"Savers" in tournaments??? POLL

[vagabond]

Mike,
If pool ever would become popular and actually have a tour and governing body, savers would have to cease -

Hi williebetmore,
Professional pool flourished under the leadership of Don Mackey who did not approve savers.He said that he will take deciplinary action,if he comes to know,against any players involved.He meant buisiness.There are no savers in WPBA.Cheers
Vagabond

 

[Jimmy M.]

I don't know why the term "saver" is being used as if it's synonymous with "dumping". A "saver" is just a case where two players meet up in a tournament, one says, "hey, let's make a deal. whoever wins this match will kick the loser back 'x' amount of money if they cash.", and the other one agrees. I don't see the problem with that, and I don't see why that should be anyone else's business. Dumping is something entirely different. As long as they aren't altering the outcome of the match, what business is it of anyone else's? I'm sure the term came from the fact that the money that is being kicked back will "save" your ass so you can get home.

Of course, there are cases where a person can do something dihonest, like make too many savers and not be able to pay up, etc.. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about two players who are out there grinding it out, trying to make a living, making an agreement to look out for each other. You can make a saver and still be ethical about it.

 

[Chuck Raulston]

When the money gets big enough in pool that the players don't need to make savers to cover expenses, then they should be eliminated. Until that happens, I believe they are a necessity for the players in our sport struggling trying to make a living.

Chuck Raulston

 

[dogginda9]

When the money gets big enough in pool that the players don't need to make savers to cover expenses, then they should be eliminated. Until that happens, I believe they are a necessity for the players in our sport struggling trying to make a living.

Chuck Raulston

Couldn't agree more Chuck!!

 

[onepocketchump]

Hi williebetmore,
Professional pool flourished under the leadership of Don Mackey who did not approve savers.He said that he will take deciplinary action,if he comes to know,against any players involved.He meant buisiness.There are no savers in WPBA.Cheers
Vagabond

You must be living in a fantasy world if you think there are no savers in the WPBA and there weren't any in the Pro Billiard Tour. Pro pool DIED under Don Mackey.

John

 

[chefjeff]

I care so much because it's easy to get a rise out of you.

See below.

How do you hit to close to home?

I don't know....I asked the question of you.

You don't even know me.

Hey, I said that when you made lied about me. I asked a question; I didn't state a lie.

Who said I'm a new person here.

Der. aren't you paying attention, I said that.

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.

People like me? Is that your opinion you're shoving there? ....welcome to the club. Glad you finally decided to post....it provides us opportunities to respond.

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.

What's the matter, can't you read? OK, it's a fucking deal between friends until....now pay attentiton...until someone else is affected. How? In tournaments, the outcome of the whole sheebang is changed by saving. Bettors lose, other players don't get what they came and paid for. And the game itself is tainted by the possibility of dumping.

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

Do you really want me to have a nice evening? If so, why did you talk about getting a rise out of me as your motivation for posting. Contradiction. Or a another lie.

Now, you will allow me to do something. Gee, I feel special. Thank you for being so kind. What would I have done without you?

It's morning it's morning...I'm rising,

Jeff Livingston

btw, I'm an atheist.

 

[PrimoCues]

Do you really want me to have a nice evening? If so, why did you talk about getting a rise out of me as your motivation for posting. Contradiction. Or a another lie.

Now, you will allow me to do something. Gee, I feel special. Thank you for being so kind. What would I have done without you?

It's morning it's morning...I'm rising,

Jeff Livingston

btw, I'm an atheist.

I see that your bitterness is what motivates you to keep posting. I'm not a liar. I'm just trying to get my point across. It's mighty difficult to do that when douche bags much like yourself keep trying to be constantly right. Back off. Quit stepping on your wang. What would you have done without me:
a. find something else to be bitter about
b. find someone else to pick on
c. drink
d. tried to be a hero on another thread/forum
e. have a life
Allow me to repeat myself: I AM NOT NEW HERE. You don't hit close to home. You're just an immature bitter man who needs a puppy. Read other posts..humor YOURSELF.. savors don't equal DUMPING.
Congrats on being an athiest...we finally have something in common. Jeff, I'm tired of posting replies to you. Your immaturity has quite proven to me that some people thoughg experienced are in many ways niave. They don't even PAY ATTENTION. Closed minded people (such as yourself) enjoy badgering others for their own happiness. If everyone doesn't see it your way, they ALL become your enemy. Just be like the others and for once, keep an opinion to yourself, I'm still puking yours in my crapper. You don't know me, and you probably never will. Who knows Jeff, we could quite possibly be best friends, or even neighbors someday if we aren't already.

 

[chefjeff]

I see that your bitterness is what motivates you to keep posting. I'm not a liar. I'm just trying to get my point across. It's mighty difficult to do that when douche bags much like yourself keep trying to be constantly right. Back off. Quit stepping on your wang. What would you have done without me:
a. find something else to be bitter about
b. find someone else to pick on
c. drink
d. tried to be a hero on another thread/forum
e. have a life
Allow me to repeat myself: I AM NOT NEW HERE. You don't hit close to home. You're just an immature bitter man who needs a puppy. Read other posts..humor YOURSELF.. savors don't equal DUMPING.
Congrats on being an athiest...we finally have something in common. Jeff, I'm tired of posting replies to you. Your immaturity has quite proven to me that some people thoughg experienced are in many ways niave. They don't even PAY ATTENTION. Closed minded people (such as yourself) enjoy badgering others for their own happiness. If everyone doesn't see it your way, they ALL become your enemy. Just be like the others and for once, keep an opinion to yourself, I'm still puking yours in my crapper. You don't know me, and you probably never will. Who knows Jeff, we could quite possibly be best friends, or even neighbors someday if we aren't already.

You're lying about me for a reason....care to share or are you too tired of it?

Jeff Livingston

 

[macguy]

Tom, as the TD of Hard Times, I am sure you have seen your share of savers! I would venture to guess that Marlon Malano and Jose Parica may have considered a saver at your recent 9-ball event because of their Philippino bond.

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. Generally, in my experience of what I have seen and heard through the grapevine, it is a small percentage, 5 or 10 percent. However, each player is trying to advance the chart and capture the almighty win. This is a generally accepted practice which occurs with Pool Super Stars, UPA admin staff, Hall of Famers, U.S. Open winners, and the average Joe, especially on the road between two friends, but it is still a fight to the finish.

Now, having said that, if players are deliberately losing a match because of Calcutta monies, this is not a generally accepted practice.

As long as the two players are trying to win with all their might, I see nothing wrong with a saver. It is only a little jelly roll, a gift of friendship, if you will, between comrades. So, in my opinion, whether a saver is public knowledge or not, as long as there is no intentional losing involved, it is okay by me.

Some players are good for their word and pay off the saver at the conclusion of a tournament, and there are others who procrastinate, sometimes leave town without paying, and do not honor the gentlemen's agreement of a saver. People do get funny when they're winning that big money, and the key to avoiding this kind of happening is to not save with anyone.

JMHO, FWIW!

JAM

I watched Tommy Kennedy play Jose Parica in a final of one of the tours. They had already agreed to split it and Jose lost 11 to 2, he didn't even try and anyone who paid anything to watch got cheated. There is the problem sometimes. Years ago there was a crew, (and you would reconize every name some hall of famers), who high jacked tournaments all the time. Since the first four to six places could amount to 80% of the total prize fund they would take down almost the whole tournament many times. That was way beyond just a saver.

 

[cuesmith]

I watched Tommy Kennedy play Jose Parica in a final of one of the tours. They had already agreed to split it and Jose lost 11 to 2, he didn't even try and anyone who paid anything to watch got cheated. There is the problem sometimes. Years ago there was a crew, (and you would reconize every name some hall of famers), who high jacked tournaments all the time. Since the first four to six places could amount to 80% of the total prize fund they would take down almost the whole tournament many times. That was way beyond just a saver.

But you keep missing the whole point! This thread is about "SAVERS"! What you described is something entirely different! If you don't understand the term, "savers" try reading some of the previous posts where I and a few people who DO understand what it means have explained! Savers have nothing to do with dumping or even chopping, which is the scenerio you described! I find it frustrating for people to knock something when they don't even know what it is they are knocking!

just more hot air!!!


Sherm

 

[macguy]

But you keep missing the whole point! This thread is about "SAVERS"! What you described is something entirely different! If you don't understand the term, "savers" try reading some of the previous posts where I and a few people who DO understand what it means have explained! Savers have nothing to do with dumping or even chopping, which is the scenerio you described! I find it frustrating for people to knock something when they don't even know what it is they are knocking!

just more hot air!!!


Sherm

I know what a saver is, I was just commenting on the extent it can go to. It starts with two guys agreeing before the tournament if they cash they get a piece of each other and can end up them playing in a final and not even wanting to gamble the differance between first and second. It becomes a mind set with some players.

 

[Williebetmore]

If you don't understand the term, "savers" try reading some of the previous posts where I and a few people who DO understand what it means have explained!
Sherm

Sherm,
I for one will freely admit to being confused. I'm becoming doubtful there is any widespread consensus on the definition of "saver" (even after reading the previous posts). So far I've heard a few hundred bucks, 5%, 10%, and even 50% (though even the saver proponents balk at this level). Is the limit 11%, 12%, 13%, 14%, 15%, 20%, 25%??? You see the problem, its all a matter of degree. At what percentage point will these arrangements cause a problem??? Please let us know what the definition is.

Just so it is clear, I have NO objections to savers, nor to splitters, nor to dumpers; and I don't feel this issue is of any earthshaking importance. Pool tournaments are gambling ventures, and let the participants accept the inherent risks, and let the spectators think what they will. Players are free to do what they want, and fans are free to think what they want. My only point was that a big time sport will never allow it.

P.S. - I could tell a great joke about this, but everyone would think I was being critical. PM me if you can take a joke.

 

[MsDelish]

Jam I agree with you totally.....

Everyone is talking about ethics and right and wrong. What I think everyone doesn't get is that all the players on tour are for the most part friends and hang out a lot together between matches. The fans have more competition and rivalry than the players. Savers DO NOT effect the outcome of the matches. They just put a cushion under the player that happens to lose. No one is dumping matches. No one who buys a player in the calcutta loses anything. The savers are usually like Jam said small (between 5-20% max.) All pool players are struggling for money so they respect and feel for each other. Anyway there is no shot for savers to stop. EVERY player has done it and will continue to do it. When the match is a "pick'um" of who is going to win, why not take out some insurance that you don't leave empty handed. Don't think for a second that the players aren't fighting like rabid dogs to win for the recognition and the bigger part of the money.

 

[watchez]

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.

Well said Willie. People on this board talk all the time about how spectators are needed for pool to grow. Who wants to watch when you know that the players are playing without the same pressure? Or, as previously described in this thread, willing to quit and go lay down on the couch. You think if there was a golf tournament and coming up to the 18th hole, one of the 3 leaders said just give me my cash, I got a buffet to go to before it closes....what would public reaction be? Kinda like Mike Tyson refusing to get off the stool and just going home with his money.

 

[JimS]

Please leave ethics at the door.

You just don't have a clue. Ethics are everything. Nothing but ethics really matters. Again....NOTHING BUT ETHICS REALLY MATTERS. N O T H I N G.

 

[JPB]

Sherm,


Just so it is clear, I have NO objections to savers, nor to splitters, nor to dumpers; and I don't feel this issue is of any earthshaking importance. Pool tournaments are gambling ventures, and let the participants accept the inherent risks, and let the spectators think what they will. Players are free to do what they want, and fans are free to think what they want. My only point was that a big time sport will never allow it.

well, it is an issue if you think pool is a gambling venture. You cannot gamble on something that is fixed. That is why you can bet on the NFL or MLB in Las Vegas but not the WWF. This is why sports leagues are so strict about players gambling on the sport. On this board we constantly hear the complaining about pool being a no-money marginal sport. Well, if pool ever gets widespread coverage, do you think it will be more popular if people can bet on it? Obvious answer. So assumng pool is what you say it is, a gambling venture only, dumping, chopping, saving, etc... guarantees it will be a nothing gambling venture.

 

[Williebetmore]

well, it is an issue if you think pool is a gambling venture. You cannot gamble on something that is fixed. That is why you can bet on the NFL or MLB in Las Vegas but not the WWF. This is why sports leagues are so strict about players gambling on the sport. On this board we constantly hear the complaining about pool being a no-money marginal sport. Well, if pool ever gets widespread coverage, do you think it will be more popular if people can bet on it? Obvious answer. So assumng pool is what you say it is, a gambling venture only, dumping, chopping, saving, etc... guarantees it will be a nothing gambling venture.

JPB,
I definitely agree, though I don't think it is impossible for pool to rise above its current status, just an uphill battle.

 

[Williebetmore]

The savers are usually like Jam said small (between 5-20% max.) .

MsDelish,
Wow, I hope that the savers are not reaching this level. Look at the results for the recent WPBA tournament:

1st = Karen Corr = $10,000
2nd = GY Kim = $7,000
3rd = Monica Webb = $5,600

If you apply even a 10% saver, the results are:
Karen = $9,000
GYKim = $8,000

A 15% saver is even worse:
Karen = $8,500
GY Kim = $8,500

If you look at 2nd and 3rd with a 10% saver:
GY Kim = $6,300
Monica Webb = $6,300


Wow!!! A 10% saver between 2nd and 3rd is a 50/50 split - who would have thought it? Perhaps we need a better definition of the "ethically allowable saver" (?? another oxymoron).

 

[macguy]

MsDelish,
Wow, I hope that the savers are not reaching this level. Look at the results for the recent WPBA tournament:

1st = Karen Corr = $10,000
2nd = GY Kim = $7,000
3rd = Monica Webb = $5,600

If you apply even a 10% saver, the results are:
Karen = $9,000
GYKim = $8,000

A 15% saver is even worse:
Karen = $8,500
GY Kim = $8,500

If you look at 2nd and 3rd with a 10% saver:
GY Kim = $6,300
Monica Webb = $6,300


Wow!!! A 10% saver between 2nd and 3rd is a 50/50 split - who would have thought it? Perhaps we need a better definition of the "ethically allowable saver" (?? another oxymoron).

Actually most savers take place before the tournament even starts in which case if a player had a 10% saver with the eventual winner and they finished out of the money they would at least still get $1000. It kind of keeps you with a horse in the race if you don't do so good. and increases the odds you will go home with something. Of course you also take the chance if you win you have to give up some of your winnings. Miz used to never do it, sink or swim he was always on his own. Even with the Miller Lite commercial. A few of the players wanted to have a piece of the action in case they didn't get the gig, (Pool player mentality). Miz may have been the only one of the ones that went to try out for it that went it alone and as a result got all the dough.

 

[onepocketchump]

well, it is an issue if you think pool is a gambling venture. You cannot gamble on something that is fixed. That is why you can bet on the NFL or MLB in Las Vegas but not the WWF. This is why sports leagues are so strict about players gambling on the sport. On this board we constantly hear the complaining about pool being a no-money marginal sport. Well, if pool ever gets widespread coverage, do you think it will be more popular if people can bet on it? Obvious answer. So assumng pool is what you say it is, a gambling venture only, dumping, chopping, saving, etc... guarantees it will be a nothing gambling venture.

This why most heads-up competitions are suspect. You don't think Serena and Venus have ever chopped up a tournament? Wanna bet that the lower ranked tennis players frequently make savers?

When the money is not there then the incentive to make savers, dump, chop and otherwise insure income is tremendous. That's why we should just play tournaments for trophys and gamble for money.

Let the money for WINNING tournaments come from endorsements garnered from WINNING the tournaments.

John