I hesitated before posting this, as I wanted the Oroville tournament to succeed. Because of prior commitments, I could not help out and now I am glad I didn't. The TD was Scott Smith and the promoter was a personal friend of ours, but some truly hinky things happened and I am glad my name was not associated with it.
First of all, my husband Mike, put together a team while he was down there. They were in the money and were playing Glen Atwell's team. Neither Mike nor Atwell were really involved in this scenario, but it affected both of them.
The score was 9-9 going to 11. One of Atwell's players was playing extremely slowly...taking 2-3 minutes for each shot. His opponent, JJ (on Mike's team) got a ref, Chris MacDonald, to watch the games. The rules stated that it was their option to get a ref to time them for slow play. Mike's team then won 11-9.
After breaking down their cues, 5 minutes later, the opposing team comes over with the promoter. Mike explains the situation and is told by the promoter that it was considered SHARKING and that they must either replay the last 2 games or forfeit them!
So, they replayed them, and of course they lost them both. That is how Atwell's team came in third, and Mike's team lost. Glen came over afterwards and apologized to Mike's team that the promoter had put him in a bad place that he couldn't get out of and he felt like they cheated to win. Chris MacDonald had already left the building, but the fact that the last 2 games were refereed should have stood as official. I am just amazed at how unfair that was!
When I got to Reno, even Jay Helfert had heard about this bizarre turn of events. Also, Atwell wanted to tell me some more weird things (when I saw him in Lincoln City), but we never had the time before I left.
Other bizarro incidents:
- The Calcutta was held on the THIRD DAY!! Who in the heck is going to bet on people that are already out of the tournament, or even the loser's side, for that matter?
- The tournament only ran 1 round the first day, so that the remaining days, everyone was playing from 9am to 1am.
- High Woman was supposed to pay $500, $300, $200, $100. There was a 3 way tie for 2nd place, and one gal had already left, but the other 2 were supposed to play off for it. One (R) wanted to because she knew she could beat the other, and the other wanted to hurry and get it done, so she could leave.
They were scheduled to play at 3. At 7, they still hadn't played. When they approached the promoter, he told them to split it. R said she didn't want to split it, but they said she had to. They gave each of them $100 and threatened to take that back (physically grabbing for it) when she complained. Now I want to think that they gave the extra $100 to the 3rd player, but I have my doubts, as she had already left. Also, the promoter said that he was sorry, but if R wanted to get in action, he would throw her an extra $100 to gamble with. Does any of this make sense???
I realize that this was a first-time event for this promoter and to get that much money added was a real feat. However, I think fairness to the players should be on the forefront of his agenda, and these instances just do not show that to be the case.
Was anyone else there that can shed light on any of this strange behavior? If you were there, will you go again next year if they have it?
First of all, my husband Mike, put together a team while he was down there. They were in the money and were playing Glen Atwell's team. Neither Mike nor Atwell were really involved in this scenario, but it affected both of them.
The score was 9-9 going to 11. One of Atwell's players was playing extremely slowly...taking 2-3 minutes for each shot. His opponent, JJ (on Mike's team) got a ref, Chris MacDonald, to watch the games. The rules stated that it was their option to get a ref to time them for slow play. Mike's team then won 11-9.
After breaking down their cues, 5 minutes later, the opposing team comes over with the promoter. Mike explains the situation and is told by the promoter that it was considered SHARKING and that they must either replay the last 2 games or forfeit them!
So, they replayed them, and of course they lost them both. That is how Atwell's team came in third, and Mike's team lost. Glen came over afterwards and apologized to Mike's team that the promoter had put him in a bad place that he couldn't get out of and he felt like they cheated to win. Chris MacDonald had already left the building, but the fact that the last 2 games were refereed should have stood as official. I am just amazed at how unfair that was!
When I got to Reno, even Jay Helfert had heard about this bizarre turn of events. Also, Atwell wanted to tell me some more weird things (when I saw him in Lincoln City), but we never had the time before I left.
Other bizarro incidents:
- The Calcutta was held on the THIRD DAY!! Who in the heck is going to bet on people that are already out of the tournament, or even the loser's side, for that matter?
- The tournament only ran 1 round the first day, so that the remaining days, everyone was playing from 9am to 1am.
- High Woman was supposed to pay $500, $300, $200, $100. There was a 3 way tie for 2nd place, and one gal had already left, but the other 2 were supposed to play off for it. One (R) wanted to because she knew she could beat the other, and the other wanted to hurry and get it done, so she could leave.
They were scheduled to play at 3. At 7, they still hadn't played. When they approached the promoter, he told them to split it. R said she didn't want to split it, but they said she had to. They gave each of them $100 and threatened to take that back (physically grabbing for it) when she complained. Now I want to think that they gave the extra $100 to the 3rd player, but I have my doubts, as she had already left. Also, the promoter said that he was sorry, but if R wanted to get in action, he would throw her an extra $100 to gamble with. Does any of this make sense???
I realize that this was a first-time event for this promoter and to get that much money added was a real feat. However, I think fairness to the players should be on the forefront of his agenda, and these instances just do not show that to be the case.
Was anyone else there that can shed light on any of this strange behavior? If you were there, will you go again next year if they have it?
Last edited:
