it, right? i'm sure he's gotten better recently because all he does is win, he doesn't need the money as bad. but 10 or 12 years ago i saw him pull quite a few seedy little moves. i just don't feel the need to put up a post about how bad a guy he is. yet, people are giving john schmidt a hard time and doubting his credibility in pasts posts because of this incident? i just feel schmidt receives an undue amount of negative press.
btw jay, did mark tadd ever get back to you?
Last edited:
seriously!
since whenn in the hell do ppl not know that gambling is illegal. are you trying to tell me that the guy that bet on john had no idea that gambling was illegal? give me a break ppl. thats like playing someone a race to 5 for $100 and when you lose, you tell him gambling is illegal. i dont know john personally, but i think that anybody in a tourney has a choice. if john had a chance at winning 10k on that golf game, im sure you would be more understanding. the fact is, he was there to make himself money, not relying on anybody else. the guy lost out. its a shame, but it happened, nothing you can do.
i would be mad as well, but its the rare chance you take. probably woulda been nice for john to split it with him. give him $200 and call it a day.
take care,
joey
since whenn in the hell do ppl not know that gambling is illegal. are you trying to tell me that the guy that bet on john had no idea that gambling was illegal? give me a break ppl. thats like playing someone a race to 5 for $100 and when you lose, you tell him gambling is illegal. i dont know john personally, but i think that anybody in a tourney has a choice. if john had a chance at winning 10k on that golf game, im sure you would be more understanding. the fact is, he was there to make himself money, not relying on anybody else. the guy lost out. its a shame, but it happened, nothing you can do.
i would be mad as well, but its the rare chance you take. probably woulda been nice for john to split it with him. give him $200 and call it a day.
take care,
joey
T
Timberly
Guest
I don't think bumping this thread is really necessary.lamar25 said:
In answer to your question.... Ask it it again when pool is as big as football. When pool players make football players salaries. Also, John is one person, not a whole team.