"Savers" in tournaments??? POLL

[PrimoCues]

Oh, now I get it....YOU can tell me what to do, but I can't decide what is right and wrong.

BTW, the "country" did nothing; only individuals can make these decisions.

I don't fight, I integrate honesty and reveal the integrations here. I picked a pool site for this reason: I love this game and am so sick and fucking tired of assholes shitting on the game and its participants. There's more to pool than potting balls.

One other thing...this thread started by asking an ethical question. I, and others, attempted to answer it. Why do you judge (hint hint) that to be wrong?

Jeff Livingston

Jeff,
Be the martyr, look up the definition. You're fighting a cause for yourself, not for everyone else's sake. Who's shitting on the participants? It's just to ensure that player A and player B get their entries back in the least. If you're tired of people "shitting" on the game, stop the shitheads, not those with an OPINION. on the participants, own a pool room. start a tournament and hold everyone to abide by YOUR rules. see how far that goes. as for the country, I don't see you taking a stand against those major individuals that have "done wrong" by your standards. Jeff, have a super nice day. Get an iced decaf cappuccino and watch puppies in the park. Me and my other personalities all agree that you need to unwind. It's unhealthy. Really dude, have a good one.

 

[PrimoCues]

Just lay back and enjoy it, huh? Sorry, bud, but when I get shit on, I respond. I know the perpetrators don't like it when that happens, but they should know that when they start trouble they may end up with more trouble than they like. Justice is a nasty proposition for trouble makers.

I STARTED NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Jeff Livingston

how are you being shit on here? he just stated his point. leave people to their opinions. you're not the hero. step away from your cubicle and get a sip of water. you keep hitting the keys too hard. you're going to end up paying for a new one. and as the devil's advocate, aren't you shitting on people right now? you're trying to show that your childish behavior is justified by your compassion in saving the masses? how is someone starting trouble by making a small promise to get their entries back?

 

[JAM]

JAM,
Depending on the size of the saver, are we really sure that there will be the same level of effort as if no saver were in existence?? Is it not possible that the reduction in "pressure" will have an effect on the quality of their effort??

I believe the players definitely give it their all and try to beat the opponent, saver or no saver.

Savers are usually made between good friends, when one offers the other one a bone, if you will, road expense monies, a common courtesy extended among members of the same brethren.

I think some spectators (like myself) REALLY like to see the final matches to observe the effects of pressure on the players; we all know what the pressure is like, and we like to see how the best players respond - its one of the great attractions of spectator sports. Even if the players say they are trying with all their might, there will always be plenty of skeptical onlookers (like me) who will question their effort.

So true. I've even heard friendly railbirds accuse players of dumping a match when there was no saver, no Calcutta monies, and no lines in place. Some railbirds are skeptical by nature, no matter who wins

If there is a 50/50 saver, why even bother playing the match?

That must be a rarity. I wouldn't allow it to happen in my camp, especially if I've got a major chunk of change invested in a road trip to a high-profile event.

Now, I have attended local $20-entry-fee weekly events in my neck of the woods when the players are even sometimes asked by the TD if they will split first and second place because it is 1:30 a.m. and everybody wants to go home and get some sleep.

Savers definitely damage the "integrity" of the sport (well, if there were any integrity, it would be damaged by savers) in the minds of many. Should pool ever make it big time (organized tour, decent money, paying fans, t.v. exposure), I think savers would have to be abolished.

Hogwash! When and if there is any decent money to be made in tournament payouts, players wouldn't have to give their best friend or an old road buddy a little jelly roll. This is a courtesy practice which is done between friends.

As far as the choices for the poll, I did not vote because I couldn't select an option fitting my opinion, which is that if a player wants to save with another, I don't think it is anybody's business, but if word got out about a 5- or 10-percent saver between two friends, it's not going to destroy the integrity of the pool world.

What is revealing about savers is why pool players do it. The answer is because in the year 2005, a player can be stuck $1,500 to $3,000 before they hit the first ball, and then must to win, place, or show to make a profit or break even. JMHO, FWIW!

JAM

 

[Mike Templeton]

JAM,
Depending on the size of the saver, are we really sure that there will be the same level of effort as if no saver were in existence?? Is it not possible that the reduction in "pressure" will have an effect on the quality of their effort?? I think some spectators (like myself) REALLY like to see the final matches to observe the effects of pressure on the players; we all know what the pressure is like, and we like to see how the best players respond - its one of the great attractions of spectator sports. Even if the players say they are trying with all their might, there will always be plenty of skeptical onlookers (like me) who will question their effort. If there is a 50/50 saver, why even bother playing the match?

Savers definitely damage the "integrity" of the sport (well, if there were any integrity, it would be damaged by savers) in the minds of many. Should pool ever make it big time (organized tour, decent money, paying fans, t.v. exposure), I think savers would have to be abolished.

Golf had to address a similar issue - making savers a reason for banishment from the game. They also provided an incentive to stop them. A year end tour championship, limited to the top certain percentage of players based on their finishes during the year. Such an event in an organized tour (if we ever get one) could go a long way to restricting this practice.

P.S. - I'll bet savers are okay in professional wrestling. If we wish to avoid our sport being lumped in with other "sham" sports, savers would have to go.

Willie,

As a spectator, I can see your point. But as a player, I hope you can see a different view of why savers may be OK.

I have been on both ends of savers. I have made savers with other players in tournaments, and I have bought people in calcuttas where I knew they had made a saver in the finals of a tournament. Any road player that makes his living playing pool is going to try just as hard if he has made a saver or not. It is worth giving up 10% of your winnings to beat another good player in the finals of a tournament. But the extra 10% you get for not winning the match can go a long way to finance the hotel, meals, entry fees, and other expenses of the tournament. And I have never seen a saver made for more that 10%-15% of the difference in prize money. 50/50 is not a saver. It is a split. That is a different thing altogether.

Many tournaments pay too large a percentage to win and too little to finish in the next few spots. You have to accept the way tournaments pay though. There is nothing a player can do about payout percentages. Say you play a 3 day tournament, and are playing the finals against Keith, Buddy, or Earl. This is possible because all play regional events now. The TD decides to pay $2000 for 1st and $750 for 2nd. This is commonplace. The 2 finalists may decide on a saver and say that the 2nd place player gets $1000 for second instead. 1st is still $1750 and both players will give all they have for the extra $750 I assure you. But as Jam has stated, it takes as much as $1000 to finance a weekend trip sometimes, and that extra $250 will help that alot. Also, many tournaments play "winner take all", with sometimes as much as $500 for 1st place, and nothing for second. If you have worked your way to the finals of a tournament, you deserve something. The finalists may agree to give the loser $50 or $100. They will play just as hard for the $400 as they would for the $500.

There is nothing unethical about savers (IMO) and they do nothing to tarnish the integrity of the sport. When a players doesn't play as well as he can, that's dumping. Not making a saver. And you can never rid or abolish any sport of savers. They are agreements between players who have worked themselves into positions of a tournament where they can do what they want with the prize money.

As far as professional wrestling goes, the wrestlers are paid a salary, and the outcome is determined before they go into the ring. This is the opposite of what is true in pool.

Mike

 

[PrimoCues]

Willie,

As a spectator, I can see your point. But as a player, I hope you can see a different view of why savers may be OK.

I have been on both ends of savers. I have made savers with other players in tournaments, and I have bought people in calcuttas where I knew they had made a saver in the finals of a tournament. Any road player that makes his living playing pool is going to try just as hard if he has made a saver or not. It is worth giving up 10% of your winnings to beat another good player in the finals of a tournament. But the extra 10% you get for not winning the match can go a long way to finance the hotel, meals, entry fees, and other expenses of the tournament. And I have never seen a saver made for more that 10%-15% of the difference in prize money. 50/50 is not a saver. It is a split. That is a different thing altogether.

Many tournaments pay too large a percentage to win and too little to finish in the next few spots. You have to accept the way tournaments pay though. There is nothing a player can do about payout percentages. Say you play a 3 day tournament, and are playing the finals against Keith, Buddy, or Earl. This is possible because all play regional events now. The TD decides to pay $2000 for 1st and $750 for 2nd. This is commonplace. The 2 finalists may decide on a saver and say that the 2nd place player gets $1000 for second instead. 1st is still $1750 and both players will give all they have for the extra $750 I assure you. But as Jam has stated, it takes as much as $1000 to finance a weekend trip sometimes, and that extra $250 will help that alot. Also, many tournaments play "winner take all", with sometimes as much as $500 for 1st place, and nothing for second. If you have worked your way to the finals of a tournament, you deserve something. The finalists may agree to give the loser $50 or $100. They will play just as hard for the $400 as they would for the $500.

There is nothing unethical about savers (IMO) and they do nothing to tarnish the integrity of the sport. When a players doesn't play as well as he can, that's dumping. Not making a saver. And you can never rid or abolish any sport of savers. They are agreements between players who have worked themselves into positions of a tournament where they can do what they want with the prize money.

As far as professional wrestling goes, the wrestlers are paid a salary, and the outcome is determined before they go into the ring. This is the opposite of what is true in pool.

Mike

tap tap tap

 

[cuesmith]

I have mixed feelings about this subject.
I've had my share of 'savers' with traveling buddies.

But, as 'player auctions' and 'calcuttas' become part of the mix, the 'savers' might become a factor in the actual matches.

For those that are not aware of the term 'saver', when two or more players enter a tournament they decide prior to playing, that what ever the outcome, there will be 'saver' to the loser. Usually this is a percentage of the winner's prize money.

The problem some people have with these 'savers' is the percieved influence of the potential loser, letting the buddy 'slide' through the match (if they play each other) to possibly get a higher amount of the agreed upon 'saver'.

Hence the poll...

Seems like some of the people here just don't understand "savers" from a pool players perspective. A true "saver" has nothing to do with dumping! It's merely a way that 2 buddies who may have traveled together to a tourney, may help out each other in regards to their expenses. The nut at most tournaments make it so that only the top few finishers are winners, after they pay expenses. The saver is just a consolation to the loser between 2 friends who bear no ill will towards each other. It helps to keep them afloat. You can only walk away from so many tourney's broke before you just give up. There's a world of difference between "savers" and "dumping"! If there were more money in pool, there would probably be no need for "savers" but in the present state of the sport, I see no problem in a couple of friends agreeing to help offset each other's expenses, which is all it boils down to. Saver's are usually in the neigborhood of 10% of the difference in the finishing money between the agreeing players. Not 50/50 like someone suggested, that's known as "chopping", which in itself is not necessarily bad either, depending upon the rest of the circumstances. Arrangements should not be made that would affect outside "calcutta buyers", but IMHO anyone who buys players in calcutta's are just suckers anyway! Not because of dumping or anything like that, just because they are almost always a really "bad bet" from an odds perspective! I wish they'd do away with calcuttas at all tournaments! They just waste time and money that could be better spent!

just more hot air!


Sherm

 

[onepocketchump]

First of all - the players who play in the tournament are there to make money for themselves. So any agreement they make between themselves to share their revenue is their business. I often will go to tournaments with a buddy and we agree to split anything won. When I end up playing my buddy I might let him go through or he might let me depending on how we feel the best way to go is. We are protecting the PRIMARY goal, which is to increase OUR income. We aren't getting paid to just be there, we aren't getting paid to entertain the crowd or enrich the spectators. We only get paid when we EARN it by reaching the spots in the tournament that pay money. Naturally, we both want to get as high as possible. But, if my run is sacrificed for my buddy's chances then so be it. I don't care who bet what on me in the calcutta - that's not my issue.

I have NEVER, EVER seen a calcutta that provided a percentage of the money to the players. Sure, I can "buy" half of myself if I want some of it. Sometimes though I have been bid up to unrealistic levels because someone heard I beat someone else or some other nonsense. So then buying half of myself becomes economic stupidity. So why should I care what the bet is on me in the tournament if I don't have any of it?

Get rid of calcuttas or realize that it is a betting pool where the gamblers are taking a chance just like they do at the track. You never know what the horses are on, what the jockeys are doing or any of the other inside BS that goes on before the bell goes off. The same thing applies to the pool tournament. As long as the prize money is SO pitiful you can be 100% sure that players wil band together to try and maintain a livable average of income.

I will bet that this goes on in ANY sport where the prize money is low. I bet it happens all the time in the lower level golf tournaments - threat of ban or not. It's human nature to try and survive.

It would be great if we could depend on all sporting contests to be a true test between participants who are trying to win with all of the skill they possess. You want that, then take the money out and replace it with only adulation. You can't really share adulation so each participant would be there for the fame.

So, savers - yup, no problem. Pay peanuts and you get monkeys.

John

 

[Travis Bickle]

Ethics are a PERSONAL matter only.

As for ethics, it's a debate that could go on forever, but it still remains a personal issue. Who is to decide what is right and what's wrong? NO ONE. Please leave ethics at the door.

eth·ic *
n.

1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).

2. ethics (used with a sing. verb) The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
3. ethics (used with a sing. or pl. verb) The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession: medical ethics.


This definition doesn't tell you a whole lot, except that ethics are anything but personal. They are definitely open to debate, but you have to be willing to debate them.

As far as I'm concerned, savers transform a tournament match into something like practice, or not even that. Much less, or maybe nothing at all, is on the line anymore. It's bogus, it's lame. Maybe if you're desperate and you're down to your last 75 cents in the world, it's OK. But if you've got to do it, maybe you oughta get a job instead.

 

[jazzn4444]

Travis,
thank you for the definition. I see your point. My point is this:
1.
a. A set of principles of right conduct - who decides what is "right"? you do. it's personal at that point. it's so personal and strong that it indeed turns into conduct, the way "things ARE done"...still implying there's a right way and a wrong way. I appreciate the definition. I like your argument. However, I'm too tired and have to get some sleep. We'll continue this again.

 

[onepocketchump]

As far as I'm concerned, savers transform a tournament match into something like practice, or not even that. Much less, or maybe nothing at all, is on the line anymore. It's bogus, it's lame. Maybe if you're desperate and you're down to your last 75 cents in the world, it's OK. But if you've got to do it, maybe you oughta get a job instead.

That's the point. Tournaments ARE a job when money is on the line. Players aren't playing for prestige. It's an economic exercise of expenses vs. income. Some players do it as a hobby, they have enough income otherwise to fund their expenses at the tournament. Others do it as a job, where their primary income comes from tournaments. The hobby players fund the working players. The working players are looking to get and split as much of the available pool of money as possible.

That's why there are expressions like "robbing the tournament". A lot of road players like to hit town and scoop up a couple hundred snapping off local tournaments where they are likely to get no action anyway. They don't go in and announce to everyone that they are "this good" before the tournament starts. They just play and snap it off and move on. There is no reason to think that players don't make savers in bigger tournaments as well. It makes economical sense even if it's not totally "sporting".

And not to argue with you, because I agree with you, but I don't wait until I am down to my last .75cts to protect my investment. I love the sport but not that much that I'll stay broke funding everyone else. If savers aren't good then they are no good anytime.

John

 

[Snapshot9]

Yeah ...

Yeah ... If you had savers with everyone you played then 'everybody' is
covered, aren't they? Except the poor guys that bought the players in
the calcutta ... It is nothing more than thinking of a way to help cover
your expenses better for the tournament. They started from when
the final 2 players start agreeing to 'split' the winnings, and even if they
have to play the first set because of tournament rules. When a calcutta is involved, people do get hurt, even if it isn't the players. Besides, if you are
not confident of your abilities, you probably should not be playing in one of
those final matches.

And as to doing away with calcuttas, does that person realize that many
tournaments would not be worth playing in without them because the
standalone prize money is not high enough to make anything or even to
cover expenses you might incur. People don't just play Pool for the fun of
it, they like to make money too, but do it the right way, not because of
some 'under the table' agreement like a saver.

 

[onepocketchump]

Yeah ... If you had savers with everyone you played then 'everybody' is
covered, aren't they? Except the poor guys that bought the players in
the calcutta ... It is nothing more than thinking of a way to help cover
your expenses better for the tournament. They started from when
the final 2 players start agreeing to 'split' the winnings, and even if they
have to play the first set because of tournament rules. When a calcutta is involved, people do get hurt, even if it isn't the players. Besides, if you are
not confident of your abilities, you probably should not be playing in one of
those final matches.

And as to doing away with calcuttas, does that person realize that many
tournaments would not be worth playing in without them because the
standalone prize money is not high enough to make anything or even to
cover expenses you might incur. People don't just play Pool for the fun of
it, they like to make money too, but do it the right way, not because of
some 'under the table' agreement like a saver.

What part of the calcutta does the player get? I personally have never seen one that added to the tournament prize fund. Sure the player can buy in to the calcutta, or they may get a little bit from the person who bought them but neither of these adds to the general prize fund.

On one hand you say that someone should be "confident in their abilities" and therfore try to win the sporting way and in the next paragraph you state that without calcuttas the tournaments would not "worth" playing in. You have provided the economic reason for savers. Where would the bidding be in calcuttas if the RULE was that the player got 25% of the calcutta win and did not have to SPEND a dime to get it. Then you'd still see savers but you would also see some really good pool as people tried harder to win.

John

 

[JAM]

Looks like "save" is another four-letter word in pool for some, and for others, it is common practice extended between friends on the tournament trail.

There are pros and cons to saving. I would venture to guess that the majority of people on this forum who are against saving between two players in a tournament do not depend on playing pool for a living and have never expended $30,000-plus per annum to compete in today's pool world.

Pool payouts have remained the same since the early '70s, but the cost of living has sky-rocketed. A tournament player's per diem in New York City as an example would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $200 to $250 per day, excluding the entry fee, depending on where you eat. For those who drink alcohol, jack it on up to $300 per day. Hotels are extraordinarily expensive. What harm is there in a saver with a friend for a couple hundred bucks to offset the traveling costs? In the case of NYC, it's a drop in the bucket.

If you want to talk about a topic which does warrant some further discussion, it would be to not allow any tournament director to be a linesman at any event. When a TD is picking the players' names for the tournament chart and is also controlling the lines for each match, there could be a conflict of interest. That would seem to me to be a more controversial topic which can influence the outcome of an event, much more so than a pool player saving for 5 or 10 percent. JMHO, FWIW!

JAM

 

[cuesmith]

Yeah ... If you had savers with everyone you played then 'everybody' is
covered, aren't they?


That's not how "savers" work. You don't have savers with everyone, usually just your "road partners" or realy good buddies. And it doesn't affect how hard the players try. Often the players play a little better when they have a saver, because it takes off a little of the "economic tension" (like worrying about where gas and bacon & egg money will come from for the trip home). Saver's are different than chopping with someone or even agreeing to split with your traveling partners. Savers are traditionally a small percentage of what the winner gets, not a split. I don't agree with letting your buddy win the match in order to increase your overall chances. That's "dumping" and while I'll admit to doing it once, and only once, it's wrong! The one time I did dump, it was a situation where I was staking a top pro player and ended up having to play him in the tourney. Due to a couple of really good rolls, I found myself in a position to actually win, and I deliberately missed a shot I probably could have made. That was all it took and my horse thumped me. There was a calcutta, but I'd bought myself, and not my horse. He went off too high to be a good bet! But my actions could have affected the outcome of the calcutta winners, which quite frankly I didn't consider until afterwards. I'd only considered the fact that no one was losing on me, but me, and not who else could have beaten me and not my horse.

Except the poor guys that bought the players in
the calcutta ... It is nothing more than thinking of a way to help cover
your expenses better for the tournament. They started from when
the final 2 players start agreeing to 'split' the winnings, and even if they
have to play the first set because of tournament rules. When a calcutta is involved, people do get hurt, even if it isn't the players.


They only get hurt if players DUMP, not if the players have a small saver! You need to understand the difference if you're going to form an opinion!

Besides, if you are
not confident of your abilities, you probably should not be playing in one of
those final matches.


Yeah, that makes a lot of sense! If you get down to the finals and aren't confident you'll win, you should just quit??? Think about what you're saying!


And as to doing away with calcuttas, does that person realize that many
tournaments would not be worth playing in without them because the
standalone prize money is not high enough to make anything or even to
cover expenses you might incur.


That makes a lot of sense too! lol Do you really think calcuttas are a good bet? The only way that they are is if you "have the nuts" and no one else knows it! Just how often do you think that comes up? Most of the time, the top players go off for odds I'd never consider betting in an outright bet! No let me change that to ALL of the time! Calcuttas are only to involve the audience. The suckers with more money than brains!


People don't just play Pool for the fun of
it, they like to make money too, but do it the right way, not because of
some 'under the table' agreement like a saver.

I've been involved in pro billiards for decades. I'd stick my neck out and say that ALL TOP PRO'S have had savers and most do it quite regularly! Like I've tried to stress, a saver does NOT IMPLY that the players involved are not giving it 100%, it just helps the players to be able to continue to play at a sport that doesn't pay enough to support itself!


I'll close with a quick joke!


Do you know what a pro pool player and a medium pizza have in common?? Neither can feed a family of four!


just more hot air!!


Sherm

 

[chefjeff]

Jeff,
Be the martyr, look up the definition. You're fighting a cause for yourself, not for everyone else's sake. Who's shitting on the participants? It's just to ensure that player A and player B get their entries back in the least. If you're tired of people "shitting" on the game, stop the shitheads, not those with an OPINION. on the participants, own a pool room. start a tournament and hold everyone to abide by YOUR rules. see how far that goes. as for the country, I don't see you taking a stand against those major individuals that have "done wrong" by your standards. Jeff, have a super nice day. Get an iced decaf cappuccino and watch puppies in the park. Me and my other personalities all agree that you need to unwind. It's unhealthy. Really dude, have a good one.

A martyr dies for a cause. I'm alive.

I explained that I'm posting about this because I love the game. I also do it because it integrates with my lifetime goal.

You asked who is shitting on the participants? Not everyone who is a saver. Look at the distinction JAM provided.

I'm helping to stop the shitheads by exposure.

You don't see me taking a stand against those major individuals that have done wrong? You don't even know me. How would you know? But since you're new here, I'll let you in on something: I've spent the last 30 years taking a stand against these individuals. My latest effort occured just minutes before I posted on this thread. I committed to investing $500 in the Lost Liberty Hotel...

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Those who have force intiated against them don't really care about the opinion of those who hurt them; they care about the FACT of having been hurt.

Why do you care so much that I'm doing this? Maybe I'm hitting too close to home?

Jeff Livingston

 

[Williebetmore]

. 50/50 is not a saver. It is a split. That is a different thing altogether.


There is nothing unethical about savers (IMO) and they do nothing to tarnish the integrity of the sport. When a players doesn't play as well as he can, that's dumping. Not making a saver. And you can never rid or abolish any sport of savers. They are agreements between players who have worked themselves into positions of a tournament where they can do what they want with the prize money.

As far as professional wrestling goes, the wrestlers are paid a salary, and the outcome is determined before they go into the ring. This is the opposite of what is true in pool.

Mike

Mike,
I absolutely see your points. The problem isn't whether it is "unethical" or "ethical" by some moral standard; the problem is how people see the game. Currently it JUST DOESN'T MATTER, because pool is nowhere, and there is no money in it. If pool ever would become popular and actually have a tour and governing body, savers would have to cease - the public perception that prizes have been divvied up ahead of time will lead to the inevitable perception that the result of matches (just as in wrestling) are pre-arranged. Golf, baseball, football, and basketball (fairly successful sports) have strict injunctions against gambling by the players on the results of their contests, and prohibit financial agreements between competing players (even though many could argue successfully that such agreements are legal and ethical - they're just bad for the integrity of the sport and they are not allowed by the governing bodies).

The only 2 savers that I personally am aware of were 50/50 splits; and OHB has already weighed in with his 50/50 split story - I was unaware that 50/50 was not considered a saver. My comments were more directed toward the 50/50 club. Obviously lesser percentages don't hold the same stigma.

While many posters believe that the players are still trying with all their might after the saver, I for one would have to think they are fooling themselves if the saver is large enough. Reduction in pressure, change in strategy, change in intensity all MAY be compromised - who is to know?? Not me, perhaps not even the player himself - either way, just the suspicion affects the integrity of the product, whether rightly or wrongly. Even you Mike, admit that if the player doesn't play as well as he can then that would be dumping. I would propose that even without official "dumping", that a player might not play "as well as he can" if he has a big enough saver. Just the suspicion of this damages the integrity of any contest where it takes place.

P.S. - interesting discussion, but pool is small-time; and with the gambling and "saving" issues seems unlikely to ever advance into a big-time sport (unless its the WPBA).

P.P.S. - Does anyone know if the WPBA has an official policy on savers (or definition of)???? That would be interesting to know. Certainly many of these women are trying to make a living from the game - are savers a way of life on the WPBA tour?

 

[Williebetmore]

What harm is there in a saver with a friend for a couple hundred bucks to offset the traveling costs?
JAM

JAM,
I hope you did not take my post as any sort of personal criticism. I have always enjoyed your posts regarding the "state of the game", and I did not criticize players who agree to savers. I was only pointing it out as a behavior that probably will never be tolerated if pool would ever advance into a big-time sport. I have never proposed that pool will immediately become a big time sport if saving is magically abolished.

In regards to your question above (What harm...), I would say that there is at least a little harm. A spectator less knowledgeable than yourself might think, "Gee, a free vacation in NYC even if he loses, that sounds like fun, I wonder if he's even trying now that his vacation is paid for." You know this is absurd, I know this is absurd; but the perception of general fans may still be along these lines - and any sport needs fans if it is to go big-time. These fans will be sitting there wondering every time Keith tries one of those aggressive combinations like in NYC last year, "Gee I wonder if he had a saver that allowed him to be so aggressive?" The perception that savers may affect strategy, aggressiveness, or perceived stress will never go away (but it will be fun to discuss on AZB).

 

[JAM]

JAM,
I hope you did not take my post as any sort of personal criticism. I have always enjoyed your posts regarding the "state of the game", and I did not criticize players who agree to savers. I was only pointing it out as a behavior that probably will never be tolerated if pool would ever advance into a big-time sport. I have never proposed that pool will immediately become a big time sport if saving is magically abolished.

Williebetmore, I did not take your post as any sort of personal criticism. I think, though, that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill when it comes to savers.

In regards to your question above (What harm...), I would say that there is at least a little harm. A spectator less knowledgeable than yourself might think, "Gee, a free vacation in NYC even if he loses, that sounds like fun, I wonder if he's even trying now that his vacation is paid for."

As I stated previously, it costs anywhere from $200 to $300 every single day one is competing in a tournament in New York City, excluding the entry fee and travel costs. A 5- or 10-percent saver between friends wouldn't pay for a Big Apple vacation, by any means, Williebetmore, but in some instances, instead of being stuck $2,000 for the 5-day event, one might walk away being stuck only $1,800 if they received a saver of 200 bucks.

You know this is absurd, I know this is absurd; but the perception of general fans may still be along these lines - and any sport needs fans if it is to go big-time. These fans will be sitting there wondering every time Keith tries one of those aggressive combinations like in NYC last year, "Gee I wonder if he had a saver that allowed him to be so aggressive?" The perception that savers may affect strategy, aggressiveness, or perceived stress will never go away (but it will be fun to discuss on AZB).

Actually, the 2-9 combo occurred in Atlantic City, NJ at the Skins Billiards Championship. There were no savers to my knowledge between any of the players in that event. Would you like to ponder a guess as to why? The total tournament purse was $130,000, the biggest to my knowledge on American soil in recent times.

The shot that still gives Keith nightmares, though, is the 8-ball that he missed in the side pocket against Thorsten Hohmann. I do remember reading right here on this forum that this miss gave the impression that it was intentional.

Opinions, innuendoes, and speculations like these, especially when they are unfounded and made without knowledge of the facts, are pretty harmful to the integrity of the sport (IMO). Often, these opinions, innuendoes, and speculations come from the rail.

Imagine being a pool player and playing your heart out in an event, giving it your all, and missing an 8-ball for $18,000. The last thing you want to hear from somebody is an opinion, innuendo, or speculation that you intentionally missed the shot. It is insulting and, quite frankly, way worse than any 5- or 10-percent saver as it relates to the integrity of the sport.

Those within pool's culture are often its harshest critics, which may be why the sport/game does not excel. Just a little food for thought...

JAM

 

[onepocketchump]

Tap. Tap. Jennie. Good Shot.

John

 

[PrimoCues]

A martyr dies for a cause. I'm alive.

I explained that I'm posting about this because I love the game. I also do it because it integrates with my lifetime goal.

You asked who is shitting on the participants? Not everyone who is a saver. Look at the distinction JAM provided.

I'm helping to stop the shitheads by exposure.

You don't see me taking a stand against those major individuals that have done wrong? You don't even know me. How would you know? But since you're new here, I'll let you in on something: I've spent the last 30 years taking a stand against these individuals. My latest effort occured just minutes before I posted on this thread. I committed to investing $500 in the Lost Liberty Hotel...

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Those who have force intiated against them don't really care about the opinion of those who hurt them; they care about the FACT of having been hurt.

Why do you care so much that I'm doing this? Maybe I'm hitting too close to home?

Jeff Livingston

I care so much because it's easy to get a rise out of you. How do you hit to close to home? You don't even know me. Who said I'm a new person here. I've been watching people like you shove their opinions down everyone's throat AND and act like a douche bag to those who didn't share your opinion. Define a saver. don't qoute it. then think if you have any kind of premise to act like you have been. savers don't shit on anyone...it's a fucking deal between 2 friends. pay attention. and Jeff...have a nice evening. watch some tv with your cat and have a tv dinner...it's okay, I'll allow you to take a night off as pool's religious figure