The Jeanette Lee Calcutta Scandal

ShootingArts said:
Even from what I read posted for the person that bought JL, I see a bit of two sides of the story. None of us know when she first decided to buy half of herself. It could have been two minutes after she quit talking to the buyer when she checked the pot, it could have been far later. The one thing that we do know is that the buyer was called over the PA system several hours before the second call that he responded to and he chose to ignore that call.

How many matches did JL play after that first call? How far was she out of the money then? Who did she play and who did she look likely to meet in her path through the brackets?

We have no idea of quite a few things including when JL first started hunting him however it does seem that the buyer was doing a little game playing of his own when he ignored the first call instead of responding and telling JL then that she was too late to buy her half of the Calcutta and was playing only for the prize money which is often less than the Calcutta in my neck of the woods, sometimes only a third or less.

If I thought the buyer had deliberately dodged me to prevent me from buying half of myself I might have well unjointed my cue when Jeanette did. We don't know what happened here. Jeanette may well have hunted him very early and perhaps he was outside, in another area, or in the bathroom. Perhaps she was careless about catching up with the Calcutta winner to buy half of herself in a timely manner.

We simply don't know. I'm not going to judge either party without hearing from both, probably not even then.

Hu
Click to expand...


I have never been in a pool room where I could not find someone. Never. Do they make one that big?

Also If she really wanted to buy half BEFORE start of the event and could not locate him then it would have been extremely easy to go to the person running the calcutta and make this known.

She is a pro player and a draw for the event and pool room yet she chooses to up and quit because she was wrong. Forget the calcutta... what about the others at the event and the owner. Pros need to act better than this.

Yo me this one is clear and dry. I had a situation years ago where a guy told me he wanted half. He gave me 1/4 and said his buddy was getting the other 1/4. He went to get the money and I say okay.
Right about this time a guy that had been in the back watching the draw comes out and says to the guy that he drew Scotty Townsend. He then turns around and tells me that he doesnt want half now.
So now I got a dog thats scared and he has his hand out. He is still wanting.

He went to the tournament director who did the calcutta and complained and the director just said " really ... you really expect your money back?". I went round and round with the other guy about the 1/4 and he finally "settled".
 
Someone like Jeanette Lee?

FLICKit said:
So, let me get this straight. Jeanette Lee was approached by an unknown person in a crowd of many. In your post you say "she always has people hounding her for pictures and autographs, I go find her". You say this because (in some form of words) you believe that you're being magnanimous and doing her a favor. After all, finding her in order to offer an opportunity to buy half of herself was a gesture that you didn't have to do. Especially because you say "we think we got a steal" by buying her. So you assess her to be a surefire lock for return on the investment.

When you propose that she can buy half of herself from you, and she says "I'll let you know", you both put your honor on the line via a verbal contract. Thinking rationally: she would have a hard time finding you (as an unknown) in a crowd of many. So she makes the effort to go to the tournament director and announce that she will take the offer, which fulfills on her end of the bargain to let you know. You and everyone in the crowd knows of the verbal agreement.

At this point in time, if you don't believe that Jeanette Lee is good for the $70, then you have easy access to locate her and get the money in advance. Instead you sit in the crowd, remaining difficult to distinguish, even if you happen to be within 5 feet of her, or whatever. You make no effort to complete the agreed upon transaction.

Afterwards, you insist that she has no claim to half of the calcutta...

You can play it that way if you choose, but personally in this case (knowing that you have no reason to doubt someone like Jeanette Lee), I think I'd honor my word in the verbal agreement rather than try to stiff Jeanette Lee on a couple of hundred bucks.

Like I say, you can play it that way if you choose.
Personally, I'd honor my word.
Click to expand...
When you say "someone like JL" what are you saying exactly? Are you saying that she is above being able to do wrong? How would her sponsors feel about her quiting a tournament? Is everyone supposed to tip toe around JL because of who she is? Sounds like she threw a little fit because she didn't get her way. She should have played her best and even tried harder because of the fact that a stranger risked his money and had faith in her ability. Instead she chose to throw a tantrum and stick it to this guy and herself for what reason? To make some new friends, impress the crowd, or just to say to everyone "look at me, look at me"? Would she have acted like a baby if the cameras were rolling? It was so lame for her to quit it's just stupid. Why wouldn't she play her best just for herself? Was she letting everyone in the room know that she doesn't need the money? She should apologize and give this guy his money back. I've been dumped on before but to have a horse just quit in front of you stoops to an even lower level of arrogance.
 
To be honest...

I just scanned the situation again.
I overlooked one detail, where it stated that the tournament had already begun, before the announcement.

Not knowing all of the details, could impact how it should've been handled.

It's not always so easy to obtain all of the relevant data in a form like this.
 
I learned long ago that a player has the right to buy up to 1/2 of themselves before the draw is posted. Anytime after the draw is posted is at the buyer's discretion.

I absolutely agree with JB that buying a player in the calcutta doesn't provide any guarantee of what may happen with the player at a given event.

As always, caveat emptor!
 
Last edited:
I'm going to take a wild guess what happened here. Maybe JL forgot to relocate the guy that had her in the Calcutta at first with all the running home for her cue and trying to make it back on time. When she finally caught up with the guy he said something out of line to her. In this case I might have unscrewed too. I'm not saying I would be right, but if he ticked me off bad enough I could see myself walking so neither of us would get any money.

I don't have an image to protect like she does. Any image I have on here or in the real world is probably a bad one. But I still don't know why she didn't just take half of herself when first asked. I think if she said that to me I would have said, "Don't wait too long JL, once play begins I'm keeping it all. Johnnyt
 
JB Cases said:
Don't want to comment on THIS situation but just on calcuttas in general. When a someone PURCHASES a player in a calcutta they do not own that player. The player can quit at anytime, dump you, get frustrated.
Click to expand...


When one bids their hard earned money on someone you would think the player would be courteous and not just quit.

Oh, That's right.. We are speaking about pool.. For a second I actually thought we were talking about a highly respectable game with respectable people.

Please ignore the post as I am clearly thinking of another sport/game.

Edited to add:

This was not directed towards any specific person.
 
Last edited:
First off

JB Cases said:
Don't want to comment on THIS situation but just on calcuttas in general. When a someone PURCHASES a player in a calcutta they do not own that player. The player can quit at anytime, dump you, get frustrated, have a seizure or any number of things that prevent them from playing the best that they can.

The only thing I hate to hear is that a PLAYER owes the purchaser their time. The player doesn't owe anyone anything unless there is some kind of agreement between the player and the buyer. Otherwise it is a completely seperate thing between what they player does in the tournament and the fact that someone is betting on their performance.

Any time I have bought someone in a calcutta I have treated that money as if it were completely GONE and not worried about what the player did.

Honestly, a BETTER way to run a calcutta is to have it be a pari-mutuel (I think that this is the right term) where anyone can bet on whatever player they want to win the tournament and the total money is paid out in places and divided amongst the amount of people who bet on the player.

I participated in a few of these in Europe and they were always fun and drama free.

OR another way is to have groups of players who get bundled together. My ex-wife and I made a bundle on a calcutta like this in North Dakota one year and it was a ton of fun to sweat the lesser known players in the groups we bought.

Anyway, this is a sad situation all the way around. JL has always been fun and gracious in all the years I have known her. Hope it can get resolved amicably between all concerned.
Click to expand...

AS A PLAYER WHEN YOU ENTER A TOURNEY, IF THEY HAVE A CALCUTTA, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO DO YOUR BEST. It should be a matter of respect for the game, as well as the person who was willing to risk their money, by believing in your skills. If you don't have a enough respect for the game to finish the tourney, maybe you should try just playing online poker. True, the calcutta is not what you are paying your entry for, but it's still a part of the tourney.
If you wish to be excluded form the calcutta, tell the tournament director. When I was playing music for a living, I went to a tourney 1 and 1/2 hour drive from home. I told the tourney director, and everyone at the tourney, at 8pm, I'm leaving, no matter what. They left me out of the calcutta, and I end up winning the winners side, guarenteed 2nd. They took all calcutta money and
moved it down.
As for this thread, and the other, I'll not post in either again. From what I hear from a reliable source, who was at the tourney, there is a 3rd side to this thing.
 
Fuji-whopper said:
Man people really don't read very closely, 2 people put up the $140 to buy her so each person paid $70 to buy her. Not that it matters about the money but it shows how closely one reads the posts.
Click to expand...


i thought there were 4 friends. he said "35 dollars apiece we think we got a steal"

weren't there 4 people buying her?

anyway tough break. what did you think she was going to do?
 
OK, I'll bite.... here's my opinion:

- When a player or group purchases another player, it's up to that other player to IMMEDIATELY buy 1/2 of themselves, not 8 hours later.

- Would Jeanette have pressured this guy to buy 1/2 of herself if she was on the 1-loss site already and down in the set...not quite on the money line?

- Did Jeanette finally track the guy down when she was already at 5/6th place, figuring 1/2 of her calcutta money netted her a profit - Is that when she made issue of getting her 1/2?

For reasons like I said above, players should be forced to buy their half prior to the draw being made. If Jeanette drew God the first round and a grind on the loser side, would she have been making issue of tracking this guy down?

HOWEVER, nobody can stop her from breaking her cue down and walking out. So, it's a delicate balance and lots of gray area. The original poster should have known that would be her response because that's the next move for the player to stick it up someone's azz.

You have to manage the calcutta expectation better than the original poster did. When she was downloading that program, I would have told Jeanette to buy herself prior to the draw to make it fair and I would have received verbal confirmation. Maybe he was a little star-struck and too embarrassed to manage the situation right?

When someone buys 1/2 of me, I walk over and pay it before the next bid is over (Jeanette knows that's what you're supposed to do, c'mon now). However, there are times I want 100% of myself and that's what I want. When people bid against me on myself and I tell them not to and they bid me up, I let them win---- not get 1/2 of myself---- and dog out of the tournament. Over time, people get the hint to let you get yourself when you want it.

Anyways, that's my take. I have no clue on how accurate the original post was; however, based on what was written, the original poster left an opening that Jeanette recognized and took. Not saying it's right, but if you dont get your 1/2 before the draw and it's still up in the air..... ITS YOUR OWN FAULT, not the player's.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I would have done differently in the scenario portrayed by the OP is that when I was asked at 8 PM about selling half back to the player, I would have made it abundantly clear that it was too late now. My answer would be NO, but I will gladly give a tip (typically 10-15%) to the player out of my winnings.

Also in the original conversation after the calcutta, I would have reminded her to let me know before she plays her first match. That takes all the "wiggle" room out of the whole deal.

I have bought MANY players in Calcuttas and rarely had a problem. The normal understanding is that they must buy half of themself before they start play. Sometimes it is okay to accept a "yes" to buying back half, and let them play a match or two before they actually pay you. But at some point all deals are off.
 
Nine Ball said:
When one bids their hard earned money on someone you would think the player would be courteous and not just quit.

Oh, That's right.. We are speaking about pool.. For a second I actually thought we were talking about a highly respectable game with respectable people.

Please ignore the post as I am clearly thinking of another sport/game.

Edited to add:

This was not directed towards any specific person.
Click to expand...

Let's change that to when one BETS their money then they hope that their horse will run.

But pool players are NOT dogs, not horses, not boxers, not there just for your gambling amusement. They are people who are there on their own dime and their own time.

You wanna stop all this? Just make all calcuttas such that the player automatically gets 25% of the calcutta payout. I mean when you stake a player then you give up part of the winnings so why should the player have to buy ANY of themselves? They are the ones on stage NOT the spectators so make it that players do not have to buy part of themselves and know that they have an automatic 25% jelly coming and that will solve all of it.

How about we change the statement to this one? When a player is bet on then the person placing the bet should just courteously offer up 25% without asking the player for ANY investment SINCE the player is investing their skill and time already.
 
poolplayer2093 said:
i thought there were 4 friends. he said "35 dollars apiece we think we got a steal"

weren't there 4 people buying her?

anyway tough break. what did you think she was going to do?
Click to expand...

No, there wasn't 4 people buying her. This is how rumors get spread.

One person (or at least one person from the "betting team") bought her for $140. He then split with a buddy. So that is $70 each. They expected Jeanette to buy half of herself, therefore it would have cost them $35 each. She didn't, so they were stuck for $70 and eventually a dead horse.
 
branpureza said:
If I enter myself into a tournament I'll quit whenever I want for whatever reason I want. Why should she have to answer to anyone? If some guy got an attitude with me I'd do the same thing.

She doesn't owe anyone shlt.
Click to expand...

WHY??????????????
 
branpureza said:
If I enter myself into a tournament I'll quit whenever I want for whatever reason I want. Why should she have to answer to anyone? If some guy got an attitude with me I'd do the same thing.

She doesn't owe anyone shlt.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty sad statement and just one of the millions of reasons pool is in the state it is.
 
satman said:
AS A PLAYER WHEN YOU ENTER A TOURNEY, IF THEY HAVE A CALCUTTA, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO DO YOUR BEST. It should be a matter of respect for the game, as well as the person who was willing to risk their money, by believing in your skills. If you don't have a enough respect for the game to finish the tourney, maybe you should try just playing online poker. True, the calcutta is not what you are paying your entry for, but it's still a part of the tourney.
If you wish to be excluded form the calcutta, tell the tournament director. When I was playing music for a living, I went to a tourney 1 and 1/2 hour drive from home. I told the tourney director, and everyone at the tourney, at 8pm, I'm leaving, no matter what. They left me out of the calcutta, and I end up winning the winners side, guarenteed 2nd. They took all calcutta money and
moved it down.
As for this thread, and the other, I'll not post in either again. From what I hear from a reliable source, who was at the tourney, there is a 3rd side to this thing.
Click to expand...

Obligated? If it's an obligation then how about some compensation? All players automatically get 25% of the calcutta payouts. That puts an automatic compensation on top of the obligation.

Sure any player who KNOWS that they aren't going to finish should excuse themselves from the calcutta. That's obvious and not really in discussion.

This is not about respect for the game. The player is there FOR THEMSELF first and foremost. What they do is up to them. If there weren't any money there then they wouldn't be there playing.

Gamblers have to realize that when they place a bet on someone or something that they do not control then that person or thing may not perform. It's just the way it is and to act like the player should carry all the burden without compensation isn't fair either.
 
branpureza said:
If I enter myself into a tournament I'll quit whenever I want for whatever reason I want. Why should she have to answer to anyone? If some guy got an attitude with me I'd do the same thing.

She doesn't owe anyone shlt.
Click to expand...

lmao, that attitude is precisely why pool will never be popular with the mainstream and garner big sponsorship.
 
JB Cases said:
Don't want to comment on THIS situation but just on calcuttas in general. When a someone PURCHASES a player in a calcutta they do not own that player. The player can quit at anytime, dump you, get frustrated, have a seizure or any number of things that prevent them from playing the best that they can.

The only thing I hate to hear is that a PLAYER owes the purchaser their time. The player doesn't owe anyone anything unless there is some kind of agreement between the player and the buyer. Otherwise it is a completely seperate thing between what they player does in the tournament and the fact that someone is betting on their performance.

Any time I have bought someone in a calcutta I have treated that money as if it were completely GONE and not worried about what the player did.

Honestly, a BETTER way to run a calcutta is to have it be a pari-mutuel (I think that this is the right term) where anyone can bet on whatever player they want to win the tournament and the total money is paid out in places and divided amongst the amount of people who bet on the player.

I participated in a few of these in Europe and they were always fun and drama free.

OR another way is to have groups of players who get bundled together. My ex-wife and I made a bundle on a calcutta like this in North Dakota one year and it was a ton of fun to sweat the lesser known players in the groups we bought.

Anyway, this is a sad situation all the way around. JL has always been fun and gracious in all the years I have known her. Hope it can get resolved amicably between all concerned.
Click to expand...

JB, you are dead on in this post. The calcutta is completely independent of the tournament. I really don't care what my playeys do that I buy in the calcutta. Some of them buy half, some of them don't. Doesn't really matter to me, it's a gamble and I know that going in.

That being said, its the precise reason that I rarely give jelly. I can't stand when a player thinks they deserve jelly for a completely separate gamble that I took all the risk on. I've never once had a player that I bought that didn't cash come up to me and offer me some jelly, but I've had several come up to me and want some jelly when they cashed.

Also, I've won people thousands and thousands of dollars in golf calcuttas and never expected or got any jelly.
 
Last edited:
i mean she knows how calcuttas work, she didnt contact him until after she won 4 or 5 matches, i think she was taken aback when he said no because it is her hometown and everyone treats her like royalty, sure he could of said yes, you can have half and made a couple hundred but sometimes dignity and respect are more important
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top