Surprised They Got Out of Town ALIVE!!

Chris said:
As I previously stated, I believe it was not what he did, but when he did it that showed a lack of class. Had he done it in a manner which would have allowed Bill to choose to not buy him, that would have been much better.
Click to expand...


A little humor here...



Calcutta auctioneer... "OK, we're now up to $275 on Brent... who wants to bid $300 on Brent?"

Voice from the back of the room... "I will.

Calcutta auctioneer... "Great, we're now up to $300 on Brent... who wants to bid $350 on Brent?"

Brent.... "HEY EVERYBODY... DON'T BID ON ME UNLESS YOU AGREE TO PAY ME HALF OF YOUR WINNINGS... AND BY THE WAY, DON'T EXPECT ME TO GIVE YOU ONE CENT TOWARDS HALF OF WHAT YOU BUY ME FOR... CUZ I AIN'T... I GET HALF OF YOUR WINNINGS OR YOU GET NOTHIN' CUZ I'LL LAY DOWN IF YOU BUY ME AND DON'T AGREE TO GIVE ME MY HARD-EARNED 50%!!!

Bill... "I bid $350 for Brent... and Brent, no problem brother... you got it!!"
 
Last edited:
cigardave said:
A little humor here...



Calcutta auctioneer... "OK, we're now up to $275 on Brent... who wants to bid $300 on Brent?"

Voice from the back of the room... "I will.

Calcutta auctioneer... "Great, we're now up to $300 on Brent... who wants to bid $350 on Brent?"

Brent.... "HEY EVERYBODY... DON'T BID ON ME UNLESS YOU AGREE TO PAY ME HALF OF YOUR WINNINGS... AND BY THE WAY, DON'T EXPECT ME TO GIVE YOU ONE CENT TOWARDS HALF OF WHAT YOU BUY ME FOR... CUZ I AIN'T... I GET HALF OF YOUR WINNINGS OR YOU GET NOTHIN' CUZ I'LL LAY DOWN IF YOU BUT ME AND DON'T AGREE!!!

Bill... "I bid $350 for Brent... and Brent, no problem brother... you got it!!"
Click to expand...

I guess you're right. :D :D :D That means, of course, that Brent was correct with his timing, too!!!!! :eek:
 
The easy way to rectify the situation:

You can only split if- Both players have themselves and split evenly, there is an agreement between the purchasers and its amicable, OR you split and the calcutta moneys moves DOWN to third place. These get said ahead of time and thats it.

JV
 
Chris 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.

.
Click to expand...


You are only referring to the lucky individuals that have winning players. The bulk of the calcutta money is from people that made losing bets. People will only take long odds bets (what a calcutta is) if the profit they stand to make is commensurate with the risk. Assuming you will give away 50% to the player takes away the incentive to participate for all but the most impulsive bidder.
 
Chris 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.
Click to expand...


Brent would be doing the WORK if Bill was stakehorsing him...and the above logic would apply. However, in this case, Brent was WORKING FOR HIMSELF. He had no stakehorse, he had himself, his money. Bill won an auction, giving him the right, should he chose, to hold the LIABILITY for the full purchase price of the wager. Because Bill won that right to be the sole wagerer...he could have NOT sold Brent back half of himself....and could have actually sold a portion to someone else, if he chose to do so. He bid, and won Brent's calcutta...it was his to do as he wished. It was separate from the tournament. However, Brent made it part of the tournament when he threatened to throw the set, thereby changing the outcome of the tournament as a whole. I am actually surprised that he was not thrown out right then and there.

Lisa
 
breakup said:
You are only referring to the lucky individuals that have winning players. The bulk of the calcutta money is from people that made losing bets. People will only take long odds bets (what a calcutta is) if the profit they stand to make is commensurate with the risk. Assuming you will give away 50% to the player takes away the incentive to participate for all but the most impulsive bidder.
Click to expand...

It would likely keep the bids lower, but it would also likely draw in more players, since it would essentially be money added to the tournament for them.
 
ridewiththewind said:
Brent would be doing the WORK if Bill was stakehorsing him...and the above logic would apply. However, in this case, Brent was WORKING FOR HIMSELF. He had no stakehorse, he had himself, his money. Bill won an auction, giving him the right, should he chose, to hold the LIABILITY for the full purchase price of the wager. Because Bill won that right to be the sole wagerer...he could have NOT sold Brent back half of himself....and could have actually sold a portion to someone else, if he chose to do so. He bid, and won Brent's calcutta...it was his to do as he wished. It was separate from the tournament. However, Brent made it part of the tournament when he threatened to throw the set, thereby changing the outcome of the tournament as a whole. I am actually surprised that he was not thrown out right then and there.

Lisa
Click to expand...

That’s when you decline his strong arm offer and sell 1/2 of Bret to the Samoan gang (or gang of your choice) for a reduced price.:cool:
 
ridewiththewind said:
Brent would be doing the WORK if Bill was stakehorsing him...and the above logic would apply. However, in this case, Brent was WORKING FOR HIMSELF. He had no stakehorse, he had himself, his money. Bill won an auction, giving him the right, should he chose, to hold the LIABILITY for the full purchase price of the wager. Because Bill won that right to be the sole wagerer...he could have NOT sold Brent back half of himself....and could have actually sold a portion to someone else, if he chose to do so. He bid, and won Brent's calcutta...it was his to do as he wished. It was separate from the tournament. However, Brent made it part of the tournament when he threatened to throw the set, thereby changing the outcome of the tournament as a whole. I am actually surprised that he was not thrown out right then and there.

Lisa
Click to expand...

The player is still doing all the work. What work does the bidder do? Absolutely none. If the players were to normally get half of the winnings, it would help reduce the number of thrown matches, as they would have even more financial incentive to win.

I don't buy the argument that the calcutta is seperate from the tournament. How would the calcutta be done if the tournament weren't played?

Why do you feel Brent was under any obligation to play his best game? Why should he be thrown out for throwing or even threatening to throw a set?
 
It's called

Chris said:
The player is still doing all the work. What work does the bidder do? Absolutely none. If the players were to normally get half of the winnings, it would help reduce the number of thrown matches, as they would have even more financial incentive to win.

I don't buy the argument that the calcutta is seperate from the tournament. How would the calcutta be done if the tournament weren't played?

Why do you feel Brent was under any obligation to play his best game? Why should he be thrown out for throwing or even threatening to throw a set?
Click to expand...

UnSportsman like conduct, and a tournament director has complete authority for determining it, and the penalty for such. That's why Jack Hynes has been banned from more Pool rooms that probably any good player in Pool history. There are rules of conduct that must be observed, and if they are broken, they can have a fould called on them, lose a game in a match because of it, get a warning, or get thrown out of the tournament and forfeit any money coming to them, and get banned from the tour or tournament foreever ..... It is purely the tournament director's decision in such matters.
 
Chris said:
The player is still doing all the work. What work does the bidder do? Absolutely none. If the players were to normally get half of the winnings, it would help reduce the number of thrown matches, as they would have even more financial incentive to win.

I don't buy the argument that the calcutta is seperate from the tournament. How would the calcutta be done if the tournament weren't played?

Why do you feel Brent was under any obligation to play his best game? Why should he be thrown out for throwing or even threatening to throw a set?
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is that you still fail to grasp what most others here are having no difficulty grasping.........calcutta money is NOT tournament money. They are separate. The player is working for himself, unless, of course, someone staked his entry fee. The calcutta is a side bet and much like betting a horse. The horse and jockey work for no one but the owner....they do not work for the those who are wagering on them at the track or off-track, anymore than a player in a tournament is working for someone who has a wager on them. Your argument might hold water if the person holding the wager also staked the player's entry fee. But this was not the case. And please don't kid yourself...as a player, you should know that Brent was playing for no one but himself.

I am beginning to wonder tho' that since Brent bought Dez in the calcutta, that one of his other 'roadies' was supposed to buy Brent, and Bill threw a monkeywrench into the works by outbidding one of the 'roadies'. Now that I think about it, Bill's bid was like the highest amount bid on anyone in the Calcutta. It certainly would throw a whole different light on things, now wouldn't it?! Kinda makes you go 'hmmmmmmmmm'.:)

Lisa
 
Last edited:
Snapshot9 said:
UnSportsman like conduct, and a tournament director has complete authority for determining it, and the penalty for such. That's why Jack Hynes has been banned from more Pool rooms that probably any good player in Pool history. There are rules of conduct that must be observed, and if they are broken, they can have a fould called on them, lose a game in a match because of it, get a warning, or get thrown out of the tournament and forfeit any money coming to them, and get banned from the tour or tournament foreever ..... It is purely the tournament director's decision in such matters.
Click to expand...

I've seen lots of people throw matches for various reasons. I'm sure you have too. Some are obvious about it, but most are less so. I'm sure I've seen far more thrown matches than I know about. It happens all the time.
 
ridewiththewind said:
What I don't understand is that you still fail to grasp what most others here are having no difficulty grasping.........calcutta money is NOT tournament money. They are separate. The player is working for himself, unless, of course, someone staked his entry fee. The calcutta is a side bet and much like betting a horse. The horse and jockey work for no one but the owner....they do not work for the those who are wagering on them at the track or off-track, anymore than a player in a tournament is working for someone who has a wager on them. Your argument might hold water if the person holding the wager also staked the player's entry fee. But this was not the case. And please don't kid yourself...as a player, you should know that Brent was playing for no one but himself.
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference you see. If the tournament and the calcutta were seperate, the player wouldn't have to be present in order to be auctioned off for the calcutta. No, the calcutta depends on the tournament, and the potential profits from the calcutta will inevitably affect the tourny. They are intertwined.

The buyer cannot win unless the player does work. The player is not out of line expecting compensation from the buyer for that work. It doesn't matter whether or not the player payed his own entry. If he had been staked for the entry fee, then he would owe the backer a portion of the tournament winnings. The investor and the worker split the profits.

I don't presume to know Brent's motivations. I just don't think he was wrong to expect a fat jelly roll from his calcutta buyer if he won.
 
Chris said:
I don't see the difference you see. If the tournament and the calcutta were seperate, the player wouldn't have to be present in order to be auctioned off for the calcutta. No, the calcutta depends on the tournament, and the potential profits from the calcutta will inevitably affect the tourny. They are intertwined.

The buyer cannot win unless the player does work. The player is not out of line expecting compensation from the buyer for that work. It doesn't matter whether or not the player payed his own entry. If he had been staked for the entry fee, then he would owe the backer a portion of the tournament winnings. The investor and the worker split the profits.

I don't presume to know Brent's motivations. I just don't think he was wrong to expect a fat jelly roll from his calcutta buyer if he won.
Click to expand...


At this point, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.:D

Lisa
 
Chris said:
The player is still doing all the work. What work does the bidder do? Absolutely none. If the players were to normally get half of the winnings, it would help reduce the number of thrown matches, as they would have even more financial incentive to win.
Click to expand...

So by that logic, do you figure that, say, the owner of a race horse should get a percentage of the bets placed on his horse for a given race, should the horse/jockey (who are doing all the work) place well enough?

Or should pro/college football/baseball/basketball teams all get percentages of all the bets made on them around the country, should they win?

The bidder not be 'doing any work' but he's doing something - he's putting up HIS money. Having someone who he has bought approach him late in the match and threaten to cause the bidder to lose his money is, in no uncertain terms, extortion. "That's a nice bid you got there. Shame if something happened to it."

If players and bidders want to reach an agreement amongst themselves, regardless of the outcome of the tournament, more power to'em. This guy decided he wanted to change the rules at the end, to suit him.

There's good reasons why participants in contests shouldn't be participating in the betting on those contests. Just ask Pete Rose.
 
ScottW said:
So by that logic, do you figure that, say, the owner of a race horse should get a percentage of the bets placed on his horse for a given race, should the horse/jockey (who are doing all the work) place well enough?

Or should pro/college football/baseball/basketball teams all get percentages of all the bets made on them around the country, should they win?
Click to expand...

These are very good reasons why owners and jockeys are not privy to such wagers. Nor Do the owners/jockeys have to consent to being wagered on.

ScottW said:
The bidder not be 'doing any work' but he's doing something - he's putting up HIS money. Having someone who he has bought approach him late in the match and threaten to cause the bidder to lose his money is, in no uncertain terms, extortion. "That's a nice bid you got there. Shame if something happened to it."

If players and bidders want to reach an agreement amongst themselves, regardless of the outcome of the tournament, more power to'em. This guy decided he wanted to change the rules at the end, to suit him.

There's good reasons why participants in contests shouldn't be participating in the betting on those contests. Just ask Pete Rose.
Click to expand...

Brent and Bill seem to have come to an agreement amongst themselves. I don't see what the problem is. Bill could have said "no" if he didn't like the new terms. Brent didn't force him to accept his terms. No one knows that Brent would have thrown the match. Maybe, maybe not. That's gambling at its finest.

I agree that participants should not be able to wager on their contests. Unfortunately, calcuttas are not set up in such a manner as to exclude player participation.
 
Two things Either accept that it happens and it does or post the players names so that others will be cautious in the future. A calcutta is a gamble. I was in a bathroom once where two well know Seattle area players made a deal...........
 
What I Think

the person who subscribes under "Ridewiththewind" should change the name to "Longwinded".you sure re-hash boring stuff. maybe(only a guess)sedro wooley is a very boring place to live.please tell us all about what happened in OMAK.
 
yes I am thank-you for noticing

chris I am a Guy with a couple of gonads.just would like to know the story about OMAK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top