gitrdun247
Banned
Do you think professionals split the prize money? You know like if they are the last 4 standing would they cut it up 4 ways?
Splitting the cash?
- Thread starter gitrdun247
- Start date
You bet ....
You think 'team Puyat' never splits? Actually, this is a point of contention with me because there is a difference, to me anyway, between the last 2 splitting 1st and 2nd in a weekly amateur tournament as opposed to:
players splitting (or having savers) in a PROFESSIONAL EVENT. I do not think that splitting or savers should be permitted in professional events because it smacks of being unethical and/or illegal, and a professional event should avoid that type of thing altogether.
You think 'team Puyat' never splits? Actually, this is a point of contention with me because there is a difference, to me anyway, between the last 2 splitting 1st and 2nd in a weekly amateur tournament as opposed to:
players splitting (or having savers) in a PROFESSIONAL EVENT. I do not think that splitting or savers should be permitted in professional events because it smacks of being unethical and/or illegal, and a professional event should avoid that type of thing altogether.
gitrdun247 said:
Speaking as a railbird, I think that on occasion, if two players are good friends, they may throw each other a 10-percent saver, as one example, kind of a friendship bet.
Problem with SOME players, though, is that they become scarce when it's time to pay up. Because of this trend, savers isn't as widespread a practice as some may think.
I don't see anything wrong with two players who are good friends giving each other a little bone, to fray off expenses. If one of them does get knocked out of the tournament, at least the other one can root for the guy still in the tournament, kind of a little sweat bet.
JMHO, FWIW!
JAM
I dont see anything wrong with sharing the wealth. It isn't like they are somehow scamming the payouts...now if there are calcutta implications that result in significant gains if one loses on purpose, that's so shady it's dark.
For thos of you who sidebet and cry foul...stop betting on thing you have no control over or realize you are at the mercy of those who do control
For thos of you who sidebet and cry foul...stop betting on thing you have no control over or realize you are at the mercy of those who do control
Savors cast a bad light on the sport, but in pools case, I dont think they can be avoided. Lets face it, professional pool tournaments do not have alot of money involved. Take for example the US Open. First prize was 40k with second place being 15k and then it drops to 10k and 5k for 3rd and 4th. Imagine your the players and its winners bracket final 4. With the difference in money being so large, its almost a necessity to do savors to ensure you can pay your bills. I dont begrudge any player who cuts up the money in the end so that he can be sure to put food on the table for his family.
In most of the cases I have heard about savors, players still play to win. They are just tightening up the prize money so that there is more parity on the payouts between 1st/2nd/3rd.
In most of the cases I have heard about savors, players still play to win. They are just tightening up the prize money so that there is more parity on the payouts between 1st/2nd/3rd.
gitrdun247
Banned
uwate said:
I totally agree. I am sure it doesn't just happen in pool. The only problem that could arise is the side bets with the bookie. It would probably be wise to bet early in the tourney and forget the finals right?
Black-Balled said:
Good points, both. A player should never have a monetary interest in losing. A saver doesn't mean a player doesn't want to win; it just means he's not playing for as much prize money as you think he is. Kind of like playing for Kevin Trudeau. Whereas players shouldn't be allowed to participate in the calcutta IMO, or have deals with people who do participate. Just like pro baseball players shouldn't be allowed to bet on baseball. It's just common sense.
But for the railbirds who bet and then complain about a player making some sort of deal; you bet on the player to win. If the player plays hard and doesn't win, you made a bad bet. If the player doesn't play hard and doesn't win, you made a bad bet. In either case, you bet someone would do something that they didn't do. Sounds like your fault for making that bet to me.
-Andrew
The other posters above are on the money about calcuttas. With calcuttas you need to be careful. Real funny stuff can happen with calcuttas. If your gonna bet, one piece of advice I would give is to be more careful when all the action is on one side. Not saying to bet the other way, but if EVERYONE likes one side of the action, funny stuff can and does happen.
It seems to me there are 2 ways to split the money. One is to get to the final (usually 2 or 3 people) and take the money and split it and go home. This is usually done at weekly tournaments to get home earlier. There is no money riding on the outcome, that I know of, except to the parties involved.
The other one is usually at a weekend regional tournament or a weekly tournament where the owner or TD wants it played out. The arrangement usually happens before the tournament starts between friends or when they have to play each other, especially if it is in 5th/6th. The arrangement might be 50/50 or 60/40.
It can also happen at the point where the winner of the B side wins a set against the winner of the A side in a true double elimination format, so that now they are even.
I don't think either one is particularly unethical, especially the first one, unless there is a Calcutta or something else dependent on the outcome. It is just basic money management because of the usual disparity between 1st and 2nd. Especially if they had to meet earlier and one was assured of going on and the other has to take on the B side.
If they play off for it in the finals and still split, each is assured of a pretty good score and the pressure is off, so you may see some very good pool playing.
I do not condone dumping in the finals. Splitting and dumping are two very different things. I don't have a problem with players making an arrangement to split the money in a pro tournament for the final 2, but each one should be playing hard for the final, so the outcome is a true one. What they do with their money after they have won should not be of any consequence to me, IMHO.
The other one is usually at a weekend regional tournament or a weekly tournament where the owner or TD wants it played out. The arrangement usually happens before the tournament starts between friends or when they have to play each other, especially if it is in 5th/6th. The arrangement might be 50/50 or 60/40.
It can also happen at the point where the winner of the B side wins a set against the winner of the A side in a true double elimination format, so that now they are even.
I don't think either one is particularly unethical, especially the first one, unless there is a Calcutta or something else dependent on the outcome. It is just basic money management because of the usual disparity between 1st and 2nd. Especially if they had to meet earlier and one was assured of going on and the other has to take on the B side.
If they play off for it in the finals and still split, each is assured of a pretty good score and the pressure is off, so you may see some very good pool playing.
I do not condone dumping in the finals. Splitting and dumping are two very different things. I don't have a problem with players making an arrangement to split the money in a pro tournament for the final 2, but each one should be playing hard for the final, so the outcome is a true one. What they do with their money after they have won should not be of any consequence to me, IMHO.