Surprised They Got Out of Town ALIVE!!

[ridewiththewind]

The Particulars

I finally got the particulars of what went down, Brent didn't tell it exactly the way it happened.

Before the tournament started, Calcutta time: Bill buys Brent, Brent buys Dez....fast-forward to the set where Brent and Dez are playing for the hot seat. Whomever loses the set, takes third place. Brent goes to Bill and tells Bill that he thinks he is entitled to a portion of Bill's calcutta monies, should Brent win, and if Bill doesn't want to GIVE (not sell) Brent HALF of his calcutta, then he will "lay down" in the set against Dez, and Bill will be out all his calcutta on Brent, and Brent will likely make his calcutta on Dez. Bill felt he had no choice but to agree to Brent's terms. Basically, the general consensus is that Brent extorted his half of Bill's calcutta from Bill. Brent went on to beat Dez, and then he and Jim decided to split the final. Brent never offered to buy his half of Bill's calcutta on him. It is because of this behavior that Brent is no longer allowed to participate in any future events @ Cues-N-Brews/The Overflow.

Apparently, Brent has pulled/tried to pull this similar 'extortion' technique at other tournaments in the state, which is why he has been banned from those events as well. Seems that Brent is a bit of a 'bad boy'.

I got this information from the tournament director....and then one of the other top players in the tournament confirmed this info, as well as a few other players who witnessed what happened. Bill stood to make a fair piece of money from Brent's calcutta, and Brent wanted a piece of it, without paying for it....so he extorted it.

Lisa

 

[showtime]

make it easy

lisa, please enlist all tournaments I am banned from.very curious as to know what a Bad Boy I curiously am.this is my absolute last discussions with you.

 

[Snapshot9]

I would be interested too ...

lisa, please enlist all tournaments I am banned from.very curious as to know what a Bad Boy I curiously am.this is my absolute last discussions with you.

Since what you did is cheating basically. You are given a chance to buy half of yourself BEFORE the tournaemnet starts, not depending on whether you have leverage or not. You deserve to get banned.

 

[ridewiththewind]

lisa, please enlist all tournaments I am banned from.very curious as to know what a Bad Boy I curiously am.this is my absolute last discussions with you.

Of course this is your last discussion....because you have no defense to what I said.

You really don't want me to post here what happened in Omak, do you?

Lisa

 

[Chris]

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.

It is a precedent in California, but not necessarilly in other states, as it was state/local law being interpreted by the state court.

 

[Deadon]

It is a precedent in California, but not necessarilly in other states, as it was state/local law being interpreted by the state court.

Actually local ordinances and the lottery prohibition of the California Penal Code. The DA, short for dumb ass, pardon my attitude, tried to liken poker jackpots to lottery, even suggestions that bridge is a game of chance. I have the attitude because I was once arrested for playing $1.00 nine ball, a ring game no less. 4 undercover cops, seems they had nothing else to do.

 

[7footmonster]

i dont understand the reason for banning anyone because Bill was pretty much put in a win/win situation...it didnt matter who won the hot seat...Bill was still getting half of all calcutta money between dez and brent...which put him ahead about 150 bucks ...he agreed and shook hands on it...i dont see any problem...who gets banned anyways?? brent, bill, dez and jim too for splitting first and second??...thats crazy...let em all play...just tellem no more splitting

 

[ridewiththewind]

i dont understand the reason for banning anyone because Bill was pretty much put in a win/win situation...it didnt matter who won the hot seat...Bill was still getting half of all calcutta money between dez and brent...which put him ahead about 150 bucks ...he agreed and shook hands on it...i dont see any problem...who gets banned anyways?? brent, bill, dez and jim too for splitting first and second??...thats crazy...let em all play...just tellem no more splitting

As Calcuttas have been explained to me, if Brent wanted half of his calcutta back from Bill, then he needed to PURCHASE back from Bill, afterll, Bill is the one who ponied-up his money, not Brent. For Brent to wait until he had the leverage to strongarm Bill into GIVING him half the calcutta is cheating, not to mention extortion. Bottom line, Brent wanted half of Bill's action, without having to pay for it!!! Brent got something for nothing...and what a scam it was....and not the first time that Brent has pulled that little manuever.

I talked to Bill about this. I told him the way it was told here. He told me that he agreed to it, because he really felt that he had no choice.....GIVE (not sell, as is customary) Brent the half he was demanding, or lose the big calcutta money he could/would have had coming. Generally, when someone demands something that does not belong to them, it is considered theft. And, if Brent is such the 'veteran of players auctions' that he claims, he knew exactly what he was doing. Scuttlebutt has it that because Brent had bought Dez in the calcutta, he had no money left to purchase half of himself back from Bill before the tournament started. So, he waited until he had leverage, by threatening to 'laydown' in his set against Dez if Bill didn't GIVE him half of the calcutta. This had NOTHING to do with the final set between Brent and Jim, in which they agreed to split the tournament pay-out for 1st and 2nd.

He should be banned. And besides, it was the tavern owners' decision to ban him. AND, all the players I have spoken with who participated, all agree he should be banned as well. Bad timing on Brent's part, since there is an even bigger (with bigger money) event taking place in August at the same location.

Lisa

 

[gromulan]

As Calcuttas have been explained to me, if Brent wanted half of his calcutta back from Bill, then he needed to PURCHASE back from Bill, afterll, Bill is the one who ponied-up his money, not Brent. For Brent to wait until he had the leverage to strongarm Bill into GIVING him half the calcutta is cheating, not to mention extortion. Bottom line, Brent wanted half of Bill's action, without having to pay for it!!! Brent got something for nothing...and what a scam it was....and not the first time that Brent has pulled that little manuever.

I talked to Bill about this. I told him the way it was told here. He told me that he agreed to it, because he really felt that he had no choice.....GIVE (not sell, as is customary) Brent the half he was demanding, or lose the big calcutta money he could/would have had coming. Generally, when someone demands something that does not belong to them, it is considered theft. And, if Brent is such the 'veteran of players auctions' that he claims, he knew exactly what he was doing. Scuttlebutt has it that because Brent had bought Dez in the calcutta, he had no money left to purchase half of himself back from Bill before the tournament started. So, he waited until he had leverage, by threatening to 'laydown' in his set against Dez if Bill didn't GIVE him half of the calcutta. This had NOTHING to do with the final set between Brent and Jim, in which they agreed to split the tournament pay-out for 1st and 2nd.

He should be banned. And besides, it was the tavern owners' decision to ban him. AND, all the players I have spoken with who participated, all agree he should be banned as well. Bad timing on Brent's part, since there is an even bigger (with bigger money) event taking place in August at the same location.

Lisa

If I understand things properly, Bill is the one who got shafted (as explained above). This does not forgive the fact that he handled the situation poorly. Had it been me, or no doubt many others, I would have had this exact response to Brent:

"You MAY NOT have any part of my action. Now go do whatever you think is right." If he dumps the match or whatever then so be it - these things catch up to people in the long run.

 

[ridewiththewind]

If I understand things properly, Bill is the one who got shafted (as explained above). This does not forgive the fact that he handled the situation poorly. Had it been me, or no doubt many others, I would have had this exact response to Brent:

"You MAY NOT have any part of my action. Now go do whatever you think is right." If he dumps the match or whatever then so be it - these things catch up to people in the long run.

You're probably right. I think it was a case of Bill having a lot of money involved, and the fact that it threw him off-guard. It just wasn't something he was expecting at that point in the tournament....being into the end of day 2. Bill did tell me that he would have been more than happy to sell Brent back half of his calcutta before the tournament started...I believe he did sell back half to someone else Bill had purchased. Bill is like this tho'. He is extremely good-natured and even-tempered. You would have to know him really well to even know he was upset about the situation. He told me he felt like he had been left no choice in the matter.

I think Brent is going to have a tough time getting anyone to purchase his calcutta in the future....word travels fast in these parts.

Lisa

 

[Chris]

As Calcuttas have been explained to me, if Brent wanted half of his calcutta back from Bill, then he needed to PURCHASE back from Bill, afterll, Bill is the one who ponied-up his money, not Brent. For Brent to wait until he had the leverage to strongarm Bill into GIVING him half the calcutta is cheating, not to mention extortion. Bottom line, Brent wanted half of Bill's action, without having to pay for it!!! Brent got something for nothing...and what a scam it was....and not the first time that Brent has pulled that little manuever.

I talked to Bill about this. I told him the way it was told here. He told me that he agreed to it, because he really felt that he had no choice.....GIVE (not sell, as is customary) Brent the half he was demanding, or lose the big calcutta money he could/would have had coming. Generally, when someone demands something that does not belong to them, it is considered theft. And, if Brent is such the 'veteran of players auctions' that he claims, he knew exactly what he was doing. Scuttlebutt has it that because Brent had bought Dez in the calcutta, he had no money left to purchase half of himself back from Bill before the tournament started. So, he waited until he had leverage, by threatening to 'laydown' in his set against Dez if Bill didn't GIVE him half of the calcutta. This had NOTHING to do with the final set between Brent and Jim, in which they agreed to split the tournament pay-out for 1st and 2nd.

He should be banned. And besides, it was the tavern owners' decision to ban him. AND, all the players I have spoken with who participated, all agree he should be banned as well. Bad timing on Brent's part, since there is an even bigger (with bigger money) event taking place in August at the same location.

Lisa

If Brent has done this before, then Bill has no reason to complain. He should have expected it. If he didn't like the prospect of sharing his winnings, he shouldn't have bought Brent in the calcutta.

If a player is making someone money, it seems more than reasonable to give, not sell, that player a significant portion of the winnings.

 

[ridewiththewind]

If Brent has done this before, then Bill has no reason to complain. He should have expected it. If he didn't like the prospect of sharing his winnings, he shouldn't have bought Brent in the calcutta.

I do not believe that Bill was aware of the incident that took place in Omak. I was not aware until I was told by some who attended that event.

If a player is making someone money, it seems more than reasonable to give, not sell, that player a significant portion of the winnings.

And by that same thinking, then, if Brent would have tanked the tournament, then Brent should have paid Bill back the calcutta buy-in?! Gimme a break!! If Brent wanted a piece, he should have bought it PRIOR to the tournament, as is the normal practice with calcuttas...as they have been explained to me. Additionally, Bill had planned on a sizable tip to Brent.....Bill is pretty generous that way. Threatening to 'lay down' or else was nothing short of extortion!! BTW...nobody GIVES you anything in life, (unless, of course, you're born with a silver spoon, or just spoiled rotten), you have the EARN it!! Bill stood to make a sizable amount of money, as Brent wasn't the only calcutta he bought. Brent would have done quite well by Bill, had Brent given Bill the opportunity. Instead, Brent got GREEDY, and used low-life tactics to fulfill that GREED.

Your reasoning is instrinsically flawed.

Lisa

 

[Nostroke]

Your reasoning is instrinsically flawed.

Lisa

Amen sister!

 

[Chris]

I do not believe that Bill was aware of the incident that took place in Omak. I was not aware until I was told by some who attended that event.

Sorry, I was under the impression that word travels fast in those parts. At any rate, gamblers are best served when they know their teams/players/horses well.

And by that same thinking, then, if Brent would have tanked the tournament, then Brent should have paid Bill back the calcutta buy-in?! Gimme a break!! If Brent wanted a piece, he should have bought it PRIOR to the tournament, as is the normal practice with calcuttas...as they have been explained to me. Additionally, Bill had planned on a sizable tip to Brent.....Bill is pretty generous that way. Threatening to 'lay down' or else was nothing short of extortion!! BTW...nobody GIVES you anything in life, (unless, of course, you're born with a silver spoon, or just spoiled rotten), you have the EARN it!! Bill stood to make a sizable amount of money, as Brent wasn't the only calcutta he bought. Brent would have done quite well by Bill, had Brent given Bill the opportunity. Instead, Brent got GREEDY, and used low-life tactics to fulfill that GREED.

Bill wasn't "earning" anything. He saw a chance to gamble on a player and possibly make a quick buck. That is "earning" money like a pimp "earns" money.

A calcutta shouldn't be any different than any other times a player is backed in a gambling match. If the player wins, the backer and the player split the money in a mutually agreeable manner. If the player loses, the backer eats the loss. It is done that way to help ensure the player plays his best game, and doesn't lay down. It isn't a perfect system, but it works most of the time.

Playing in and winning a tournament is a lot closer to earning money than buying that player in a calcutta. I don't see any reason Brent was obligated to bring his best game. He made a shrewd business decision, and it paid off for him. Is it how I would have done it myself? No, but that does not make it wrong.

Your reasoning is instrinsically flawed.

How so?

 

[cigardave]

Chris said... Bill wasn't "earning" anything. He saw a chance to gamble on a player and possibly make a quick buck. That is "earning" money like a pimp "earns" money.

<shaking head>... I can't believe that I just read THAT. Brother, you'll have to spend a looooooooong time explainin' that logic to me.

And re your comparison to a backer and splitting the winnings with the player... IMO, that doesn't apply here.

Someone who buys a player in a calcutta is not that player's backer... no way... no how!!

In a calcutta, it is common courtesy for the buyer to offer to the player the opportunity to buy 1/2 of himself. A courtesy... not an obligation!!

And it's a courtesy for the buyer to tip the player if the player places in the calcutta money... again, not an obligation.

The buyers of players in a calcutta owe the players nothing.

 

[ScottW]

Bottom line, calcuttas = gambling and gambling = RISK. Not only risk that the shooter you bought will or will not do well, but risk that the shooter you bought won't try and pull a fast one to line his/her own pockets at the expense of the poor sod who bought him. The whole tournament/calcutta system basically has a virtual sheet of paper taped on its back that reads "Abuse me!"

I can sympathize with this Bill fellow- but I'll bet you (Har! Bet! A pun! ) that this experience will stick with him for a looong time and it'll be on his mind every time he considers buying into a calcutta from now on. A lesson learned, methinks.

 

[Chris]

Chris said... Bill wasn't "earning" anything. He saw a chance to gamble on a player and possibly make a quick buck. That is "earning" money like a pimp "earns" money.

<shaking head>... I can't believe that I just read THAT. Brother, you'll have to spend a looooooooong time explainin' that logic to me.

And re your comparison to a backer and splitting the winnings with the player... IMO, that doesn't apply here.

Someone who buys a player in a calcutta is not that player's backer... no way... no how!!

In a calcutta, it is common courtesy for the buyer to offer to the player the opportunity to buy 1/2 of himself. A courtesy... not an obligation!!

And it's a courtesy for the buyer to tip the player if the player places in the calcutta money... again, not an obligation.

The buyers of players in a calcutta owe the players nothing.

I don't see the big difference between backing a player and buying them in a calcutta. It may be a different betting format, but it is still quite similar.

It is also a courtesy for a player to bring his best game, not an obligation. The players owe the buyers of the calcutta nothing. It is in the buyers' best interest to split winnings with the players that worked to make money for those buyers.

 

[ridewiththewind]

Sorry, I was under the impression that word travels fast in those parts. At any rate, gamblers are best served when they know their teams/players/horses well.



Bill wasn't "earning" anything. He saw a chance to gamble on a player and possibly make a quick buck. That is "earning" money like a pimp "earns" money.

A calcutta shouldn't be any different than any other times a player is backed in a gambling match. If the player wins, the backer and the player split the money in a mutually agreeable manner. If the player loses, the backer eats the loss. It is done that way to help ensure the player plays his best game, and doesn't lay down. It isn't a perfect system, but it works most of the time.

Playing in and winning a tournament is a lot closer to earning money than buying that player in a calcutta. I don't see any reason Brent was obligated to bring his best game. He made a shrewd business decision, and it paid off for him. Is it how I would have done it myself? No, but that does not make it wrong.



How so?

It's called blackmail/extortion. That makes it wrong, not to mention unethical. If it weren't those things, then I guess we would be hearing of more stories like this, wouldn't we. Bill was assuming all the risk, not Brent. So Brent should benefit from Bill's risk how? Personally, I could not look at myself in the mirror if I threw a game. My integrity is infinitely more important to me than a few extra bucks. Brent was in the position to make his own money, and it wasn't too shabby either. GREED prompted him to go after Bill's potential winnings, instead of being happy with his own.

Brent's buy-in for the tournament was 40.00, Bill's calcutta on Brent was 350.00. Bill was assuming all the risk, why should Brent benefit from it?!

Lisa

 

[cigardave]

I don't see the big difference between backing a player and buying them in a calcutta. It may be a different betting format, but it is still quite similar. To me, the difference is... a backer and a player have entered into a verbal agreement prior to making a game. The buyer of a player in a calcutta has not. Prior agreement?... obligation. No prior agreement?... no obligation.

It is also a courtesy for a player to bring his best game, not an obligation. True... typically because they paid their own entry fee and see it as an opportunity to make some money. In other words, it's in their best interest to bring their best game. The players owe the buyers of the calcutta nothing. I agree. It is in the buyers' best interest to split winnings with the players that worked to make money for those buyers.

This last one I don't follow because no prior agreement is in place. If your point is... that in future tournamnts with calcuttas, the player will perform better if their calcutta buyer tipped them in the last tournament... well then, I don't agree. I don't see a possible relationship.

OTOH, if your point is... the player won't tank his calcutta buyer in the next tournament if his buyer tips him this tournament... then shame on the player!!... that's all I can say.

If I missed your point, pls explain.

 

[Chris]

It's called blackmail/extortion. That makes it wrong, not to mention unethical. If it weren't those things, then I guess we would be hearing of more stories like this, wouldn't we. Bill was assuming all the risk, not Brent. So Brent should benefit from Bill's risk how? Personally, I could not look at myself in the mirror if I threw a game. My integrity is infinitely more important to me than a few extra bucks. Brent was in the position to make his own money, and it wasn't too shabby either. GREED prompted him to go after Bill's potential winnings, instead of being happy with his own.

Brent's buy-in for the tournament was 40.00, Bill's calcutta on Brent was 350.00. Bill was assuming all the risk, why should Brent benefit from it?!

Lisa

Blackmail? Extortion? Isn't the calcutta illegal to begin with?

I don't see how Brent expecting a cut of the winnings is either wrong or unethical. I don't necessarilly agree with the manner in which he ensured he would get a cut, but I don't see that he had too many other options.

GREED prompted the calcutta and the player sales. Brent should have benefited because he was the one that did ALL OF THE WORK for the win. Without Brent's work, neither he nor Bill would have made anything. With Brent's work, they both made money. I'm having a difficult time undertanding how Bill was hurt.