"Savers" in tournaments??? POLL

[onepocketchump]

If I go to a tournament alone then I ususally won't make any savers with anyone. Sometimes I'll split if I get asked but I will almost never ask. Most people don't ask me because they figure they are a lock to win anyway.

Once I got asked if I would play for all of it. I said yes if they would match the pot and play for that. They didn't and I won the tournament. Yay John, one out of hundred. Felt good though.

John

 

[blah blah]

It sounds like you're not happy with savers (whether you realize it or not), just because you don't offer the plain answer "they're okay."

Why qualify the "they're okay" answer with whether or not other people know? Now that you have predetermined answers, you can say that "x % of poolplayers believe saving is bad." Your % age of players who think saving is okay is now split into a debatable two or three groups, each with small percentages.

It's sort of reminds me of the old saw:

round one
1. Do you believe in patriotism and protecting your country?
2. Do you believe that young people nowadays need direction, motivation, and work?
3. Do you believe that kids nowadays lack integrity, drive, respect for authority and even the skills that they will need for a successful career in the real world?
4. Would you be willing to vote for a mandatory year of conscription in the armed forces for all 18 year olds?

round two
1. Do you believe that the government has often twisted the truth if not outright lied to the people in regards to sensitive foreign policy decisions?
2. Have you heard about some of the "scientific" testing that the military has performed on recruits without actually telling the soldiers who were being tested about the chemicals/drugs they were being given?
3. Do you understand that the current military spending, while very high proportionate to other national expenditures, still sends our kids out into war without modern and available protective gear on their vehicles or on their persons?
4. Would you be willing to vote for a mandatory year of conscription in the armed forces for all 18 year olds?

I did not vote. I think savers are fine whether other people know or not.

 

[vagabond]

4. Would you be willing to vote for a mandatory year of conscription in the armed forces for all 18 year olds?

Yes, if every rich Republican`s sons are included,
Vagabond

 

[vagabond]

4. Would you be willing to vote for a mandatory year of conscription in the armed forces for all 18 year olds?

Yes, if every rich Republican`s sons are included.
Vagabond

 

[efirkey]

I recently went to a tournament with 2 other players and we agreed that if someone made some money and others didn't that we would reimburse the entry to the losing player. I came in 3rd place and gave both other guys their entry back. Every one was happy.

In another situation I played in a tournament that paid $600 to the winner and 0$ for second. In the finals my opponent and I agreed to split the money $400 for first and $200 for second. I ended up winning and we met in the bathroom and split up the money no one knew. Every one was happy.

I play to win, but without the money I can't play to begin with, so I have no problems with savers.

 

[HittMan]

yet another opinion

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.

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...

I normally try to read all the responses before I wade into a debate but the level of alacrity on this forum never ceases to amaze me (more lately it seems...I would like to attribute it to the hot weather) AND put me off. However, this is a VERY important issue...for several reasons...so I will try to make my opinion clear but non-blaming because I have been on both sides of this fence in my 35 years of following this game. I realize that not everyone will agree with this position because this position is angled to first improve the game with the individual player's improvement an assumed result...

The chicken or the egg?

Do you believe we must clean up our act before we can attract sponsors? Or do you believe we must simply promise to do this when they give us the money? This to me seems like a slam dunk...but I'm willing to consider another viewpoint...trot it by me.

Do you believe that we must prove that we are worth watching? Or do you believe we can take the position that we ARE valuable and somehow will it into being. "Legitimate" sports have long since taken a dim view of this kind of hedging for the simple reason that public participation demands not only propriety but the absense of the appearance of impropriety. There are many levels of participation ranging from viewership (which includes wagering in emotional currency) to outright wagering in hard currency on a match to wagering (in very hard currency) the reputation and brand recognition of commercial products. Secret arrangements and changing rules (public arrangements not pre-announced) leave the public with a sense of being cheated (whether they have been cheated or not is really not important). I'd be curious to hear alternate viewpoints on this, as well.

The player or the game?

There has been a lot of ink spilled on this forum and elsewhere regarding the seemingly impossible hurdles our game has bumped into. We have been for years a secret society of starving geniuses, so independent that we have adopted a "take it or leave it" outlook to the powers that be (the media, the sponsors, the public) because (I believe) we love and admire our talent (players) so much that we will allow them any manner/number of integrity flaws and opportunities for redemption. I am as guilty as anyone in this regard because I admire ability first and have, until recently, been willing to overlook nearly anything to witness that moment of pure genius. But, I submit that until we place our priority on the game, we cannot expect much better...because no individual or group of individuals can be held out as "above the game".

Image or reality?

I admit that I love a good "move" as well as anyone. I've made 'em and took 'em. But, I don't believe the average guy likes 'em quite as well as I do. The average guy plays by the rules because he wants a fair shake, a chance to win, AND because he values right and wrong. It is clear to me that our "bad boy" image could be a selling point. Folks want to know how "player #1" had to hone his street smarts to survive all the way up to the match that is about to be played...but THIS MATCH IS ON THE SQUARE!!!
I suspect we are all a little put off when we get turned into the sucker and generally suspiscious thereafter. We keep killing ourselves by proving the image is, in fact, the reality. Until we break this cycle, we do not deserve more trust. Any counter arguments?

My opinion (this is what I think this board is about)

The answer lies in our ability to self regulate...which means we must hold ourselves and our representatives to a higher standard. This will not be easy. Untill we, as a group, decide to purge from our ranks those unwilling to follow a basic set of rules; we cannot expect to be welcomed into the mainstream (read stream of money). Talent alone cannot be the final characteristic upon which we base our claim. We must search out representatives who come closer (in looks, attitude, lifestyle, and morality) to the mainstream of the potential customers to whom we must sell, sell, sell. Legitimizing this game is a worthy (read valuable) undertaking.

Just my opinion...you be the judge.

 

[KBP]

I don't feel that savers are really bad. I think it is how they are handled. Face it pool has had a bad name for a long time with the smoke filled rooms and the gambling. Sometimes I feel that that is why it is not as popular as bowling, golf or any of the other sports we get to watch an awful lot of on tv. If its a question of ethics then it goes back to my original statement of how it is handled. If other sports, like bowling have savers we are unaware of it but savers is a common word in the pool industry. I hear it all the time at the tournaments. So this is just my opinion.
Kay

 

[Snapshot9]

Well

If each player has a saver in a match, and the match is played fairly without
dumping, then I suppose it is okay. Trouble is, only the 2 players know for sure, and lots of matches with savers is for one player or the other to 'lose' the match to the other, and get 10-20% more money for doing it.

I think the Chicago White Sox had a saver one year, and who knows about
Pete Rose?

 

[chefjeff]

I normally try to read all the responses before (snip)

My opinion (this is what I think this board is about)

The answer lies in our ability to self regulate...which means we must hold ourselves and our representatives to a higher standard. This will not be easy. Untill we, as a group, decide to purge from our ranks those unwilling to follow a basic set of rules; we cannot expect to be welcomed into the mainstream (read stream of money). Talent alone cannot be the final characteristic upon which we base our claim. We must search out representatives who come closer (in looks, attitude, lifestyle, and morality) to the mainstream of the potential customers to whom we must sell, sell, sell. Legitimizing this game is a worthy (read valuable) undertaking.

Just my opinion...you be the judge.

Thank you for a wonderful and thoughtful post with no personal attacks. You are dead on, imho. Leadership requires doing first what we want from others, and this includes integrity. Like you indicated, this must come before the money does.

Gotta love this game,

Jeff Livingston

 

[Rickw]

Quite often, especially between two friends, before a match begins, the two players will agree to a percentage of their winnings to go to the loser of the match.
JAM

Jam,

When this happens, how can you have any idea how often this might happen? If I go to the next DCC with a friend of mine and we agree that we will split whatever we win, whose going to know that? I wouldn't tell anyone because it's no one's business but mine and the person I'm splitting with. We're probably going to split expenses too. I don't see anything wrong with it as long as you don't let this get in the way of the outcome of the tournament, i.e., if I'm playing poorly and I draw my partner, I should play my best irregardless of our plans to split the winnings. If that's the case, then I don't see anything at all wrong with it. It is an agreement made between two friends and there really isn't any way to stop that from happening as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

It would be more difficult if the winnings of tournaments were Checks instead of cash. Now, the players would have to pay later or take cash out of their pockets.

Should there be a moment at the begining of each tournament (before the brackets are filled) for players to negociate 'savers'?

Should the TD post the acceptable percentages for 'savers'?
Should the players all agree that it is ok?

If 'Savers' are bad for the game, how do you stop it? what would the penalty be for finding out there were 'savers' between two or more players?

One Month Ban? Two month? permanent?
Hold tournament winnings for the two players, add it to the next tournament?

 

[hemicudas]

It would be more difficult if the winnings of tournaments were Checks instead of cash. Now, the players would have to pay later or take cash out of their pockets.

Should there be a moment at the begining of each tournament (before the brackets are filled) for players to negociate 'savers'?

Should the TD post the acceptable percentages for 'savers'?
Should the players all agree that it is ok?

If 'Savers' are bad for the game, how do you stop it? what would the penalty be for finding out there were 'savers' between two or more players?

One Month Ban? Two month? permanent?
Hold tournament winnings for the two players, add it to the next tournament?

If a couple of players are dumb enough to get caught cutting money up, yes, ban them for life if you see fit.

But, like RickW said, how are you going to catch them if they cut the money up down the road as they should?

I could give my thoughts on the subject but it would be an iteration of RickW's post.

 

[Rickw]

Tom,

It seems to me that if you try to ban it or try to penalize people for doing it, this will only result in players making arrangements in private. If they do that, how are you going to stop it?

 

[Tom In Cincy]

Only the players can stop any private 'savers'.

Are 'savers' good or bad? This is still the question.
If 'savers' are good, why don't the players publically ask for savers before the tournament?

If 'savers' are bad, what should be done about it?

In the USA, as long as there is the MLB, NFL, NBA, PGA, Pro Tennis, NASCAR competing for the LARGE advertising dollars that support the HUGE amounts of monies for these sports, Pocket Billiards doesn't have a chance.

 

[hemicudas]

Don't think so.

Only the players can stop any private 'savers'.

Are 'savers' good or bad? This is still the question.
If 'savers' are good, why don't the players publically ask for savers before the tournament?

If 'savers' are bad, what should be done about it?

In the USA, as long as there is the MLB, NFL, NBA, PGA, Pro Tennis, NASCAR competing for the LARGE advertising dollars that support the HUGE amounts of monies for these sports, Pocket Billiards doesn't have a chance.

That all sounds true, Tom and may be. But, what game/sport has even a worse reputation than pool for gambling, cutting money and cheating people? The same game/sport that is seen more on TV than any other these days, "Poker". Action sells. Who cares if, Moneymaker and Brunson agree, in private, to split what ever they win?

I prefer watching one pocket and 9 ball on TV but the vast majority of the Nielson homes would rather watch what they play,,,,,,,, 8 ball.

 

[Tom In Cincy]

That all sounds true, Tom and may be. But, what game/sport has even a worse reputation than pool for gambling, cutting money and cheating people? The same game/sport that is seen more on TV than any other these days, "Poker". Action sells. Who cares if, Moneymaker and Brunson agree, in private, to split what ever they win?

I prefer watching one pocket and 9 ball on TV but the vast majority of the Nielson homes would rather watch what they play,,,,,,,, 8 ball.

I agree.. who cares?

But, if the 'action' is 'queered' by everyone knowing that there are 'savers', would they still watch?

 

[hemicudas]

Yes, if every rich Republican`s sons are included.
Vagabond

You tell um, Vag. I can't think of one draft dodging Democrat.