The Players Should Get a Percentage of Auctions Automatically

[Bigtruck]

I covered a tournament recently where 10% of the auction was put into the tournament fund.

I thought it was really good for the players.

I am constantly shocked at the large amounts that some players go for, making it impossible, in most occasions, for the player to buy a part of themselves. I recently saw a top player get only $40 for coming in second in tournament.

I know many promoters believe the auctioneer should get a cut for his efforts, which is how I was taught, but I think the players deserve a cut more than anyone. Make sure the horses get paid to run.

90% Payout
10% Added to tournament prize fund

Some people I talked to think 20% should be added to the tournament prize fund.

I am curious what the thoughts of my fellow AZ'ers is on this subject.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[ShootingArts]

interesting question

I covered a tournament recently where 10% of the auction was put into the tournament fund.

I thought it was really good for the players.

I am constantly shocked at the large amounts that some players go for, making it impossible, in most occasions, for the player to buy a part of themselves. I recently saw a top player get only $40 for coming in second in tournament.

I know many promoters believe the auctioneer should get a cut for his efforts, which is how I was taught, but I think the players deserve a cut more than anyone. Make sure the horses get paid to run.

90% Payout
10% Added to tournament prize fund

Some people I talked to think 20% should be added to the tournament prize fund.

I am curious what the thoughts of my fellow AZ'ers is on this subject.

Thanks,

Ray

Ray,

At first glance this seems like a good idea and fair. However now the bidders are contributing to the tournament purse and I don't think the bidders should be pressured to sell half to the player if they aren't inclined to. Maybe announce before the bidding starts if the player intends to buy half or not. No announcement, the player is out in the cold.

Not to derail the thread but I think there should be a cash option at pool tournaments anyway. Any player that chooses can buy into a side purse. It is typically paid out to fewer competitors than a purse so you can get a pretty nice payday for a little money. The cash option might pay one place for every sixteen players in the main tournament just as a suggestion.

Hu

 

[houmatroy]

I covered a tournament recently where 10% of the auction was put into the tournament fund.

I thought it was really good for the players.

I am constantly shocked at the large amounts that some players go for, making it impossible, in most occasions, for the player to buy a part of themselves. I recently saw a top player get only $40 for coming in second in tournament.

I know many promoters believe the auctioneer should get a cut for his efforts, which is how I was taught, but I think the players deserve a cut more than anyone. Make sure the horses get paid to run.

90% Payout
10% Added to tournament prize fund

Some people I talked to think 20% should be added to the tournament prize fund.

I am curious what the thoughts of my fellow AZ'ers is on this subject.

Thanks,

Ray

I always jelly the player if he dont buy half himself...I personally think the player would wind up with less total money if there was a skim off the calcutta to add to tourney prize cuz most calcutta buyers will not jelly em because they will feel that they already got their jelly...most people i know will jelly 10 to 20 % anyway...but that's just my opinion from what i've seen

 

[s'portplayer]

I'm with Troy on this one.....I'll throw some to the player regardless, but I don't want some TD telling me I have to give anything.

 

[sjm]

Most people will tip a player that has won them calcutta money, but it's their choice.

Keep the players out of the action, or they will dump for the caclutta money. I recall a calcutta in which I owned one of the finalists. The other finalist owned himself. It was good business for him to pay the other finalist to dump the final.

Best to avoid such situations. Even worse than this is when a player owns his opponent in the calcutta and you own him.

As Grady Matthews would say, calcuttas are fraught with peril.

 

[ironman]

I'm with Troy on this one.....I'll throw some to the player regardless, but I don't want some TD telling me I have to give anything.

i grree with you here. thee TD should never tell anyone he has to do anything.Buyers who don't jelly will get their's in the end as players have long memories about such things.
i also feel that what the buyer Jellies is his own decision. I have seen players who stand there and count it down and then frown and insist or beg for more. IMO, that is petty and classless. just shove it in your pocket and say thank you.
i feel the auctioneer should get something for what he does. If raided he is the one going to jail and I 'm sure as hell not going to jail for nothing. 10% is plenty and 20% is just plain greedy.
i feel adding it to the prized fund is rather silly. That is cutting into the buyers money and takes away from the calcutta. In many events one had better keep the buyers happy.
At some events around the country, the calcutta is a good excuse to have a tournament.
i hear some players say it adds too much pressure on the players which is ludicrous.

 

[Celtic]

Good way to kill calcutta action. At 10% taken out of the calcutta suddenly the calcutta is a worse bet then going and playing roulette in the casino. At 20% anyone paying for players in the calcutta is taking a beating in the money odds and before long you will not have anyone buying into calcuttas anymore so not only is no money going into the tournament from the calcutta, but you probably don't have a calcutta any longer at all.

Calcutta's are a good way to drum up some interest in pool as a spectator sport, trying to kill them by doing something like this is a shortsighted move in the extreme and will produce exactly the opposite of what this sport needs going forward.

 

[Bigtruck]

I would like to say, first, that this idea was presented to me by a stake horse, a man who also buys a lot of players in auctions. He had some interesting points. That is why I thought it would interesting to present this scenario here.

@ Stu & Hu - Every auction I have ever seen, the player automatically has the option for 50%. They are involved already. Many players will sell their half to someone they know will Jelly them if the buyer is known not too. With auto jelly it would stop most of that. The player could possibly only have 10% Guaranteed and an option on the other 40%.

I also think the buyer keeping the option to Jelly is best. I had a player get downright ugly before when I asked if they wanted their half. They finished 4th. I didn't give em a dime. Normally I would Jelly 10-20%. The higher end if they were really fun to sweat.

How about the other end where the player doesn't buy half and then doesn't show up after they lose once.

Should the buyer have some recourse in that scenario? Should the player be banned or punished in some way?

Ray

 

[ignomirello]

If you want to kill a cacutta do the following

I'm with Troy on this one.....I'll throw some to the player regardless, but I don't want some TD telling me I have to give anything.

If you want to kill a cacutta do the following. Make them put their own money for something else? Sheesh

Any Calcutta I have won, I always tipped the Player & Whom ever ran the calcutta.

If you don't tip why should they spend extra time to run a calcutta?

If you tip a player who wins for you, he will fight a little harder knowing he will get something in return. Otherwise he might make a deal or dump.

Even if the player don't buy half of Him/Herself I make sure I tell the player that I will take care of Them if they cash.

You never know maybe they don't have the extra cash to buy themselves

 

[Neil]

...........................

 

[ShootingArts]

reply to Ray and Neil

I don't use the newer skin so double quotes are a bit of a pain. First a Merry Christmas to both my friends!

Then a few notes to Ray. I'm sure you are familiar with this as often as you come to Louisiana but here the calcutta is legal, as long as the auctioneer or room owner doesn't get a cut. Could be some gray area putting some of the money in a tournament, easy enough to get a legal opinion though. It is generally accepted that a player can buy half of himself but the times someone has refused to sell half to the player I don't remember anyone being forced to. Things are a good bit different when you are raking the calcutta and I think a bidder should know what they are buying before bidding, easy enough to ask at sign-up if a player wants half. Always thought it was unfair that players got to know final price before deciding if they would buy half or not.


Neil,

The Dolly Parton purses are ridiculous, I have even seen a few where first place was over a hundred times second place. Of course they only advertised first place. The first year one event was held there were some very unhappy people. The second year they advertised the full purse chopping it up just the same, had fifty percent more competitors, and a tiny fraction of the complaining. When traveling to compete I looked at two things, what first place paid and what place would probably cover my expenses. Didn't matter how many competitors were there, 20-30% of us were all planning to win first!

Hu

To me, it all boils down to one word- greed. Yes, it does sting a little when I do "all the work", and someone else gets more money in the calcutta than I got in the tournament. But, that is only when you look at it with greed in your heart.

In reality, it is like two tournaments going on. And, if you didn't buy into the calcutta, you are simply not a participant in it. You are not playing for the calcutta money, you are playing for the tournament money. In reality, it is no different than demanding a cut off of any rail action that was going on at the time.

The only place I have a problem with, is the way some of the payouts for the tournaments are done. Last week I won, and it worked out for me, but I still said my opinion on it. The difference between 1st and 2nd was MORE than what 2nd recieved. To me, that is just not right. That one match is worth more than the entire tournament minus one match.

 

[JoeyA]

Ray you bring up some interesting thoughts.

I've always thought that the players deserve more than what they currently get. The players can't always help it if they can't monopolize the Calcutta purchases like some of the money bags who have figured out that forming a corporation and purchasing the best horses is a way of "fixing" the Calcutta.

Perhaps the Calcutta buyer should be required to give a certain percentage of the Calcutta winnings to his horse. I don't know what is fair. I've heard all kinds of numbers that Calcutta buyers donate to the winning player from ZERO to 20% and more. Getting ZERO because the player can't afford to buy half of himself suck deep pond scum.

Look forward to reading more about what others think.

 

[JoeyA]

If you want to kill a cacutta do the following. Make them put their own money for something else? Sheesh

Any Calcutta I have won, I always tipped the Player & Whom ever ran the calcutta.

If you don't tip why should they spend extra time to run a calcutta?

If you tip a player who wins for you, he will fight a little harder knowing he will get something in return. Otherwise he might make a deal or dump.

Even if the player don't buy half of Him/Herself I make sure I tell the player that I will take care of Them if they cash.

You never know maybe they don't have the extra cash to buy themselves

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

 

[jersey jer]

if you didn't buy into the calcutta, you are simply not a participant in it. You are not playing for the calcutta money, you are playing for the tournament money. In reality, it is no different than demanding a cut off of any rail action that was going on at the time.

absolutely agree with neil.

calcuttas around here, the player always has the option for half himself, the buyer cannot decline. I think thats the way it should be.in my lil regular tourney a tiny piece gets taken out and banked for a semi annual big tourney where thats added and players in that one need to have been in a certain # to qualify. i dont think it should be mandatory that any of the calcutta winnings should chopped with the player if he's not buying a piece of himself, but making a real nice score off someone without a piece of themselves..... i would be inclined to throw some jelly, voluntarily, either betting the rail or from a calcutta.

 

[ironman]

Ray you bring up some interesting thoughts.

I've always thought that the players deserve more than what they currently get. The players can't always help it if they can't monopolize the Calcutta purchases like some of the money bags who have figured out that forming a corporation and purchasing the best horses is a way of "fixing" the Calcutta.

Perhaps the Calcutta buyer should be required to give a certain percentage of the Calcutta winnings to his horse. I don't know what is fair. I've heard all kinds of numbers that Calcutta buyers donate to the winning player from ZERO to 20% and more. Getting ZERO because the player can't afford to buy half of himself suck deep pond scum.

Look forward to reading more about what others think.

i think you have to look at it from both sides to be fair and I have been on both ends of this. I have run well over200 calcuttas and have bought players at many, many tournaments.
Firstly these guys monopolizing a you call it are adding much money to the tournament and many cases if it were not for the calcutta, the would not be any reason to be there.
The buyers are taking the risk, not the players usually. If he can buy half himself, he gets the same in return. if the cannot afford half and o tell the buyer, Most can understand alive with it. When the player comes in the money and walks up holding his hand out and acting as though he is owed something, attitudes take over a I have little sympathy for the player then. yes I have seen this many, may times.
I have never thought the buyer should be blamed for the players financial situation.
Taking from the calcutta and adding to the prize fund is just plain old suicide.
What buyers are going to go for an idea like this? The calcutta has always stood for a seperate pot to generate cash into the tournament. In many cases without the calcutta, there is no tournament. We all know of a very good example of that.
Now if the calcutta ere for the players only, they would be knocked down to about 75% less tn what they are now. When ty form the little corporations as you call them, it only adds thousands to the event.
Most players are looking for the smallest investment and the biggest return they can find. Buyers on the other hand put it out there and take big risks.
If players were to learn a little tact and some decency, I think it could go a long long way.

 

[gunzby]

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.

 

[gunzby]

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

It depends on how much I get in my hand. If it's $100 profit they can bank on $0. If it's $1000 they can bank on stuffing $200 in their pocket. The percentage goes up from there.

 

[JoeyA]

i think you have to look at it from both sides to be fair and I have been on both ends of this. I have run well over200 calcuttas and have bought players at many, many tournaments.
Firstly these guys monopolizing a you call it are adding much money to the tournament and many cases if it were not for the calcutta, the would not be any reason to be there.
The buyers are taking the risk, not the players usually. If he can buy half himself, he gets the same in return. if the cannot afford half and o tell the buyer, Most can understand alive with it. When the player comes in the money and walks up holding his hand out and acting as though he is owed something, attitudes take over a I have little sympathy for the player then. yes I have seen this many, may times.
I have never thought the buyer should be blamed for the players financial situation.
Taking from the calcutta and adding to the prize fund is just plain old suicide.
What buyers are going to go for an idea like this? The calcutta has always stood for a seperate pot to generate cash into the tournament. In many cases without the calcutta, there is no tournament. We all know of a very good example of that.
Now if the calcutta ere for the players only, they would be knocked down to about 75% less tn what they are now. When ty form the little corporations as you call them, it only adds thousands to the event.
Most players are looking for the smallest investment and the biggest return they can find. Buyers on the other hand put it out there and take big risks.
If players were to learn a little tact and some decency, I think it could go a long long way.

Good points.........................

 

[JoeyA]

It depends on how much I get in my hand. If it's $100 profit they can bank on $0. If it's $1000 they can bank on stuffing $200 in their pocket. The percentage goes up from there.

WOW! That's a pretty sporty percentage if you earn $1,000.00

 

[gunzby]

WOW! That's a pretty sporty percentage if you earn $1,000.00

I tip around 20% to bartenders for doing little more than turning around and grabbing me a beer. Tipping a player 20% for doing little more than running a gauntlet tournament for two days seems pretty fair to me. Considering how happy I am after winning $1000 for raising my voice I'll smile all the way to handing over that $200.