So I Got Banned From FB's "Let's Talk About Pool."

I know gamblers who stopped buying half themselves….if they are one of the first choices, it’s often a bad gamble.
Alex had to pull up..often first choice…unrealistic price…sometimes he buys other players instead.
I‘ve bought players who simply can’t afford it…if it’s a good friend, I give them half.

A couple tours I played on in the 90s, I had to stop buying half myself…I finished third once in a seventy+ field and showed a $55 profit.
Zuglan told me I was going so high because they knew I always bought my half…told me to stop buying for a few tournaments.….
…sure enough, my price got more realistic.
If buying half myself was mandatory, I wouldn’t play in that tournament…nobody is gonna tell me how to bet my $$$.
 
I would never buy anyone else, but if I did and they won without their “half” paid I’d tip them something. At a crap table good rollers get tipped or have bets placed for them all the time. That’s my mentality. Even have dice on my back. But as others have said buying someone else can be risky due to factors other than how good they are. It’s free money as far as I’m concerned. What would get me was if someone bought me and wouldn’t sell half to me.
 
Willowbrook Wolfy said:
I would never buy anyone else, but if I did and they won without their “half” paid I’d tip them something. At a crap table good rollers get tipped or have bets placed for them all the time. That’s my mentality. Even have dice on my back. But as others have said buying someone else can be risky due to factors other than how good they are. It’s free money as far as I’m concerned. What would get me was if someone bought me and wouldn’t sell half to me.
Click to expand...
Not selling half to someone that wants it is almost certainly going to get you zero in the end
 
My thoughts on calcuttas are that the players should ALWAYS get ten percent of the calcutta. And if they want to buy up to 40% more to get 50% then should have that option but it should never be required. In just about every state calcuttas are illegal betting and there should never be a rule that forces them to do that. I personally believe it is a psychological offense to advertise that the players are playing for $20,000 when the actual amount is $5000 for the tournament and the calcutta first is 15000. I think it takes away incentive to win when the player knows that he will attribute with winning 20k and in reality, he will only be getting half of 5k if he was staked in the tournament.

So at the very least IF the player knows he has 10% of the calcutta then he has the incentive to win without the pressure to buy half of themselves. To me calcuttas offer a lot of reasons to "do business".

Personally, I prefer the parimutuel version better. This is where people bet what they want on the players they want to bet on and the payback is divided amongst the number of people who bet. So the favorite in the tournament might have the most bet on him but the number of people who placed bets will be many. That spreads out the risk but the reward is great for the underdogs who don't get a lot of bets placed on them.

I attended a tournament in the Netherlands that ran their calcutta this way and it was a great success.
 
JB Cases said:
My thoughts on calcuttas are that the players should ALWAYS get ten percent of the calcutta. And if they want to buy up to 40% more to get 50% then should have that option but it should never be required. In just about every state calcuttas are illegal betting and there should never be a rule that forces them to do that. I personally believe it is a psychological offense to advertise that the players are playing for $20,000 when the actual amount is $5000 for the tournament and the calcutta first is 15000. I think it takes away incentive to win when the player knows that he will attribute with winning 20k and in reality, he will only be getting half of 5k if he was staked in the tournament.

So at the very least IF the player knows he has 10% of the calcutta then he has the incentive to win without the pressure to buy half of themselves. To me calcuttas offer a lot of reasons to "do business".

Personally, I prefer the parimutuel version better. This is where people bet what they want on the players they want to bet on and the payback is divided amongst the number of people who bet. So the favorite in the tournament might have the most bet on him but the number of people who placed bets will be many. That spreads out the risk but the reward is great for the underdogs who don't get a lot of bets placed on them.

I attended a tournament in the Netherlands that ran their calcutta this way and it was a great success.
Click to expand...
Parimutuel is interesting….I’ve never seen it…I assume you need a program.
 
pt109 said:
Parimutuel is interesting….I’ve never seen it…I assume you need a program.
Click to expand...
they just used a notepad back when I played in that event. The prize money was divided among the top six places based on a percentage basis and the payouts were then divided equally according to how many units were bet. So if the minimum was $10 and I bet a hundred then I had ten units that would be paid. Or better said if first place was $10,0000 and there were 180 $10 dollar bets then it would be 10,000/180 and each $10 bet would return $55. So If I had bet $50 I would get $275 back. Or if I had been the only person who bet $10 on an unknown and they won then I would get the whole 10k for my 10k bet.
 
pt109 said:
Parimutuel is interesting….I’ve never seen it…I assume you need a program.
Click to expand...
Seems to me we did it one year at the NYS 9 Ball Championship. I think it was just among the locals, thought. Been a lot of years.
 
On another note the Calcutta should be more fair anyway. Let’s say in a tournament the average players are going for is $50 and top player goes for $100. When all is said and done that $100 and anyone else over $75 be dropped to like $75, otherwise top guy/buyer is paying as much for half the action than someone else is paying for 100%- favored or not. And the buyer agreed to pay the most at $100 so they get it discounted due to the rest of pool being so low. For this to work top players would have to be auctioned first though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top