Surprised They Got Out of Town ALIVE!!
- Thread starter ridewiththewind
- Start date
Chris said:
I am not going to try and explain to you the difference between right and wrong, ethical and non-ethical, that was your parent's job. Brent's behavior was unethical...period. Had Brent been a horse, the jockey certainly wouldn't be threatening to throw the race for a cut of Bill's winnings! Brent wasn't working for Bill, Brent was working for Brent...it was in his own best interests to do well in the tournament. The difference in what Bill would have made and what Bill got, due to the demanded split, was over 300.00!
For the record.....Brent would have done quite well for himself by Bill had he just left things alone.
And yes, calcuttas are illegal....and perhaps this presents a good case for why they should not be included in large (or even small) tournaments.
Lisa
Last edited:
cigardave said:
Thanks Dave for explaining this in the simplest terms possible. I am sicker than a dog, and must obviously not be getting my point across....yours was much better.
I guess the bottom line here is, that had Brent played the calcutta straight, as he would have expected should he have been in a similar situation, he would have not only taken home his tournament winnings, but a nice tip from Bill for the calcutta winnings, AND this thread would not exist. Instead, this 'veteran of players auctions' chose to strongarm Bill for a portion of his calcutta winnings, and has now hurt his reputation, as well as his ability to garner future calcuttas that could have earned him additional monies. He got greedy, and now he is suffering the fallout of that decision.
Lisa
Last edited:
cigardave said:
Why would a player be motivated to bring his "A" game to help someone else make money off the player's hard work? Sure, he might be able to make some money with a win, but he might be able to make more money by laying down. It is in the calcutta buyer's best interest to make sure the player knows that he can make more money by winning than by laying down.
Is it a classy way to play? No, but simply stated, calcuttas are not classy business.
While I agree Brent should have brought up the point before he did, I do not think he was out of line expecting a cut. Since he is known to have done this before, it was unreasonable for Bill to expect otherwise on this occasion. If Bill didn't know, it is his own fault for not doing sufficient research before placing his bet.
All this is to be expected when people play for money instead of for a love of the game.
ridewiththewind said:
I know perfectly well the difference between right and wrong. Exploiting someone else's hard work is wrong.
If Bill was going to tip Brent well for winning, then the difference between what Brent received and what Brent would have received would have been far less than $300. In fact, if Bill was going to tip well, there shouldn't have been much difference at all. Brent just made sure Bill did the right thing.
ridewiththewind said:Thanks Dave for explaining this in the simplest terms possible. I am sicker than a dog, and must obviously not be getting my point across....yours was much better.
Lisa
Anytime kiddo. Hope that you're feelin' better soon!!
And with Chris, I guess that his perspective is more indictative of a pool player that lives from day-to-day... and has to find any way to get cash into his pocket.
If the ends justify the means, then it's OK... I guess.
Chris said:
I'm sorry Chris... but that doesn't address the point... at all.
Had Brent done that to Bill before, then I can accept your statement.
That said, I still don't condone what Brent did nor does it justify what Brent did... I just accept your statement above.
Chris said:
Since neither Bill nor myself travel to play....I know that I was not aware of the previous incident. As for those who were at that particular event, it is generally agreed that no one thought that he would have the balls to pull it again. It got very, very ugly.
And, had he pulled this with someone other than Bill...who is a complete gentleman all the way...I am not so sure that he would have gotten away with it here.
Lisa
Chris...You cannot win this debate. You're way out of line with your opinion.
A calcutta is an AUCTION where anyone and everyone can bid on any player...whether they know them, or know of them, or not. It is NOTHING like a stakehorse backing a player, where a prearranged split has already been established. Regardless, unless there is a specific rule requiring the purchased player to have the opportunity to BUY half their calcutta price, there is no obligation to share any winnings. Yes, it is a courtesy, and happens in most calcuttas, but it ends there. To state that the player has a right to get a cut of the calcutta, without some prior arrangement, is simply ludicrous...and then to say he should get it without paying for it, is absurd.
All that said, I have always believed, that in calcuttas, it's always "let the buyer beware!" There is frequently no honor among thieves.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
A calcutta is an AUCTION where anyone and everyone can bid on any player...whether they know them, or know of them, or not. It is NOTHING like a stakehorse backing a player, where a prearranged split has already been established. Regardless, unless there is a specific rule requiring the purchased player to have the opportunity to BUY half their calcutta price, there is no obligation to share any winnings. Yes, it is a courtesy, and happens in most calcuttas, but it ends there. To state that the player has a right to get a cut of the calcutta, without some prior arrangement, is simply ludicrous...and then to say he should get it without paying for it, is absurd.
All that said, I have always believed, that in calcuttas, it's always "let the buyer beware!" There is frequently no honor among thieves.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Chris said:
No, I'm reading close enuf.
Agree or disagree with this????... "What Brent did was acceptable to me?"... meaning... "I would not be offended if Brent did that to me."
For the record, I would be offended.
You seem to be presenting arguments why Bill should not have been offended... and in that sense only are you looking at this situation from a different perspective. That's what I meant by that comment.
cigardave said:
Lisa has stated in more than one post that word travels fast in that area, so Bill should have known. If he didn't, it is because he didn't do sufficient research before placing his bet.
For the record, I don't agree with how Brent went about getting his half, but I do agree that he should have received a substantial portion of the calcutta winnings.
If it's going to be about the money, then why was Brent wrong when he ensured he would make some for his WORK? It's not like he held Bill at gunpoint for the cash. Bill could have said "No." Maybe Brent would have lost, maybe not. Since Bill didn't say "no," he has no reason to complain, IMO.
cigardave said:
IF I had purchased Brent in a calcutta, I would have made sure he knew at the time of my purchase that he would get half of the winnings (payout minus purchase price) for his work if he won. To me, that is the only proper way to do things.
So yes, what Brent did was acceptable. However, I do believe he should have done it at the time of purchase instead of late in second day; it would have shown more class.
Chris said:
My understanding was that is was the DECIDING game of that set, and I believe Brent was ahead. It was at that point that he pulled Bill aside and made his demand of half the calcutta winnings from Bill or he would 'lay down'. As far as I am concerned, Brent has no honor.
Yes, word does generally travel fast in these parts......the other tournament took place on the other side of the Cascade Mountains in eastern WA. I don't expect you to understand, because you are on the east coast (that's not a dig, BTW). It's just a whole different world out here geographically.
Lisa
Last edited:
Scott Lee said:Chris...You cannot win this debate. You're way out of line with your opinion.
A calcutta is an AUCTION where anyone and everyone can bid on any player...whether they know them, or know of them, or not. It is NOTHING like a stakehorse backing a player, where a prearranged split has already been established. Regardless, unless there is a specific rule requiring the purchased player to have the opportunity to BUY half their calcutta price, there is no obligation to share any winnings. Yes, it is a courtesy, and happens in most calcuttas, but it ends there. To state that the player has a right to get a cut of the calcutta, without some prior arrangement, is simply ludicrous...and then to say he should get it without paying for it, is absurd.
All that said, I have always believed, that in calcuttas, it's always "let the buyer beware!" There is frequently no honor among thieves.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Since calcuttas are mostly illegal, players can do pretty much whatever they want. If a player wants to lay down to keep a buyer from winning, that player is free to do just that.
Since Brent received his cut without buying into the calcutta, it is obviously not as ludicrous or absurd as you think.
Chris said:
And one of the first things Bill said to me was that had Brent come to him early on wanting to buy back his half of the calcutta, he'd have been happy to oblige. I believe Bill had already done that with another calcutta that he bought...he had more than one. It was my understanding that Brent had purchased Dez in the calcutta, and had no money left with which to buy himself back. So, seeing he was going to place in the 'money' on the tournament side of things, he decided he wanted his half afterall, so he went to Bill and demanded it or he would 'lay down'.
Lisa
Many years ago a top local player was bidding on himself in a calcutta. When the bidding got too high he began to get agitated and angry (He never wanted anyone else to make any money off his play unless they were betting with him personally). Anyway the bidding eventually got over his head and he did not win the bid. The successful bidder offered him 50% and he declined. In an effort to drive down his stock in future events he played like a D- player and went out in 2 in essence saying anyone that buys me buys this game. His grandstanding won him a lifetime ban from those calcuttas.
As a point of clarification no one was forced to be in the calcutta, if you chose not to be just leave the room. There was a rule one must be present to be bid on in the calcutta. Others tried to manipulate that little loophole to their advantage by going for a lower than fair price because of the uncertainty of whether or not they will show when the tournament starts. If they went for too much they did not show and some lucky bidder is holding a pricy ticket for a horse that did not show.
Classy stuff
As a point of clarification no one was forced to be in the calcutta, if you chose not to be just leave the room. There was a rule one must be present to be bid on in the calcutta. Others tried to manipulate that little loophole to their advantage by going for a lower than fair price because of the uncertainty of whether or not they will show when the tournament starts. If they went for too much they did not show and some lucky bidder is holding a pricy ticket for a horse that did not show.
Classy stuff
ridewiththewind said:
I simply do not believe a player should have to buy half of himself to get half of the winnings. The buyers should do the investing; the players should do the work, and the winning buyer and player should split the profit. They would both come out ahead. It is a very normal way of doing business, and would help ensure all the players play as well as they can.
Of course I've never been one to accept "because it's always been done that way" as a valid reason for much of anything.
Last edited: