Surprised They Got Out of Town ALIVE!!

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.
 
showtime said:
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.
Click to expand...

A local owned all or half of one of the two in the finals, did he get first or second place calcutta money ?
 
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...

I did check with a lawyer, my big brother, who has 35 years experience as a lawyer, and is a pool player that played for good sums of money when he was young, and just to make sure, I had him ask the District Attorney here locally in Wichita (500,000 people) about the law. Also, my brother is affectionately known as the PoolPlayer's lawyer around here in Pool circles as he has over a 100 Poolplayers (players and league players) as
clients.

But, you never know, because back in 1968-69, when in the Navy, and on a ship in San Diego, I went on the beach, and was playing 9 ball with a buddy also on the same ship dowtown for $2 a game, and 2 undercover Narcs were at the next table, and busted us for gambling ... figure that, $2
game. Of course, they ended up turning over to the Navy, and after spending several hours in the tank, I got restricted to the ship for 2 weeks.
 
showtime said:
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.
Click to expand...

Brent.....I was not cutting down Canadians. I was not there for Sunday's events as I was out Saturday evening.....and deservedly so, I might add. I was in Alger playing on Sunday, and last I had heard from Wayne, Butch, Tony and Justin is that the tournament was still ongoing.

I walked into the shoot on Monday, and was approached by Wayne, who told me that the final set had been 'fixed', and that a couple of Canadians had duped Bill out of his portion of the Calcutta. When you hear the word 'fixed'...well, most would have a less than desireable reaction. I saw Jim D talking with Jerry M, one of the owners, in a serious conversation concerning the previous days events....but did not listen in. The place was certainly in a ruckus...I can tell you that. I spoke briefly with Bill...who did not appear happy about the situation, but again, the place was a bit crazy, and I did not go into detail with him, as he was in a game, and just happened to me near me.

As I have already stated, I did not have a clue as to how Calcuttas work. And I am still somewhat fuzzy on the subject. I was also informed here, privately, that Jim was not Canadian, and I did correct that statement. However, the issue had nothing to do with nationality....I was told Canadians, and then your names (on Monday)....to protect your names (especially until I had all the facts) I used Canadians as an identifier. I in no way meant anything in that generalization. Hey, I have never had problems with you guys north of the border, 'cept for your driving...Lol. I have played against Canadian players before....no complaints. You will find I am generally pretty easy-going around the table, win-lose or otherwise. Which is probably the main reason I don't win more often. ;) Or, I could just suck!

Seriously, I had planned on talking with Jim D to get all the details probably Saturday, when I saw him again...as I hit the area shoots pretty regularly between Woolley and Alger. What I can tell you is this: the word here on the street is that you guys 'fixed' the set, and duped Bill out of his Calcutta, and that you both will no longer be allowed to participate in future tournaments. That is what I was told, along with many others. It was the first thing I was told when I walked throught the door on Monday night....I barely had a chance to even put my gear down.

Now, if what you say is true....and I applaude and thank you for coming here to give the 'rest of the story', as Paul Harvey used to say...then I will be ripping some people a new backside, to be sure. And if you and Jim have been wronged here, I am going to be the first to stand up and tell people that that is NOT how it went down, and that some apologies are definitely forthcoming. At any rate, I will most definitely be having words with Wayne anyway....as he was the one who told me about the 'incident'. I know him and get along with him pretty well, but what's right is right...period. He should not have helped perpetuate this allegation. And I am, unknowingly, guilty of that as well. And for that I wil apologize.

Usually, there are truths on both sides of a story.....and then there is the perception of what is true. I have learned here that what most of the locals here percieved as a 'fix', is not a 'fix' at all, and is actually a common pratice in the larger tournaments. And, if Bill wasn't happy with the arrangement of the Calcutta split, then he should have spoken up and not agreed to it. This was my first tournament where a Calcutta was involved, and my first where there was an agreement to split the pot between the finalists.

For what it's worth, I watched you play for a bit on Saturday, and was glad I had not drawn you, as you where eating opponents up and spitting out, one right after the other....you're a helluva poolplayer. I did not know who you were until you were described to me on Monday evening.

So, now I will go into investigative mode, and get to the truth of the matter. If it did go down pretty much as you have described, then I will be making sure to not only correct and squash the rumour, but I will be voicing my opinion that neither Jim or yourself should be banned from any future events. AND, if they want to continue have events like this, they need to suck it up and quit being a bunch of 'crybabies'. If they want to keep the monies amongst the locals, then they need to not have anymore of these larger tournaments. I, personally, would like to see these larger tournaments continue, as the little local shoots get kinda 'been there, done that, own the shirt' after a while.

Thank you again for coming here and responding to this thread. I have, so far, gotten more information from you than I have been able to obtain from the locals. It is beginning to look more to me like a case of 'sour grapes' than anything else.

Lisa

PS...my original post was a description of the events as they were relayed to me, and I was just trying to find out if there was a way to prevent something like this from happening again.
 
Last edited:
Snapshot9 said:
But, you never know, because back in 1968-69, when in the Navy, and on a ship in San Diego, I went on the beach, and was playing 9 ball with a buddy also on the same ship dowtown for $2 a game, and 2 undercover Narcs were at the next table, and busted us for gambling ... figure that, $2
game. Of course, they ended up turning over to the Navy, and after spending several hours in the tank, I got restricted to the ship for 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Bum rap!! Definately a case for Harmon Rabb of the JAG core!
 
This is what it sounds like to me the posts are not entirely clear.

“Bill” is a local that owned a portion of one player in the finals (lets assume 50%)

There are three possible ways to split up the money as far as Bill is concerned.

-his horse loses in the finals so he gets 50% of second place calcutta money (possibility 1)

-both player split in which case he gets 25% of first and second place combined which would be more money that the first option (possibility 2)

-his horse wins in which he would get 50% of first place calcutta money (possibility 3)

When one of the players eludes to the “undesirable situation would be for me to simply lose to my roadie and that would be unethical” Bill is put in a difficult position either he accept the split the (possibility 2) option or they play out the finals and there is a good chance with what has been said that his horse will lose and get a bit less or the (possibility 1) option but little or no chance to get the (possibility 3) option of his horse winning in the finals.

He is forced to accept a middle of the road position (possibility 2) with no real possibility of winning first place calcutta money. I suspect that is where the heartburn is.
 
Last edited:
From what I can tell, the real heartburn is that "Bill" didn't get ANY calcutta money at ALL when he was due some. Am I wrong?
 
breakup said:
This is what it sounds like to me the posts are not entirely clear.

“Bill” is a local that owned a portion of one player in the finals (lets assume 50%)

There are three possible ways to split up the money as far as Bill is concerned.

-his horse loses in the finals so he gets 50% of second place calcutta money (possibility 1)

-both player split in which case he gets 25% of first and second place combined which would be more money that the first option (possibility 2)

-his horse wins in which he would get 50% of first place calcutta money (possibility 3)

When one of the players eludes to the “undesirable situation would be for me to simply lose to my roadie and that would be unethical” Bill is put in a difficult position either he accept the split the (possibility 2) option or they play out the finals and there is a good chance with what has been said that his horse will lose and get a bit less or the (possibility 1) option but little or no chance to get the (possibility 3) option of his horse winning in the finals.

He is forced to accept a middle of the road position (possibility 2) with no real possibility of winning first place calcutta money. I suspect that is where the heartburn is.
Click to expand...

Thanks breakup.....I am guessing that this could be what happened and why Bill was clearly not happy with the result. I am getting a better understanding of this whole calcutta thing. I think I will continue to avoid them, and just concentrate on playing.:D

Lisa
 
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...

Could you please link to the Supreme Court case? All I have been able to find is some lower state court decisions.
 
ridewiththewind said:
Thanks breakup.....I am guessing that this could be what happened and why Bill was clearly not happy with the result. I am getting a better understanding of this whole calcutta thing. I think I will continue to avoid them, and just concentrate on playing.:D

Lisa
Click to expand...

Sure …he probably should be happy they offered a spilt in the first place!

;)
 
gromulan said:
[...]

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'.


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. [...]
Click to expand...

Here's something I wrote on this issue several years ago.

***

*People have said that in some states betting on the flip of a
coin (outcome is based on chance) is illegal, while betting on, say, *who
can do more pullups (outcome based on skill) is not. *We all know that
while there are elements of chance in pool, pool is fundamentally a game
of skill, *right?

So humor me here and think conceptually about *the way* we tend to bet on
pool. *First look at the legal system--the advocacy system. *The goal of
our legal system in, say, a civil dispute is truth and fairness. *The
mechanism to get there though is each side advocating for itself. *The
objective of each party is to uncover facts favorable to its argument, to
present facts in a way that supports its argument, and to explain
persuasively why the facts that do not seem to support its argument are
less important or are suspect in some way. *The philosophical ideal is
that the limit of this process is truth and fairness. *That is, ignoring
practical problems like a mismatch in the means and ability to investigate
and advocate effectively, the limit is the important facts all come out,
and the misleading facts get exposed as such, and truth and fairness
prevail. *"Fairness" here might be that one side wins big time. *That is,
when the contract is analyzed and all the facts are uncovered, the
interpretation of one party might emerge as the reasonable one.

Matching up at pool has some things in common with this.

"I need the seven and the breaks."

"The seven and the breaks? *Are you crazy? *I know you've been practicing
a lot lately. * Besides I heard you've been playing Bubba straight up. *I
can't spot you"

"That was one-pocket. *Everybody know Bubba can't play one-pocket. *I
couldn't touch Bubba in 9-ball. *And I never play well on these tight
tables. *I get the 8-ball from Steve, and I know you spot him. *I need at
least the call seven and the breaks."

...etc.

Each side advocates for itself just like in the legal system. *Each side
uncovers or presents facts favorable to it and tries to minimize the
importance of unfavorable facts. *

Think of what the ideal limit here is. *As all the facts are uncovered and
as each side presents those facts in a way that supports its interest, the
limit--the ideal--is a spot that leaves a game based on chance. *So even
though pool is a game of skill with chance playing a small role generally,
gambling matchups that try to negate the skill differential leave chance
as playing a proportionally bigger role, and in the ideal limit of the
perfect matchup, the outcome is determined totally by chance.

--
mike page
fargo
 
Brent...I just thought of something else, which may well explain some of this.

I got to thinking about it, and every single shoot/tourney I have ever participated in, in this local area, has ALWAYS been played all the way out. You are probably 'right on the money'...they were pissed that it wasn't played out. I am guessing that this is the bigger 'bruise' and that the Calcutta was just the excuse. It is, however, still not an excuse to call one's integrity in to question.

If the above is truly the case, as I may suspect, I am not going to be well-liked around here for a while, but I don't really care, right is right. My basic response is going to be: 'If you wanna play with the big dogs, you're gonna have to come down off the porch.'

Lisa
 
Chris said:
Could you please link to the Supreme Court case? All I have been able to find is some lower state court decisions.
Click to expand...

I'm wrong about the Supreme Court - it was, I guess, the State Supreme Court of California.

The California case was In re Allen 59 Cal.2d 5, 377 P.2d 280 (1961).

Shouldn't make a difference - precedent is precedent.
 
mikepage said:
Think of what the ideal limit here is. *As all the facts are uncovered and
as each side presents those facts in a way that supports its interest, the
limit--the ideal--is a spot that leaves a game based on chance. *So even
though pool is a game of skill with chance playing a small role generally,
gambling matchups that try to negate the skill differential leave chance
as playing a proportionally bigger role, and in the ideal limit of the
perfect matchup, the outcome is determined totally by chance.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, however, I believe the situation from a legal standpoint relates to the nature of the GAME, and not the nature of the actual CONTEST.

In other words, even though the intent of the parties was to create a contest where luck and not skill would be the prevelant deciding factor, the nature of the game they chose to play, namely pool, is one where the predominant factor is skill, so they actually failed. Ergo, no crime committed.

Kinda showcases how you need both a criminal act and criminal intent in order to commit a crime. These guys had intent, but no act, therefore not guilty. I find it interesting that if the situation is reversed, i.e. you commit the act, but had no intent to do so, you also cannot be found guilty. The law is neato!
 
gromulan said:
Kinda showcases how you need both a criminal act and criminal intent in order to commit a crime. These guys had intent, but no act, therefore not guilty. I find it interesting that if the situation is reversed, i.e. you commit the act, but had no intent to do so, you also cannot be found guilty. The law is neato!
Click to expand...

Heh, not quite 100% though. Murder is killing someone with intent, Manslaughter is killing someone WITHOUT intent. Yet you can still go up the river for both.

I know, it's the extreme situation as far as that discussion goes...
 
ScottW said:
Heh, not quite 100% though. Murder is killing someone with intent, Manslaughter is killing someone WITHOUT intent. Yet you can still go up the river for both.

I know, it's the extreme situation as far as that discussion goes...
Click to expand...

Killing someone without the intent to commit murder, but with the intent to do another reckless act is manslaughter. Like if you get into a fight or run a run a red light or something. However if you were walking down the street and picked up a rock, and the rock had a string on it connected to a gun that went off and killed someone, you can hardly be convicted of manslaughter because, even though you caused the death, you had no intent to do anything that can reasonably be likely to have that result.
 
hate me and throw me an extra $20......SWEET

One last thing I would like to conclude.Not only did Bill get his full portion of the monies,he was kind enough to tip me $20 for my efforts on the weekend.:) :) If I am truly barred from future tournies I will be only slightly disappointed and life will go on as scheduled.thanks.
;)
 
showtime said:
One last thing I would like to conclude.Not only did Bill get his full portion of the monies,he was kind enough to tip me $20 for my efforts on the weekend.:) :) If I am truly barred from future tournies I will be only slightly disappointed and life will go on as scheduled.thanks.
;)
Click to expand...

I was just relaying what I was told on Monday. And I did tell you that I would try to deal with the issue once and for all, since I see these people all the time. I do not know why Bill would indicate to me that he was less than happy.

I have given up trying to figure out the male ego...y'all are by far and away infinitely more fickle than any women I know!!:rolleyes:

Lisa
 
ridewiththewind said:
I have given up trying to figure out the male ego...y'all are by far and away infinitely more fickle than any women I know!!:rolleyes:

Lisa
Click to expand...

Cough cough cough cough cough cough coughbscough cough cough cough cough :D :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top