splitting tournament winnings

T

tsollman

Registered
I was talking to a guy that had recently won a major tournament. Winner take all event. He was telling me they had agreed to split the winnings no matter who won.
I personally have a problem with this. I feel it takes something away from the game. I have never split with anyone. If I win, I win the larger bankroll. If I lose then I lose. It probably isn't the wisest move financially on my part, but that's my train of thought. I guess I am just Greedy:D . I would like to hear other's opinions on this subject as my friend thinks I am an idiot, and I would do the same in his shoes.
 
Do you have a job with a steady income or are you a full time pool player?

When players "split the pot" they're not splitting it even. Whoever wins the match is still going to get more, the only difference is that the 2nd place guy will get a little more than if they didn't split it. All they're doing is changing the percentage of the prize money. They're both still playing their hardest to win the match. Splitting does not take away from the level of play or the integrity of the match.

You will see this happen a lot among good players because they never know when the next paycheck is going to come in. A person that's never been a full time player and has always had a steady income sometimes has a hard time understanding this.

It is more expensive to be a pool player now than it ever was. The cost of fuel is more than it has ever been and hotel & food costs are up as well. Some of these guys still live in their car and the ones that don't, have a roof over their head to pay for, just like you and the added travel expense of being a full time pool player.

Changing the percentage payout of the pot is money management and in no way takes away from the integrity of the game.

Ever buy a car? People rarely pay full price.... they make a deal. The dealership still comes out ahead but you've also gotten a better deal in the process. Same thing.
 
I think it is up to the players, the tournament sets the payouts and if the players want to make deals then let'em. I never have done it but that's just me. You see this in hold'em as well.

As long as we are on the subject of payouts I would like to ask what the norm is for determining tournament payout? In the weekly tourney I run we pay the top 3, 3rd gets their money back, 2nd gets double 3rd and the winner gets the rest. I have heard many different opinions but I am wondering what the norm is?

Thanks
 
To me, it has always depended on your intentions, type of tournament, and guys that you travel with, but generally whenever I travel with somebody or a group of guys to a tournament, we usually have some sort of an agreement to split any winnings that any one or more of us might win. In some ways, it's like buying more tickets into a drawing or lottery. Say you and three other guys decide to travel out of town to a tournament, and all four of you on any given day plays strong enough to realistically finish in the money. The more tickets or people you have, the better the chances are to take home some cash. Another way to look at it: You get knocked out early, and your three buddies keep winning, so you're stuck there having to wait around for up to 8-10 hours in some cases for the tournament to finish. Don't you think you deserve a certain share of the cash that one or more of your buddies may win?
However, I've seen players from the same 'team/stable' meet in the finals of a tournament where one of the (previously agreed to) players forfeits the match so they just shake hands and split the money in the parking lot. I'm not sure I care for those kinds of actions simply because in some cases, there are spectators and people with bets going on who have also waited around to either watch some good pool, or to get their share of action.
dave
 
Tokyo-dave said:
I've seen players from the same 'team/stable' meet in the finals of a tournament where one of the (previously agreed to) players forfeits the match so they just shake hands and split the money in the parking lot.
Click to expand...
While I have no problem with the percentage of the prize money being changed, I would have every problem in the world with players not playing the final match. Thats the kind of thing that affects the integrity of the game.

Fans pay to watch tournaments and they should be given a fair, tough fought finals match to watch. Shame on any promoter that would allow this to happen. If the players decided not to play, then I wouldn't pay them the prize money. They have to finish their job in order to get paid.
 
ive gone to small tourneys before with a buddy and we agreed up front to split any prize money sometimes any gamble money too). Doesnt stop you from playing your best but its just a nice way to stay in a match. Say you get knocked out somewhere early....you can still pull for your buddy and feel in the tourney.
 
My .02

The term is "savors" or maybe "savers". Professionals take care of each other. The decent ones anyway. I don't have a problem with it. I would bet that most rail birds, sweaters, and backers would have a big problem with it.
Purdman :)
 
Purdman said:
The term is "savors" or maybe "savers". Professionals take care of each other. The decent ones anyway. I don't have a problem with it. I would bet that most rail birds, sweaters, and backers would have a big problem with it.
Purdman :)
Click to expand...
Out of the rail birds, sweaters, and backers, the only one that should have a problem with it is the backer and that's providing they weren't involved in the decision.

Rail birds and sweaters are going to get the same game they would've gotten if there was no saver made. Both players are still playing to win because the winner gets more money.

Two players changing the percentage payout does not affect the betting line (so & so doesn't 8) so they shouldn't have a problem with it.
 
Man does this bring back memories. I haven't been to a good spitting tournament in years. Is it watermelon seeds or the old way, tobacco?
 
The first time this was offered to me I couldn't believe it. I was a big underdog for the final match,but I had been shooting well.My opponent was a friend and 3A player. I accepted the offer and we went hill hill. I dogged the game winning shot and lost, but came out of it happier with the extra loot.;)
 
UrackmIcrackm said:
Out of the rail birds, sweaters, and backers, the only one that should have a problem with it is the backer and that's providing they weren't involved in the decision.

Rail birds and sweaters are going to get the same game they would've gotten if there was no saver made. Both players are still playing to win because the winner gets more money.

Two players changing the percentage payout does not affect the betting line (so & so doesn't 8) so they shouldn't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...


I won't argue with you son. I have been there and know how the bettors and players feel about it. You just don't go back where the big bettors are and talk about savers. As a matter of fact, it is between the players and the stakehorses. When was the last time you staked somebody and how much did you win/lose?
Don "Purdman" Purdy
"2006 US Open 9 Ball Champions Stakehorse" ;)
 
Since when is any major tournament a winner take all event? What event was this? Even the special events like the IPT thing with Sigel and Loreejon paid both players.
I've played in local tournaments that started around 7 pm or 7:30 and were still going at approaching 1 am. I've split in those situations.
 
As far as handicapped, weekly, or generally small tournaments go, I am all about splitting the $$ as soon as I can.
I take no pride in winning any of these small events, and to be honest if the difference between 1st and 2nd is $100, I'd rather split it with the guy and ask him to gamble some after.

Of course there are exceptions, I won't split even with someone I plain don't like, and sometimes I won't split if I feel like I am the huge favorite (altho generally I still do).

Now if it is in some big event, like a Seminole Pro Tour event or something like that, which I would be absolutely euphoric about cashing in/winning then there is no way I'm looking for the split... to bad I don't stand a chance of doing good in a big event like that.
 
I have no problem if someone was playing in the Challenge of Champions for 50k winner take all and the players agreed on a 35k and 15k payout,that seems fair to me a reasonable.I personally have chopped a bunch of little tourneys in pool and cards.I do go to play pool sometimes with a buddy when i was in NY and we would be partners and make deals with eachother.Poker i usually agree to give them their buy in back if one of us cashes in a certain spot,if we both cash we combine and split our winnings.I have only been beaten once with this when a so called buddy and me were partners,he was happy to be mine as i had just snapped a 6k tourney with 150 people and thne 2 smaller 2k tourneys with 50-60 people.We both agree on the split if we both place in the money,we are at the final table and instead of paying 7 spots we agree to pay 8 with the 8th getting their money back for the buy in,i take 8th and after the tourney i still think we will combine and split,he doesnt think we should since it wasnt really placing he said in the money,so no more deals with me and this guy and put the word out about partnering with him. :cool:
 
Purdman said:
As a matter of fact, it is between the players and the stakehorses.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I said.

Purdman said:
When was the last time you staked somebody and how much did you win/lose?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. :confused:

Years ago before I chose to have a stable life with a steady income and health insurance, I did some traveling with other players and we pooled our travel expenses together, which also included tournament expenses. Savers did come up at times and I was involved in the decision process and had no problem with that.
 
Calcutta

UrackmIcrackm said:
That's exactly what I said.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. :confused:

Years ago before I chose to have a stable life with a steady income and health insurance, I did some traveling with other players and we pooled our travel expenses together, which also included tournament expenses. Savers did come up at times and I was involved in the decision process and had no problem with that.
Click to expand...
The real problem with this comes into play with the calcutta. you may have all of one of you and only half of the other.

Now it is a matter of personal ethics how you work that out.

M.C.
 
curlyscues said:
The real problem with this comes into play with the calcutta. you may have all of one of you and only half of the other.

Now it is a matter of personal ethics how you work that out.

M.C.
Click to expand...
Calcutta's definitely bring in a different aspect. I'm just talking about a straight up, no calcutta tournament.
 
splitting

I guess I think, that if you decide to split with somebody and play the match, a lot of pressure is removed from that match. Going home with 50k or nothing seems like a lot more pre match pressure to me:confused: which in turn would affect the play of someone in the match.
As for staking anybody, I think stake horses get cut up more than they know by the players, but if you got the money to burn, I guess burn it.
Never really been a fulltime poolplayer, had kids to raise, so I haven't seen from other than that point of view.
Would have liked to have followed that path, but I think I chose the right one for me.
I appreciate the "players point of view" on the money. But that wasn't my point.
 
UrackmIcrackm said:
That's exactly what I said.


I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. :confused:

Remnants of my freaking ego man. I apologize. I am working on it.
Congratulations on the stable life, income, and the health insurance.
Hit em straight!
Peace, Purdman :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top