Surprised They Got Out of Town ALIVE!!

ridewiththewind said:
My understanding is that, at least when this TD is running things, there will be no more Calcuttas...that was it. I think he was trying to offer something new, for this area.

As to the TD.....I know this guy personally, he has been president of our 9 ball league, and runs a lot of the shoots in the area. He is completely stand-up. A nice guy and a helluva shot. It all seemed to be going quite smoothly until the end, when it somehow got away from him....I really do not know what happened in detail, but I will be finding out. He was pretty swamped with players asking him what happened when I saw him Monday night.

If this is the sort of thing that can happen when there is a Calcutta involved, it's a pretty safe bet I will never participate in one.

Lisa
Click to expand...

This is a mistake. I also believe it's a mistake for the TD to stop doing them. Most of the time Calucuttas can be a lot of fun and they bring some nice action and interest into the tournaments. Things like this CAN happen, but that doesn't mean that they have to all of the time. There are pool players out there, even some top, well-known and big-name players, who will, when playing a friend or colleague, routinely look at the payouts and 'arrange' for a match to finish such as they both make the maximum return. However, the USUAL situation is that both players in the final have equal parts of themselves and the extra monetary incentive makes them play even harder than they may have without it. The final also tends to be a more watched spectacle when there are a few calcutta sweators left at the end of the night.

Cliff notes: Calcuttas can be very good for a tournament, but you have to watch out for, and deal harshly with, angle shooters like the guys you described.
 
Lisa

Steve Lipsky stated things well, and I agree. This raises another issue,
NOT HAVING UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE running tournaments, and especially
CALCUTTAS.

They absolutely should know all the governing rules and procedures before
doing so. I see people put in charge of running tournaments that have NO
business or the proper knowledge to run a tournament. THAT GOES DOUBLE WHEN A CALCUTTA IS INVOLVED.

Yes Calcuttas are illegal, in Kansas and most states, and if you run one, you had better know the laws affecting it, and how to handle different situations with people involved and from outside parties. No, the police don't have much interest in busting one (about as much as busting a private poker party for gambling, or the office superbowl pool).

Gambling between 2 people is not illegal, because it can be considered
a 2 person tournament with prize money for 1st ... lol But if Joe Schmoo
is a railbird, and betting on the outcome with a player, it is illegal. Anytime
a non participant becomes involved with the betting, it becomes illegal.

Lisa - You need to get your 'ducks in a row', and get the COMPLETE
true facts of what happened, before this ends up like the John Schmidt
thread. It is hard to give 'good answers' on partial or innaccurate information.

Have to be in the tournament to buy a player? Never heard of that before. Player that bought half of himself getting the Calcutta envelope,
and not the original buyer? Never heard of that either, BUT THAT IS A
NO-NO. (Part of having qualified people run the calcutta issue).

The Hotseat player (won the winners side) gets first if no sets are played, or if a partial set is played or if the first set is played no matter who wins.
Only if 2 complete sets are played, with the 1 loss player winning both sets will he get 1st place, and the hotseat player getting 2nd. That is because he has no losses before they play, or even at the point if they both have a loss (1 loss player wins 1st set), the winners side takes
precedence over the 1 loss by definition.
 
Harvywallbanger said:
Either the initial poster here is still lost on what really happened or this was an inside job. One or the other plane and simple.
Click to expand...


I am the original poster, and as I have already stated on more than one occasion already, I do not have all the particulars yet. I just know what I was told on Monday night by some other participants in the weekend's tournament...of which I also was a participant.

I DO NOT understand how Calcuttas are supposed to work....I have already stated this as well. Since the TD was a t the shoot on Monday, he was surrounded by people, and I decided to wait until later this week to talk to him to get the details.

I am not trying to cause a ruckus...and I have named no names here. And if you paid attention to the first post, I was trying to determine what could be done in the future to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

I have gotten a few suggestions, which is appreciated...but I have also been lambasted. The Calcutta may well be dead for this area anyway. We're dealing with a bunch of 'Tarheels' here.....burn them once, they won't give you the opportunity to do it again.

Lisa
 
Snapshot9 said:
Yes Calcuttas are illegal, in Kansas and most states, and if you run one, you had better know the laws affecting it, and how to handle different situations with people involved and from outside parties. No, the police don't have much interest in busting one (about as much as busting a private poker party for gambling, or the office superbowl pool).

Gambling between 2 people is not illegal, because it can be considered
a 2 person tournament with prize money for 1st ... lol But if Joe Schmoo
is a railbird, and betting on the outcome with a player, it is illegal. Anytime
a non participant becomes involved with the betting, it becomes illegal.
Click to expand...

You're actually wrong about this, Scott. Calcuttas are a grey area of gambling - legal in some places, illegal in some others. It is highly recommended for anyone thinking about running one to consult a lawyer. Oftentimes they are 'illegal' in the strictest sense of the word, but as the police don't enforce the law it's a non issue. Now, taking a percentage from a Calcutta, which is a common practice, is HIGHLY illegal in most states, and is often a felony!

Gambling on a pool game between two parties is not illegal, and in fact is not even considered gambling, by the strictest sense of the legal definition. In order for 'gambling' to exist, there must be three elements - Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Prize is the money won, Chance is the luck element, and Consideration is the money bet. If any element is removed then the act cannot be considered 'gambling'.

For example, games such as McDonald's Monopoly are not 'gambling' because there's no Consideration - you don't bet anything. Same thing goes for playing Space Invaders - even though you bet and there's an element of luck, there's no Prize - you don't win anything, so it is not gambling.

The same therefore holds true if you play a game like pool or golf and wager money. The middle element, Chance, has been removed, because they are games of skill. Therefore it is not considered 'gambling'. Quod erat demonstatum. This is the law in about 46 states and has been Supreme Court tested.

Therefore, if you are in a poolroom playing a set for money and ANYONE, police or otherwise, tries to tell you that you are engaging in illegal activity, tell them to go kiss a moose.
 
ridewiththewind said:
I am the original poster, and as I have already stated on more than one occasion already, I do not have all the particulars yet. I just know what I was told on Monday night by some other participants in the weekend's tournament...of which I also was a participant.

I DO NOT understand how Calcuttas are supposed to work....I have already stated this as well. Since the TD was a t the shoot on Monday, he was surrounded by people, and I decided to wait until later this week to talk to him to get the details.

I am not trying to cause a ruckus...and I have named no names here. And if you paid attention to the first post, I was trying to determine what could be done in the future to prevent this kind of thing from happening again.

I have gotten a few suggestions, which is appreciated...but I have also been lambasted. The Calcutta may well be dead for this area anyway. We're dealing with a bunch of 'Tarheels' here.....burn them once, they won't give you the opportunity to do it again.

Lisa
Click to expand...

Lisa-

I know all the facts are not in and I am not jumping on top of you for that. Believe me. Sometimes, its better to let the smoke clear and then try digging through the rubble. But what you should find out is the following:

Who was in charge of the calcutta?
Who gave away the calcutta money?
Who did that individual give the calcutta money to and why?

Those seem to be the main questions of utmost importance here. Aside from that, it is difficult to fault the two players in this situation as they have little or no control over the calcutta. It sounds as if they were playing for the tournament prize money and nothing else. If they were friends and decided to split the pot without playing, that is their right. While it may upset others, you have to look at it like this:

A calcutta is like side action. You are betting on another player to win. If that player does not win, you don't get any money. In this case, it sounds as if player A (the Canadian) makes it to the finals and faces off against his friend, player B. Meanwhile, an outsider bought player A for $350. Unless he offered 1/2 of the action to player A (which is not uncommon), then player A is playing on his own steam for his own money. He paid the entry and the table time and is simply trying to make the most out of that money. He likely has no care or concern for the outsider who bought him and as well, he shouldn't.

If he was the hotseat player, he should be the tournament winner on paper as previously stated by someone else. If he was on the one loss side, he should automatically be in second place.

Either way, if you are saying that he left town with all of the calcutta money, then yes, he is dishonest as all of that money was not his and he should know that. ...But the TD also made a major mistake by allowing this to happen in the first place. Bottom line: Never get involved in a calcutta unless you know AND TRUST the person running it.
 
gromulan said:
You're actually wrong about this, Scott. Calcuttas are a grey area of gambling - legal in some places, illegal in some others. It is highly recommended for anyone thinking about running one to consult a lawyer. Oftentimes they are 'illegal' in the strictest sense of the word, but as the police don't enforce the law it's a non issue. Now, taking a percentage from a Calcutta, which is a common practice, is HIGHLY illegal in most states, and is often a felony!

Gambling on a pool game between two parties is not illegal, and in fact is not even considered gambling, by the strictest sense of the legal definition. In order for 'gambling' to exist, there must be three elements - Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Prize is the money won, Chance is the luck element, and Consideration is the money bet. If any element is removed then the act cannot be considered 'gambling'.

For example, games such as McDonald's Monopoly are not 'gambling' because there's no Consideration - you don't bet anything. Same thing goes for playing Space Invaders - even though you bet and there's an element of luck, there's no Prize - you don't win anything, so it is not gambling.

The same therefore holds true if you play a game like pool or golf and wager money. The middle element, Chance, has been removed, because they are games of skill. Therefore it is not considered 'gambling'. Quod erat demonstatum. This is the law in about 46 states and has been Supreme Court tested.

Therefore, if you are in a poolroom playing a set for money and ANYONE, police or otherwise, tries to tell you that you are engaging in illegal activity, tell them to go kiss a moose.
Click to expand...
If playing pool for money is considered wagering a game of skill and is not considered gambling because the "chance" factor is removed, then why is sidebetting on a game of skill "gambling?"
 
gromulan said:
You're actually wrong about this, Scott. Calcuttas are a grey area of gambling - legal in some places, illegal in some others. It is highly recommended for anyone thinking about running one to consult a lawyer. Oftentimes they are 'illegal' in the strictest sense of the word, but as the police don't enforce the law it's a non issue. Now, taking a percentage from a Calcutta, which is a common practice, is HIGHLY illegal in most states, and is often a felony!

Gambling on a pool game between two parties is not illegal, and in fact is not even considered gambling, by the strictest sense of the legal definition. In order for 'gambling' to exist, there must be three elements - Prize, Chance, and Consideration. Prize is the money won, Chance is the luck element, and Consideration is the money bet. If any element is removed then the act cannot be considered 'gambling'.

For example, games such as McDonald's Monopoly are not 'gambling' because there's no Consideration - you don't bet anything. Same thing goes for playing Space Invaders - even though you bet and there's an element of luck, there's no Prize - you don't win anything, so it is not gambling.

The same therefore holds true if you play a game like pool or golf and wager money. The middle element, Chance, has been removed, because they are games of skill. Therefore it is not considered 'gambling'. Quod erat demonstatum. This is the law in about 46 states and has been Supreme Court tested.

Therefore, if you are in a poolroom playing a set for money and ANYONE, police or otherwise, tries to tell you that you are engaging in illegal activity, tell them to go kiss a moose.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I just don't buy this. Why is it that pool room owners like to see the money hidden in most cases? ...watching out for excise cops and all of that? So your saying that if I bet with someone on ANYTHING in the world as long as I KNOW I am going to win its not gambling because there was no luck in the bet. (since i new i was going to win from the beginning there was no luck envolved in the win, right):rolleyes:
 
gromulan said:
The same therefore holds true if you play a game like pool or golf and wager money. The middle element, Chance, has been removed, because they are games of skill. Therefore it is not considered 'gambling'. Quod erat demonstatum. This is the law in about 46 states and has been Supreme Court tested.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. Would you by any chance know in which 4 states the above is not the law. And also if you'd have the Supreme Court case, that would be helpful.
 
Harvywallbanger said:
Sorry but I just don't buy this. Why is it that pool room owners like to see the money hidden in most cases? ...watching out for excise cops and all of that? So your saying that if I bet with someone on ANYTHING in the world as long as I KNOW I am going to win its not gambling because there was no luck in the bet. (since i new i was going to win from the beginning there was no luck envolved in the win, right):rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That would be correct, according to the law. The reason most room owners want people to hide the money is because they don't know the truth of the situation or because they're wimps and don't want to challenge the police. This is a mistake on their part, though. No chance, no gambling. End of story.

Now, if you KNEW you were going to win, but the game in question was a game of chance, like maybe a dice game of some sort, then the integrity of the game is called into question. In other words maybe you 'knew' you were going to win because you were using loaded dice. In that case you are not guilty of 'gambling', but you are guilty of fraud.

Buy it or not, the law is quite clear and, like I said, it has been put to the test in the Supreme Court over a game of Rubber Bridge. The Bridge players won, the state lost. The Court felt that skill was the predominant element of the game in question and therefore the gambling laws did not apply. I believe this decision was rendered on a California case in the late 1960's.
 
gromulan said:
That would be correct, according to the law. The reason most room owners want people to hide the money is because they don't know the truth of the situation or because they're wimps and don't want to challenge the police. This is a mistake on their part, though. No chance, no gambling. End of story.

Now, if you KNEW you were going to win, but the game in question was a game of chance, like maybe a dice game of some sort, then the integrity of the game is called into question. In other words maybe you 'knew' you were going to win because you were using loaded dice. In that case you are not guilty of 'gambling', but you are guilty of fraud.

Buy it or not, the law is quite clear and, like I said, it has been put to the test in the Supreme Court over a game of Rubber Bridge. The Bridge players won, the state lost. The Court felt that skill was the predominant element of the game in question and therefore the gambling laws did not apply. I believe this decision was rendered on a California case in the late 1960's.
Click to expand...

Anchorage made the same sort of decision regarding cribbage a few years ago. During the annual Fur Rondy (winter carnival) there are various events. A cribbage tournament was one of them. They had an entry fee and paid prize money (no calcutta). After a few years the authorities decided that cribbage was a game of chance and stopped the entry fee / prize portion. While pool even though the calcutta was shut down was still allowed to collect entry fees and pay prize money. So the hair of skill vrs. chance was split between pool and cribbage.
 
Flex said:
Very interesting. Would you by any chance know in which 4 states the above is not the law. And also if you'd have the Supreme Court case, that would be helpful.
Click to expand...

I don't know the states exactly. Check with a lawyer. Florida expressly forbids wagering on games of pool in their gambling statute, but no one has actually been charged with the crime in many years. Wisconsin and one or two other states have no indemnification clause for games of skill vs. luck.

The actual wording of a skill clause looks like this:

(a.1) As used in this Code section, the term "some skill" means any presence of the following factors, alone or in combination with one another:
(1) A learned power of doing a thing competently;
(2) A particular craft, art, ability, strategy, or tactic;
(3) A developed or acquired aptitude or ability;
(4) A coordinated set of actions, including, but not limited to, eye-hand coordination;
(5) Dexterity, fluency, or coordination in the execution of learned physical or mental tasks or both;
(6) Technical proficiency or expertise;
(7) Development or implementation of strategy or tactics in order to achieve a goal; or
(8) Knowledge of the means or methods of accomplishing a task.


The California case was In re Allen 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).
 
gromulan said:
That would be correct, according to the law. The reason most room owners want people to hide the money is because they don't know the truth of the situation or because they're wimps and don't want to challenge the police. This is a mistake on their part, though. No chance, no gambling. End of story.

Now, if you KNEW you were going to win, but the game in question was a game of chance, like maybe a dice game of some sort, then the integrity of the game is called into question. In other words maybe you 'knew' you were going to win because you were using loaded dice. In that case you are not guilty of 'gambling', but you are guilty of fraud.

Buy it or not, the law is quite clear and, like I said, it has been put to the test in the Supreme Court over a game of Rubber Bridge. The Bridge players won, the state lost. The Court felt that skill was the predominant element of the game in question and therefore the gambling laws did not apply. I believe this decision was rendered on a California case in the late 1960's.
Click to expand...

So I could get fraud even though we were both participating in something illigel to begin with? Wouldnt that be like stealing illigal drugs from someone and them calling the police on you for stealing?
 
Harvywallbanger said:
So I could get fraud even though we were both participating in something illigel to begin with? Wouldnt that be like stealing illigal drugs from someone and them calling the police on you for stealing?
Click to expand...

The funny (and sad) thing is, that DOES happen. You'll see it on "Cops" every once in a while - the cops (and film crew) show up to where a guy called in the cops, to report that this other joker stole his weed. There are some really dim bulbs out there in the world.

As far as what happened with the tournament that spawned this thread, I'd say, let's wait for Lisa to talk to the TD and get the details and share'em. Anything else before the facts are laid out is pure speculation.
 
Harvywallbanger said:
So I could get fraud even though we were both participating in something illigel to begin with? Wouldnt that be like stealing illigal drugs from someone and them calling the police on you for stealing?
Click to expand...

Sure could. This is some fun legal discussion. In the gambling example, your opponent is actually guilty of gambling because of his intent, which was to wager on a game of chance. You however are not, because from your point of view there was no 'chance'. However, by representing it as such, and extracting monetary gain in the process, you are guilty of fraud. He will face a misdemeanor, but you are looking at a felony.

Edit: In fact, some states and Canadian provinces have express statutes against fraud in gaming, such as using marked cards or loaded dice, even if the actual gaming is illegal as well. I guess their line of thought is, it's one thing to break the law and gamble, but going beyond that to cheat while you do so is brutal. I tend to agree :)

In the drugs example the law is the same. Both parties would be guilty of posession of a controlled substance but the thief would also be looking at theft (or robbery, depending on circumstances).

It's a little like the famous case where you shoot a man as he is jumping off of a building. He is guilty of attempted suicide (though he's dead so that's moot), but you are guilty of murder.

I also like the case where you point an unloaded gun at someone and pull the trigger. If you knew the gun was unloaded then there is no crime. However, if you thought the gun was loaded then you are guilty of attempted murder. If you weren't sure if the gun was loaded or not, then you are guilty of attempted murder in the lesser degree - reckless indifference to human life.

Isn't the law fun?
 
Last edited:
During the mid-late 90's there were some great weekly nine ball tournaments taking place in most of the large pool halls in NYC, all with calcuttas. I played in one or two a week in Queens and one particuliar week just before the calcutta bidding was to begin, several undercover vice squad police officers casually walked in and sat down close to the td. They were quite noticeable and were almost expected since this had already happened at the Golden Cue, also in Queens. Just as the the first bid began, the lead officer, identified himself as a police officer, stopped the bidding process and gathered the td and pool room owner together, privately, explaining what was legal and what was illegal in NYC. After a stern warning they left and allowed the tournament, without the calcutta, to continue. I was not privy to the exact explaination given by the officers and did not bother to research the law, but I believe that it was a NYC Statute that was violated and if I was to accept the explaination that I was given second hand, which seems logical, it was something along the order that paying an entry fee to enter a tournament where the majority of the entry fees ( not sure of the percentage) was paid out to the tournament participants was permitted. The calcutta was the problem, although I am not sure whether it was because the players were betting on players other than themselves, or that non-players were participating in the betting, but that's where the problem was created. Of course, this was NYC and different States and localities do have different laws governing gambling and tournaments.

Needless to say, without the extra money brought by the calcuttas, interest in the tournaments pretty much faded away. And rumor had it that one of the other pool rooms that this already happened became the "concerned citizen" reporting the other rooms for having calcuttas.
 
gromulan said:
Sure could. This is some fun legal discussion. In the gambling example, your opponent is actually guilty of gambling because of his intent, which was to wager on a game of chance. You however are not, because from your point of view there was no 'chance'. However, by representing it as such, and extracting monetary gain in the process, you are guilty of fraud. He will face a misdemeanor, but you are looking at a felony.

Edit: In fact, some states and Canadian provinces have express statutes against fraud in gaming, such as using marked cards or loaded dice, even if the actual gaming is illegal as well. I guess their line of thought is, it's one thing to break the law and gamble, but going beyond that to cheat while you do so is brutal. I tend to agree :)

In the drugs example the law is the same. Both parties would be guilty of posession of a controlled substance but the thief would also be looking at theft (or robbery, depending on circumstances).

It's a little like the famous case where you shoot a man as he is jumping off of a building. He is guilty of attempted suicide (though he's dead so that's moot), but you are guilty of murder.

I also like the case where you point an unloaded gun at someone and pull the trigger. If you knew the gun was unloaded then there is no crime. However, if you thought the gun was loaded then you are guilty of attempted murder. If you weren't sure if the gun was loaded or not, then you are guilty of attempted murder in the lesser degree - reckless indifference to human life.

Isn't the law fun?
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the time when some classmates of mine thought they were real smart because they were selling oregano as marijuana. They ended up being charged with Fraud, for which the penalty was higher than if they'd actually been selling marijuana...

Yes, the law is fun.

Cheers,
RC
 
I know Harry Platis actually went to court over gambling here in WA and won because he was betting on a skill of his that he had control over. Side betting is illegal because you have no personal control over the skills being used that would decide the match....unless you pay your horse an extravagant amount to dump, lol. :o
 
ridewiththewind said:
I have gotten a few suggestions, which is appreciated...but I have also been lambasted. The Calcutta may well be dead for this area anyway. We're dealing with a bunch of 'Tarheels' here.....burn them once, they won't give you the opportunity to do it again.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I still have a hard time seeing how anybody was actually burned here.
 
rackmsuckr said:
I know Harry Platis actually went to court over gambling here in WA and won because he was betting on a skill of his that he had control over. Side betting is illegal because you have no personal control over the skills being used that would decide the match....unless you pay your horse an extravagant amount to dump, lol. :o
Click to expand...

Aha, also incorrect - sidebetting can fall into the same category. Harry's case involved himself and he won and he should have, but they didn't argue the side betting aspect or he would have won that too. Side betting is also not gambling by the strictest sense of the word because, again, you are not betting on an act that involves chance.

Now it COULD be argued that if the players are equally matched, either by skill or by handicap, that from your point of view the outcome of the contest will be decided by luck, but I think this argument would fail because of the California ruling and the factor of skill being the predominant factor in the game. It's kind of like betting on horse racing - you have no control over the outcome, but that doesn't change the fact that the fastest horse with the best jockey is going to win, all other things being equal.

It may be wagerin', but it ain't gamblin'. Only the latter is illegal.
 
veteran of players auctions

lisa; :rolleyes: :eek: I am not so amused by your thunderous cut downs of us stellar Canadians.We travel a fair distance to be a part of your weekend get togethers. Dont get me wrong but an argument in any situation goes a longer ways if tou get your facts straight first.The more knowledge the wiser.I will tell it exactly how it happened. the 2 road partners had to play each other in A-side final.the one bought the other in players auction and left the other to be bought by local"we bought the cheaper of us two".before we played that match I took Bill aside and told him it is only fair that him and I should split the money as an undesireable situation would be for me to simply lose to my roadie and that would be unethical.He totally agreed and shook on it.When I had played Jim in the finals,I asked him to split, he said"YES"; we asked his calcutta guy and he said"YES" I then turned to Bill and he said "YES".they simply add first and second together and divide by two.We all then shook hands I had a drink,said goodbye and left town only to find out in Canada the next day on-line how bad people can talk.The only thing I did wrong is not amuse the crowd"FANS OF POOL" with a good final match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top