The Players Should Get a Percentage of Auctions Automatically

[JoeyA]

The entire tournament structure needs to be changed.
Any player that goes 2 and out in the tournament, should go into another tournament.
10% of entry fee of the original (main) tournament should go into this tournament as the prize fund. So if you have a $50 tournament, 64 players - that means that $320 should go into this prize pool. 16 players will go 2 and out. Then they would play a double elimination tournament, with payouts of $160 First, $95 Second, $65 Third.

Then 5% of the calcutta would go to the person that owned the winning bid of the person that won the '2 and out' tournament. So if you had a $2000 Calcutta, $100 goes to the winning bidder.

This is how you increase attendance, getting people that are donating in tournaments to feel like they got their money's worth, and a few people actually pleased with their weekend. You also get higher bids for players that might be field bids or $10 bids in the Calcutta.

This is also how you increase purses - then you can charge $100 entry fee to a tournament - get 64 players and have a side tournament with $640 in it.

This of course also means that the tournament directors of today's weekly/monthly regional tournaments would have to do more work. I should have thought of that first - nevermind - that would never happen in the pool world.

I know it hasn't been that long since you posted this note above but I'm curious if other people think this is as good an idea as you and I do?

I can't think of any reason why something like this hasn't already taken root...........................Is anyone currently hosting a TWO & OUT tournament?

 

[Scott Lee]

JoeyA...I think this is a great idea. While there are many "2nd chance" tournaments at national events like the BCAPL and APA, I've never seen any tournaments structured like watchez suggested. Definitely something that I think players would like...for the reasons already suggested. The main thing is you'd have to have enough tables in play to be able to play both events at the same time.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

I know it hasn't been that long since you posted this note above but I'm curious if other people think this is as good an idea as you and I do?

I can't think of any reason why something like this hasn't already taken root...........................Is anyone currently hosting a TWO & OUT tournament?

 

[Johnnyt]

Do the NFL, NBA, MLB, boxers, and PGA players get a % of all the bets out of the sports books? Johnnyt

 

[Bigtruck]

The Mathematicians

The entire tournament structure needs to be changed.
Any player that goes 2 and out in the tournament, should go into another tournament.
10% of entry fee of the original (main) tournament should go into this tournament as the prize fund. So if you have a $50 tournament, 64 players - that means that $320 should go into this prize pool. 16 players will go 2 and out. Then they would play a double elimination tournament, with payouts of $160 First, $95 Second, $65 Third.

Then 5% of the calcutta would go to the person that owned the winning bid of the person that won the '2 and out' tournament. So if you had a $2000 Calcutta, $100 goes to the winning bidder.

This is how you increase attendance, getting people that are donating in tournaments to feel like they got their money's worth, and a few people actually pleased with their weekend. You also get higher bids for players that might be field bids or $10 bids in the Calcutta.

This is also how you increase purses - then you can charge $100 entry fee to a tournament - get 64 players and have a side tournament with $640 in it.

This of course also means that the tournament directors of today's weekly/monthly regional tournaments would have to do more work. I should have thought of that first - nevermind - that would never happen in the pool world.

What would happen is...this. Lets say it's a 100 entry tournament and 5% for second chance. 1st 320 2nd 190 3rd 130

Players in the main event, that have lost once, consider themselves long shots to win the main event will be throwing their second match to get in the second chance. If 2 of these level players match up, it becomes a benefit for them to lose and the match could get real ugly.

Food for thought.

This is almost like socialism. Taking from the top and re-distributing to the bottom. It looks good on paper, but it don't work.

Ray

 

[ironman]

I know it hasn't been that long since you posted this note above but I'm curious if other people think this is as good an idea as you and I do?

I can't think of any reason why something like this hasn't already taken root...........................Is anyone currently hosting a TWO & OUT tournament?

i did the two and out tournament for about 3 years. It had its' ups and downs and I know where Watchz is coming from but it really isn't that much work. it becomes an issue when you have 64 coming back on Sunday and then the women. Eough tables gets to be a real issue

 

[Bigtruck]

i did the two and out tournament for about 3 years. It had its' ups and downs and I know where Watchz is coming from but it really isn't that much work. it becomes an issue when you have 64 coming back on Sunday and then the women. Eough tables gets to be a real issue

I do like the idea of a 2 and out tournament. What do you think about Using 10% of the Main event entries and 5% of the Auction to fund it?

Ray

 

[JDB]

What would happen is...this. Lets say it's a 100 entry tournament and 5% for second chance. 1st 320 2nd 190 3rd 130

Players in the main event, that have lost once, consider themselves long shots to win the main event will be throwing their second match to get in the second chance. If 2 of these level players match up, it becomes a benefit for them to lose and the match could get real ugly.

Food for thought.

This is almost like socialism. Taking from the top and re-distributing to the bottom. It looks good on paper, but it don't work.

Ray

I agree with you on this; however, people could have the same problem with your "two man tournaments."

Easy to get two guys to play for nothing, but advertise it is for $5,000, and take in the PPV dollars and split it.

Just to be clear; I am not saying you are doing that; however, it is not much different than what you have suggested.... Pool players, in general, will look for any advantage to make dollars...

 

[Mickey Qualls]

Do you guys KNOW who you're buying in the calcuttas BEFORE the bidding starts, or do you 'pick your player' once that round of bidding is over ?

The way I'm reading a lot of these posts, it seems like you KNOW who you're bidding on before the bidding even starts.

I just want to clarify if that is the case or not.

 

[watchez]

What would happen is...this. Lets say it's a 100 entry tournament and 5% for second chance. 1st 320 2nd 190 3rd 130

Players in the main event, that have lost once, consider themselves long shots to win the main event will be throwing their second match to get in the second chance. If 2 of these level players match up, it becomes a benefit for them to lose and the match could get real ugly.

Food for thought.

This is almost like socialism. Taking from the top and re-distributing to the bottom. It looks good on paper, but it don't work.

Ray

If you had $100 entry fee tournaments - 64 players and pull out $640 - you still have $5760 for the main pot PLUS the added money. You have to make first place worth something - all these $35 tournaments that pay nothing and only the winner covers his expenses will only go on for so long.

Matches should only take 45 minutes max and actually be about 30 minutes - you figure out what the race should be to make that happen. If that means races to 5, so be it. The Mosconi Cup is races to 5. A race to 5 would also deter this sandbagging you are worried about. Go ahead and lose twice and see if you can come thru another tournament, races to 5 to try to profit $220 for the weekend. If some pool player wants to continually try that, let them.

And the tournament should end play on Saturday night at about 8PM. This way people will actually stay and drink/eat in the host location instead of being worried about how it might effect their play and only spend $6 in the host location for the day.

And if you put together the 2 and Out tournament, you get more players coming back on Sunday. This makes the host location much happier when they actually have people in their building for two days instead of the 16 people left and 10 people (if you are lucky) to watch the outcome.

Put something together tournamentwise so people will come in on Thursday night - Friday night. Remember the host location that is adding the money, in most pool tournaments - at best - gets even with their added money. Most host locations for pool tournaments are run by poor businessman who can draw their ball so they thought opening a pool room would be a good idea. What they don't realize is that they were even before they started. The idea is for the host location to make money - especially when you are taking over their building during what should be their best money making times of the week. Get people to come and give them the opportunity to actually spend money in the host location beyond green fees or quarters in the bar tables and see what the added money can turn into. You can get to where you are playing $50 (or more) back to the person that gets 25th-32th place in a 64 man field. Now you are paying 35 spots (32 in Main Event, 3 spots in 2 in Out Tournament) in a 64 man tournament. The top players still make their money but others feel like they got something as well.

We averaged 68 players an event last year over 6 events with this 'mentality'. Over $100K in prizes. Yeah Ray - it doesn't work.

 

[Bigtruck]

If you had $100 entry fee tournaments - 64 players and pull out $640 - you still have $5760 for the main pot PLUS the added money. You have to make first place worth something - all these $35 tournaments that pay nothing and only the winner covers his expenses will only go on for so long.

Matches should only take 45 minutes max and actually be about 30 minutes - you figure out what the race should be to make that happen. If that means races to 5, so be it. The Mosconi Cup is races to 5. A race to 5 would also deter this sandbagging you are worried about. Go ahead and lose twice and see if you can come thru another tournament, races to 5 to try to profit $220 for the weekend. If some pool player wants to continually try that, let them.

And the tournament should end play on Saturday night at about 8PM. This way people will actually stay and drink/eat in the host location instead of being worried about how it might effect their play and only spend $6 in the host location for the day.

And if you put together the 2 and Out tournament, you get more players coming back on Sunday. This makes the host location much happier when they actually have people in their building for two days instead of the 16 people left and 10 people (if you are lucky) to watch the outcome.

Put something together tournamentwise so people will come in on Thursday night - Friday night. Remember the host location that is adding the money, in most pool tournaments - at best - gets even with their added money. Most host locations for pool tournaments are run by poor businessman who can draw their ball so they thought opening a pool room would be a good idea. What they don't realize is that they were even before they started. The idea is for the host location to make money - especially when you are taking over their building during what should be their best money making times of the week. Get people to come and give them the opportunity to actually spend money in the host location beyond green fees or quarters in the bar tables and see what the added money can turn into. You can get to where you are playing $50 (or more) back to the person that gets 25th-32th place in a 64 man field. Now you are paying 35 spots (32 in Main Event, 3 spots in 2 in Out Tournament) in a 64 man tournament. The top players still make their money but others feel like they got something as well.

We averaged 68 players an event last year over 6 events with this 'mentality'. Over $100K in prizes. Yeah Ray - it doesn't work.

I like your thinking. I guess what i should have typed is " seems like socialism". What tournaments were these?

Did you charge an entry for the second chance?

Ray


I

 

[watchez]

These weren't pool tournaments. I don't have the energy to deal with 60 plus pool players.

But I can tell you that with this setup, each of the players are our events spend an average of $200 (and that is a low balling) in the host location for the weekend. More math. 68 players x $200 = $13,600 in bar sales. Even with a high liquor cost of 25%, that is $3400 in liquor cost so the bar has a profit of $10,200. Makes it a lot easier to ask the bar to add $3500 plus to a tournament.

I sent you a PM so you can check it out for yourself.

There was no additional entry fee to the Second Chance tournament. The Second Chancers are already (unless they are your sandbaggers that you fear) in waters they aren't comfortable in. No reason to have them have additional financial risk. Especially since, if there was an additional entry, you would then have the Second Chancers paying MORE to play than the people in the Main Event.

 

[Bigtruck]

I agree with you on this; however, people could have the same problem with your "two man tournaments."

Easy to get two guys to play for nothing, but advertise it is for $5,000, and take in the PPV dollars and split it.

Just to be clear; I am not saying you are doing that; however, it is not much different than what you have suggested.... Pool players, in general, will look for any advantage to make dollars...

Forgive me for resenting the implication. I will try and explain how different the 2 are.

2 players that go 2 and out regularly, God bless them for loving the game, would likely never be players that anyone would even consider buying a ppv of.

Secondly, to pull off the type of conspiracy that you have suggested with a challenge match, there would have to be numerous people involved. It's hard to get 2 people on the same page with top players.

I am happy to report, in the entire time I have tried to put together action matches only (1) person ever even suggested anything like a fake match. It was a player that no one, except maybe their mother, would buy a ppv of.

Ray

 

[Bigtruck]

These weren't pool tournaments. I don't have the energy to deal with 60 plus pool players.

But I can tell you that with this setup, each of the players are our events spend an average of $200 (and that is a low balling) in the host location for the weekend. More math. 68 players x $200 = $13,600 in bar sales. Even with a high liquor cost of 25%, that is $3400 in liquor cost so the bar has a profit of $10,200. Makes it a lot easier to ask the bar to add $3500 plus to a tournament.

I sent you a PM so you can check it out for yourself.

There was no additional entry fee to the Second Chance tournament. The Second Chancers are already (unless they are your sandbaggers that you fear) in waters they aren't comfortable in. No reason to have them have additional financial risk. Especially since, if there was an additional entry, you would then have the Second Chancers paying MORE to play than the people in the Main Event.

Thanks.

For the record, I would really like a tournament like you have suggested. Anything that can raise all boats like this is good for the sport.

Ray

 

[ironman]

I do like the idea of a 2 and out tournament. What do you think about Using 10% of the Main event entries and 5% of the Auction to fund it?

Ray

Well I hope you aren't looking for someone to agree with ya as i certainly don't. i don't like tampering with the money from the main event. I like paying 25% of the field and i like them knowing up from and in writing what they can look forward to.
The 2nd chance is really of more advantage to the house and vendors anyway. it keeps the head count up on the final day and keeps the bartenders and wait staff busy. The vendors love it.
What i don't like about it is that a 2nd chance fives some an excuse or option to fail in the main event.
now taking 5% of the auction?? Is that after the 10% ; has been taken? I like this idea even less. i feel add ons should come from the house or sponsors. Why should the buyers chip in on something they have absolutely no interest in?
JMHO!

 

[JoeyA]

Well I hope you aren't looking for someone to agree with ya as i certainly don't. i don't like tampering with the money from the main event. I like paying 25% of the field and i like them knowing up from and in writing what they can look forward to.
The 2nd chance is really of more advantage to the house and vendors anyway. it keeps the head count up on the final day and keeps the bartenders and wait staff busy. The vendors love it.
What i don't like about it is that a 2nd chance fives some an excuse or option to fail in the main event.
now taking 5% of the auction?? Is that after the 10% ; has been taken? I like this idea even less. i feel add ons should come from the house or sponsors. Why should the buyers chip in on something they have absolutely no interest in?
JMHO!

I don't know what I agree with except that I believe the interest of the whole is more important than the interest of a few.

That being said, players "contribute" a percentage of their entry fee to the house in the form of "green fees".

Green Fees are just another way to help the house cover the cost of putting on the event. There's nothing wrong with that so why should their be something wrong with the Calcutta buyers (including the players) putting up a "green fee" to help the house do what the house needs to do and that is to have a successful event?

I don't approve of the house just taking a cut of the Calcutta money and putting it in their pocket but if they are doing something specific that enhances the quality of the overall tournament, I might be in favor of such a thing and most Calcutta buyers probably wouldn't complain either.

Regardless, a "Green Fee" for Calcutta buyers shouldn't be just wiped off the discussion board just because it is a little distasteful to a few.

Perhaps we could call it the "Red Fee" for returning money that goes into some of the players' pockets. If that name was too painful, maybe it could be called the "Amber Fee".

But seriously, I don't think it is out of the question to discuss the possibility of doing other things with the Calcutta.

-------
One thing I was thinking about is what happens to the Calcutta money in the first place. Most players buy half of themselves in the Calcutta, so that money goes back to the players. The only ones who get screwed are the ones who cannot afford to keep up with the bidding from the "corporations" and deep pocketed Calcutta Buyers. Those players have to depend upon the mercy and generosity of the Calcutta buyers which isn't a set standard by any stretch of the imagination. MANY players get NOTHING from the Calcutta buyers and that is a fact.

First and foremost, although I am sticking this in at the end of my post: Calcutta buyers make a GREAT ADDITION to any event, even if they are running me up the totem pole, unjustifiably in my eyes or anyone else's eyes. I've found most Calcutta buyers a gambling sort that is willing to spread the fun and profit around and extend the quality of an event, staying afterwards to stake additional matches. Some Calcutta buyers have had their hearts hardened by miserable experiences with some players and even miserable decisions on their own part so even the stingy Calcutta buyers have life's lessons behind them, making them who they are. I remember one player who posted recently about winning an event and the Calcutta buyer bought him a "coke" .

I'm curious to see this discussion continued along the lines of : "Do Calcutta buyers (which players make up the vast majority of) really want to see a small percentage of the Calcutta money (in the form of a Calcutta Gree Fee) processed in a way that actually enhances the players' event without destroying the Calcutta process.

Also, I am just wondering exactly what is lost if a few of the mega Calcutta buyers decide that giving back a small percentage of the Calcutta money to host a second chance tournament, is not something they want to do.

 

[Bigtruck]

I think what y'all are missing in the Watchez scenario is.... the buyer of one or two, "two and out" player(s), would be cashing in the auction now, thus making buying upper mid-level players more attractive, in turn the "buyers" have another chance or two to win.

Ray

 

[watchez]

Correct Ray - I thought that was pretty clear. 5% of the Calcutta pool goes to the winner of the 2 and out bracket - let's call it the Watchez Bracket. You are not using the 5% to fund the Watchez Bracket. If you own the person that wins the Watchez Bracket, you win 5% of the Calcutta money.

The funding comes from 10% of the entry fees of the original tournament. Since some of you struggle with math -- if you are taking out 10% of the entry fees, this means that if you increase the total field by over 10% of what was expected - YOU ARE COMING OUT AHEAD. If you can increase entry fees from $35 to $50, from $65 to $100 because you now have a Watchez Bracket - YOU ARE COMING OUT AHEAD.

Of course, pool can continue to spiral down with events that added money is missing, added money is hidden in other 'fees', host locations closing, and pool only thinking of 7 minutes from now. Ironman's mentality is truly amazing and I hope many don't agree with him - he doesn't want to think of a way to help the host location or any vendor actually profit from an event. Amazing. How long do you think this will go on for? Sometimes I guess you can't fix stupid.

 

[elvicash]

I like the Watchez bracket, good idea Watchez hopefully half of that 5% goes to whoever bought the 2 and out winner in the calcutta

 

[elvicash]

THE WAY THE CALCUTTAS CURRENTLY WORK:
If a player buys half of himself and the Calcutta buyer wins "good" net winnings on the player, should the Calcutta buyer still tip the player? If so, what percentage of the net winnings? If not, why not?

Just curious about how others think.

No the calcutta buyer took a risk and the player wanted to share that risk thus cutting the buyers potential profit in half and sharing the risk. They win they each split it and it if the buyer wants to tip then that is their perogitive. Myself if I do that and we are cutting up the money I do not make exact change so they might get half a 20 or so extra but that would be the extent of my tip. Now I have been known to tip my horse very well when they do not buy in. Also players often get there buddy a shot to buy there half hoping the buddy will give them a good tip.

Now on the other hand if a guy buys a player that player feels no remorse usually to the buyer if they play bad, or forfiet which has happened many times. Should forfieting players make this up to calcutta buyers, no the buyer took the risk and the profits on success then go to the risk taker. Tipping or jelly whatever you call it is up to the kindness of the investor it is not owed in any way shape or form.

Also what if you buy a player for a grand or more and that horse gets first and did not buy themself and you get like 5k what is a fair tip, also what if you spent 3500 in the calcutta you are only up 1500 but to the player it looks like 4k.

Now you can talk about corporations pricing players out of the calcutta that is a bunch of BS. The people in the calcutta singularly or as a group are trying to make money and there is no way that buying the majority of the best players is a long term winner for a group or singular investor. This will not pay in the long run the payouts usually give most of the money to first and second. If you are involved in a 10k+ 64 man calcuatta how much is in the top 3 or 4 players compared to the average price of player. Almost always with any big calcutta there are 10 players or so who are capable of getting 1,2 or 3. You will not make any money if you buy all 10 and if you buy the top 2 or 3 how do you like it if they draw each other first round or are in the same quarter bracket. Ouch.

Example Midwest bartable open the best players might be around a grand in the last calcutta. More then 7 players went for 500 or more. The average was 200 a player I think there was 13 grand or so in the pot. If you bought the top 6-8 players you would have had 5k plus in the pot and you would not be a lock to get the top 2 spots. The calcutta is a knowledge based investment but there is no way to guarantee profit. If you want to make money in a tourney run a calcutta and cut it 10-15 percent you will make something for your efforts. They cut the calcutta at this tourney but that money goes to running the tourney, the mailing list paying the tourney director and whatever they do. The joint adds a 1000 maybe 1500 to the tourney. No one complains about the cut. If they cut that calcutta and tried to add 10% back I bet there would be less calcutta participation take 20-25 percent out then who wants to bid a player up 1k. That 10% out 4500-5k for first goes down to 4100-4500 the return hurts what people will risk.

I guarantee you that when the calcutta is bid up by 3 or more big buyers no way more than one of them go home in any real substantial profit and probably at least one big buyer will have a bad weekend.

If you think a person should go out, pick some champions and bid up the calutta to make a big pot and go home with some serious cash all the while sharing a substantial portion of the profit with the players. This is not something I would suggest you make a withdrawl out of your 401k as it is a risky business. Any player is subject to getting beat in any round especially that first round there is invariably some upsets I have seen it many times. These upsets cause the favorites to move on and withdraw as mentioned in other posts. Calcuttas are fun especially when your 20 or 30 dollar horse beats the 800 dollar guy in the first round.

Also, If you run a two and out bracket then let the joint pay that winner with separate added funds or perhaps a free entry to the next tourney. What I like about that is it keeps the early loses there for a longer period of time good for the room owner and the ambiance of the tourney. This option is only good if yuou have the tables to support it and that is pretty rare at most places.

My opinion of the people who buy players in the calcutta is they frequently already support a player or two. Players are similar to artists in the old days many of them have a patron commonly called a staker in pool. Patrons have a lifespan usually based on money and love of the game or their player, the ones who are smart make money at it by controlling the range of their investments. But many share the profits and eat the losses and then after bit get burned out when they discover pool is a tough game to make a living at and I expect it is extremely tough to constantly profit out of a calcutta.

My ultimate opinion is leave the cash in the calcutta alone. If a player like the price then they can buy half or a quarter or whatever.

 

[ironman]

I don't know what I agree with except that I believe the interest of the whole is more important than the interest of a few.

That being said, players "contribute" a percentage of their entry fee to the house in the form of "green fees".

Green Fees are just another way to help the house cover the cost of putting on the event. There's nothing wrong with that so why should their be something wrong with the Calcutta buyers (including the players) putting up a "green fee" to help the house do what the house needs to do and that is to have a successful event?

I don't approve of the house just taking a cut of the Calcutta money and putting it in their pocket but if they are doing something specific that enhances the quality of the overall tournament, I might be in favor of such a thing and most Calcutta buyers probably wouldn't complain either.

Regardless, a "Green Fee" for Calcutta buyers shouldn't be just wiped off the discussion board just because it is a little distasteful to a few.

Perhaps we could call it the "Red Fee" for returning money that goes into some of the players' pockets. If that name was too painful, maybe it could be called the "Amber Fee".

But seriously, I don't think it is out of the question to discuss the possibility of doing other things with the Calcutta.

-------
One thing I was thinking about is what happens to the Calcutta money in the first place. Most players buy half of themselves in the Calcutta, so that money goes back to the players. The only ones who get screwed are the ones who cannot afford to keep up with the bidding from the "corporations" and deep pocketed Calcutta Buyers. Those players have to depend upon the mercy and generosity of the Calcutta buyers which isn't a set standard by any stretch of the imagination. MANY players get NOTHING from the Calcutta buyers and that is a fact.

First and foremost, although I am sticking this in at the end of my post: Calcutta buyers make a GREAT ADDITION to any event, even if they are running me up the totem pole, unjustifiably in my eyes or anyone else's eyes. I've found most Calcutta buyers a gambling sort that is willing to spread the fun and profit around and extend the quality of an event, staying afterwards to stake additional matches. Some Calcutta buyers have had their hearts hardened by miserable experiences with some players and even miserable decisions on their own part so even the stingy Calcutta buyers have life's lessons behind them, making them who they are. I remember one player who posted recently about winning an event and the Calcutta buyer bought him a "coke" .

I'm curious to see this discussion continued along the lines of : "Do Calcutta buyers (which players make up the vast majority of) really want to see a small percentage of the Calcutta money (in the form of a Calcutta Gree Fee) processed in a way that actually enhances the players' event without destroying the Calcutta process.

Also, I am just wondering exactly what is lost if a few of the mega Calcutta buyers decide that giving back a small percentage of the Calcutta money to host a second chance tournament, is not something they want to do.

Well I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Buyers and getting more rare these days. SUre A lot have been what they called burnt by buyers not jelly Rolling them. However The Jelly Roll is also called a tip. Tipping is not mandatory nor do I believe it should be. Players have the option to buy up to half themselves and many just choose not to. That is his choice. There is nothing written or announced about tips or Jelly rolls. Most, "Most" are pretty good about it. Some have issues with the finalist and will not tip. We often don't hear that side of the story.
Some players get run up higher than should be. That is a part of the game and a good one. that I hope continues to happen from hereon out. it is good for the calcutta and the money paid out.
The corporations as they are called can also be good for majority. It does a lot for the overall atmosphere of the event and generate more taking a shot at the pot. What most are actually irritated about is the fact that they can't throw a toothpick at the lumberyard. Plain and simple.
I wish we could see big auctions like they have at the Bullride in Del Rio each year. A couple of years ago that auction ws a total of somewhere around $750,000. i bet that conjured up some very big corporations.
Green Fees?? The house is giving up the weekend.
They are losing table time.
They lose the juke box or most of it.
They often add the money for the players.
It may even go to pay the director.

So no, I think cutting the pot to add to another pot such as the 2nd chance is just wrong! Bidding and buying is almost always a losing proposition any way. The pots today are too small to justify the costs anyway. Why risk what few buyers there are?