The Players Should Get a Percentage of Auctions Automatically

[DelaWho???]

What percentage do you normally tip your winning horse who doesn't buy half of himself and you have all of him/her?

I think you make a good point about the killing of a Calcutta but am always interested in hearing what others have to say.

Thanks,
JoeyA

Do you all go back to the stable after a horse race and jelly the jockey?

It's a side gamble pure and simple. Players are there to compete for the purse (and side action in some cases) the same as any other athlete.

How does golf handle this sort of thing? Seems like a similar situation exists in the golfing world.

 

[JoeyA]

Do you all go back to the stable after a horse race and jelly the jockey?

It's a side gamble pure and simple. Players are there to compete for the purse (and side action in some cases) the same as any other athlete.

How does golf handle this sort of thing? Seems like a similar situation exists in the golfing world.

It isn't a side gamble pure and simple.

The only customers at a racetrack are the bettors and that's what they go there for.

The PRIMARY customers at a pool tournament are pool players and they go there to play pool.

The PRIMARY Calcutta buyers (by number) are the pool players, not bettors who try to figure a way to lock up the Calcutta money.

How much money does a Calcutta buyer spend when they are a tournament? Probably a tad more than most pool players but probably not much more, not as far as the house is concerned.

I'm not a Calcutta hater by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, for me, it's just the opposite. I think the Calcutta buyers that don't play in the event are awesome to have around even if they do pick the pockets of the pool players. Occasionally they may stake a match and they tend to tip well so they are always welcome wherever I go, in spite of their propensity to open my nose for sport. (It's true, that some Calcutta buyers actually bid up certain players just to get a rise out of them. I could name names of Calcutta buyers who do that on a regular basis and they pass the whip around to different horses from time to time just to entertain themselves and others. It's all good. I know it's just for fun.

Here's what I see:
The Calcutta's vitality must be maintained.
The Calcutta buyers MUST be protected from "business".
There's nothing wrong with getting this "tipping business" out in the open.

I hear SOME VOCAL PEOPLE claim that they tip 10, 15 & even 20% to the player, although I haven't been the recipient of such generosity, I'm sure it exists. Maybe it's because I seldom visit the winner's circle or maybe I just miss hooking up with one of these philanthropists. I also seldom see Calcutta buyers tipping this way so maybe your perspective is the way things really is; maybe the Calcutta buyers just don't tip as well as some insinuate. Maybe they do. Either way, it appears that the calcutta buyers make a habit of running up the players value in order to build the calcutta, sometimes to the chagrin of the players to the point, where the player cannot afford to purchase half of himself. The Calcutta buyers form corporations so that they can manipulate the purchase of the best horses. It's done all of the time. The players/horses are performing, spending enormous amounts of time and money to come and play in these events. I JUST DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE PLAYERS BEING COMPENSATED BY A TOKEN FROM THE CALCUTTA MONEY. How that is accomplished is a slippery slope and I would hate to see any change in the Calcutta to undermine the event or the Calcutta but furthermore I would hate to see tournament promoters, pool room owners thinking that the "Calcutta Green Fee" belongs to them, to do with as they see fit. This would probably be the end of Calcuttas wherever they are held. An owner taking a profit from a Calcutta would almost always be perceived as a gambling enterprise by big brother and they would most certainly be shut down when the local constables found out about it.

I'm not a golfer so I wouldn't know what they do but I've never heard of "the golfing community" holding a Calcutta. I have to believe if the PGA had such a thing, that pie (Calcutta) would have a major slice carved out of it for the PGA before the players/calcutta buyers saw a morsel. The PGA then could dole out any profits derived from the Calcutta holding back to the players as they saw fit.

 

[elvicash]

It isn't a side gamble pure and simple.

It's true, that some Calcutta buyers actually bid up certain players just to get a rise out of them. I could name names of Calcutta buyers who do that on a regular basis and they pass the whip around to different horses from time to time just to entertain themselves and others. It's all good. I know it's just for fun.

Joey here is a thought get a person to buy you in the calcutta that you trust maybe someone who is not real close to you. Then you bid the minimum and and no more then let that person buy you so you are not the bidder. This will keep you from being ran up personally. If you watch storage wars or whatever many people run others up and they do it for various reasons. When you pick someone to buy you get someone you trust who people do not associate as being your buddy. This would let let you go around being bid up personally.

 

[Jaden]

I would say if you want to make sure that the player being bought gets a piece....

Instead of putting 10% in the prize fund, make sure that 10% of anything that is won in the auction goes to the player that was bought.

But to just put it into the prize fund I would have to say, 100% to the person who bought him.

Jaden

 

[Bigtruck]

Instead of putting 10% in the prize fund, make sure that 10% of anything that is won in the auction goes to the player that was bought.

But to just put it into the prize fund I would have to say, 100% to the person who bought him.

Jaden

Putting a % in the Prize Fund would only work if the tournament paid the same number of spots as the Auction. Then it would be going to the respective player.

It looks like 4 out of 5 think this is a bad idea though.

The current discussion has become about the Watchez 2nd chance idea, which seems pretty good!

Buyers have more chances to win, Mid-Level players get more attractive, everyone has more fun, more people stay at the room. Win-Win-Win-Win

We like to win!

Ray

 

[JoeyA]

Rifle approach vs. Shotgun Appoach

Instead of putting 10% in the prize fund, make sure that 10% of anything that is won in the auction goes to the player that was bought.

But to just put it into the prize fund I would have to say, 100% to the person who bought him.

Jaden

While this is what I call the rifle approach and it's not a bad thing.

My belief is in the shotgun approach: Invest monies into the larger target audience to affect the largest numbers of participants. This grows the pie larger, rather than just feeding one player. Your approach is probably more fair than my socialist ideas.

 

[JoeyA]

Joey here is a thought get a person to buy you in the calcutta that you trust maybe someone who is not real close to you. Then you bid the minimum and and no more then let that person buy you so you are not the bidder. This will keep you from being ran up personally. If you watch storage wars or whatever many people run others up and they do it for various reasons. When you pick someone to buy you get someone you trust who people do not associate as being your buddy. This would let let you go around being bid up personally.

I may do that in the future or just quit buying half of myself and leave those Calcutta buyers holding the bag.

 

[mikeyfrost]

Steve is smarter than most. I'd pay attention when my boy speaks if you want to learn something.

 

[iba7467]

If a player wants money from the calcutta he should buy himself, or at least whatever part of himself he feels he can afford. This is similar to a horse race. None of the guys holding betting slips go down and give the owner of the horse 10%. If the guy wants to bet, he can.

I don't understand why so many here are against the guy buying in the calcutta. It is essentially a side bet - nothing more. Let's make a scenario. A player invests $75 to play in a tournament and plays for a total of say 16 hours in the tournament to win $1500. Essentially he earned $1,325 for his two days. A calcutta bidder might buy a players for $500 to win $2,000. Now the calcutta buyer makes $1,500 while many would consider doing no work, only risking money. Here I say, the calcutta buyer had to work to earn his $500. I do not see where this is much different than the player playing.

After this, people expect the guy who risked $500 to win $1,500 to give the other guy who just won $1,325 some money. I tip, but that's because I generally only buy people I like in a calcutta.

 

[JoeyA]

If a player wants money from the calcutta he should buy himself, or at least whatever part of himself he feels he can afford. This is similar to a horse race. None of the guys holding betting slips go down and give the owner of the horse 10%. If the guy wants to bet, he can.

Again, the only customers at the race track are guys placing bets.

Pool tournaments are a bit different. The main customers at a pool tournament are pool players. They are the reason for the event.

just sayin.........

 

[iba7467]

Again, the only customers at the race track are guys placing bets.

Pool tournaments are a bit different. The main customers at a pool tournament are pool players. They are the reason for the event.

just sayin.........

I added a little more to my first post. Hopefully that puts it more in perspective. I am not talking about risking $100 to win $1,200 and not tipping the guy. This seldom, but can happen. It's more often than not, sweating bullets the last three matches hoping you break even. That's of course if your horse hasn't already been eliminated.

 

[iba7467]

An even better example as Brendan pointed out, he and I bought just about every player other than the top two with a chance to win in a recent tournament. It was a total of about 10 players. Had one won we would have made about 3:1 on our money. One of our players got third place. After splitting we broke even and let the player keep the extra when dividing the $20 bills at payout. Total net, we lost $10 each - not bad.

If this player had won and we split the money would have been as follows:

Player invest $35 tournament + $30 calcutta and could have won $1,000 tournament + $600 calcutta. Player could have made 23 times his investment.

We invest $240 calcutta and could have won $600 calcutta. We could have made only 1.5 times our investment.

 

[Juice]

What percentage do you normally tip your winning horse who doesn't buy half of himself and you have all of him/her?

I think you make a good point about the killing of a Calcutta but am always interested in hearing what others have to say.

Thanks,
JoeyA

I tip 10% of the total I get back no matter what. Even if I lose money on what I initially invested on the player. I feel that anybody who places in a tournament that you bought whether they buy there half or not they tried. I have been a victim of people losing on purpose cause there road dog had 100% vs 50% and sure many other scenarios such as the rail. I don't care I think that is part of it when you risk the money to buy someone that is the chance you take. I will tell you this you never tip anyone for what they do and you will be the victim.

I do not think any money should come out of the calcutta though. I feel that all money should stay in there add more to a entry fee or find another way to get more money in the tournament. It is not right to take money away from the calcutta because most times to buy the favorite you are risking good amount of money to try to get odds on your money. So do not feel it is right to take money from the buyers.

My personal rule has always been that if the player wants to buy half of it, then they can buy it. If they don't want it and they win I will toss them a tip. I actually don't think they are entitled to either, but it feels right to do one or the other.

I think the player knows the tournaments they are going to. They know which tournaments have good calcuttas and which do not. Most times it is known how good they are. That being said think the player should make sure they have someone who can invest in them to maximize there profit for there corporation. If they do not have someone who will buy them or invest then buy a small percentage even if 10%.

That will not happen in any tourney I run. They are immediately barred from the next event they try and play in. Do it again and your barred for a year. A 3rd time is life. And I dont give a shit who the player is, can be SVB for all I care, he would be barred. I already got one high profile player getting barred in the tourney I'm holding soon.
Calcuttas make most events happen, start taking out of the buyers money and there will be no tourney, plain and simple.

Players know when coming to events, bring enough cash or someone that is going to buy you or your half.

I agree and think Jumping is right. You cannot do anything once a match is played but if the player does not show up for his first match the calcutta buyer should get his money back. I bought Timmy Heath in Lafayette for $800 in which he bought his half. He played his first match lost hill to hill to Richie Richardson. Then played two in the losers then disapperared due to miscommunication with the tournament director. Then got forfeited. That is life and is why you should not take anything out of any calcutta the buyer is risking money for certain things just like this. I was lucky he bought his half.

First, Merry Christmas to All..


Ray,

Interesting question. To answer directly, no, I do not agree that a fixed portion of the Calcutta should be set aside for the players.

I try to mix it up when buying players. I like to have the winning bid on at least one top favored player. I also like to shop around and get portions of other top players. And I like to get some bargain buys on good players that can win if they get a good draw or if they play real good. At no time do I want my buy portion to exceed 10% of the total Calcutta pot. If you get to the point where 20% of the Calcutta is your own money it really becomes horrible pot odds and is just foolish. But you never know how it's going to end up until the last bid is over. It's action and it's fun.

One thing I always like seeing is several picks of the litter. But these can back fire and set the tone going forward. I also know that not all auctioneers are equal. The biggest Calcutta's I have seen are with Chris Miller or Dennis Strickland as the auctioneer. One thing I've never seen is pulling a player off the auction block until later if the bids are not high enough. Also I think going in order of the sign up sheet is a very big mistake. I think the Auctioneer should strategically pick the order in which he bids off the players. One thing for sure is it's an art to pump up the pots. And the more money in the pot the more my nose opens.

Regarding jelly's...jellys don't start until I get my buy money back off the top into my pocket, PERIOD!!!. And even if a player buys half of himself I will still jelly him based on my winnings. My rule of thumb is to pay at least 10% of my winnings. But this is not a hard and fast rule. The more a player expects for free the less he or she will get. If they try to regulate what I give them they may get a goose egg. If they play hard and win the event and save me from losing my ass I will jelly hard.

Example, in the last Lonestar Tourney, in the Open Event, which only paid 4 places in the Calcutta, I had portions of 6 or 7 players. Only two made it into the Calcutta money. Jamie Baraks won the event but he did not buy half of himself. Tommy Tokoph got 4th and his road man had his half. Based on what we paid for Tommy we lost money even though he got 4th. Tommy did not get a jelly from me nor did he expect one. Jamie on the other hand kept me from losing my ass. So the corporation that bought Jamie collectively decided to give him 20% of the winnings after we all got our buy money back. Sad thing is the 20% winnings totaled $80 in Jamie's pocket. Better than nothing but we paid a lot for Jamie compared to the rest of the field.

Ship the jelly man! LOL

If a player wants money from the calcutta he should buy himself, or at least whatever part of himself he feels he can afford. This is similar to a horse race. None of the guys holding betting slips go down and give the owner of the horse 10%. If the guy wants to bet, he can.

I don't understand why so many here are against the guy buying in the calcutta. It is essentially a side bet - nothing more. Let's make a scenario. A player invests $75 to play in a tournament and plays for a total of say 16 hours in the tournament to win $1500. Essentially he earned $1,325 for his two days. A calcutta bidder might buy a players for $500 to win $2,000. Now the calcutta buyer makes $1,500 while many would consider doing no work, only risking money. Here I say, the calcutta buyer had to work to earn his $500. I do not see where this is much different than the player playing.

After this, people expect the guy who risked $500 to win $1,500 to give the other guy who just won $1,325 some money. I tip, but that's because I generally only buy people I like in a calcutta.

I agree!

 

[ironman]

Again, the only customers at the race track are guys placing bets.

Pool tournaments are a bit different. The main customers at a pool tournament are pool players. They are the reason for the event.

just sayin.........

This is not always true. Many events become what they are because of the calcutta. Meaning the calcutta is the reason to hold the tournament.
White Diamonds is the perfect example. Without the calcutta it really has little going for itself. Without that calcutta few pool players would even step into Louisiana.
Chris runs a tight ship and is pretty vocal about it. He does a good job of it too. he is not one you want to dare anything!!
Legands in Houston was the same for a long time. Denis built that tournament with the calcutta.
The ones who contribute deserve the pie. The ones taking exception are the ones who want to throw the tooth pick at the lumberyard!

 

[JoeyA]

This is not always true. Many events become what they are because of the calcutta. Meaning the calcutta is the reason to hold the tournament.
White Diamonds is the perfect example. Without the calcutta it really has little going for itself. Without that calcutta few pool players would even step into Louisiana.
Chris runs a tight ship and is pretty vocal about it. He does a good job of it too. he is not one you want to dare anything!!
Legands in Houston was the same for a long time. Denis built that tournament with the calcutta.
The ones who contribute deserve the pie. The ones taking exception are the ones who want to throw the tooth pick at the lumberyard!

Now, it appears that you're getting into a "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" There's no doubt that the pool players came before the Calcutta. Look both of them are important. The Lafayette event has a Calcutta in a class by itself.

I think that the majority of people in this discussion want the best for all pool tournaments. Some of us differ on how the best can be brought out.

One thing Chris told me and you have to take it to heart: "If it's not broke, why fix it?" Until the players and the Calcutta buyers say it is broke, I doubt if he will risk changing a thing. (And I don't blame him a bit).

Another consideration is to raise the entry fees and then siphon off some dough for a second chance tournament. I really like this idea. However at the White Diamonds tournament, they don't have time to play the regular event, let alone another second chance tournament so for the White Diamonds event WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR March 10-11, 2012, a discussion of a second chance tournament is of no practical relevance.