Calcutta Payouts vs. tournament payout percentages
JoeyA
tournament prize money in many tournaments across the country.
1- 25%
2- 16%
3- 12%
4- ............9%
5 & 6.............5%
7&8- 4%
9-12.... 3%
13-16...........2%
Do you think it would be better for the tournament as a whole if the
Calcutta payout percentages match the tournament payout percentages or not?
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Thanks,
joey
Bob Johnson
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
bo...@cris.com
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bh88qc$dsk$1...@news.datasync.com...
Pat Hall
what the tournament is paying. So if the tournament pays 16 places the
calcutta would pay 8. I'm not sure if you are asking wether the
calcutta should pay the same # of places or if only paying half the
places as the tourney then the %'s wouldn't match anyway.
PatH...only slightly confused
JAM
>tournament prize money in many >tournaments across the country.
>
>Calcutta payout percentages match the tournament payout percentages or not?
>
>Your thoughts are appreciated.
Just had this EXACT same conversation this weekend with a few pool enthusiasts,
Calcutta-bidding railbirds, if you will. Consensus was to pay out fewer spots
with larger payouts.
JAM
JoeyA
payouts and fewer spots to pay out to. This benefits the top hogs and their
buyers.
My position is that the Calcutta is basically funded by ALL of the players
in the tournament (most everyone will buy themselves for the minimum bid
and/or at least half of themselves).
Why should the benefit (payout) be directed at only the top few finishers?
The APA and the BCA are the most successful tournament promoters EVER. I
talk to league players who come back from the Vegas tournaments and they are
so jazzed about "coming in the money", that they can't wait to get back and
improve on their position of finish the next year. We aren't talking big
bucks either. When a team earns $600 it is often for the entire team or
$100 bucks per person.
I think for pool tournaments to evolve and expand, it is necessary to have
the tournament players especially the ones finishing in the middle to be
able to say, "I finished in the money". This single statement allows a
certain amount of redemption and justification for participating. It
doesn't matter that it wasn't the prized Golden Cow, they got something for
their trouble.
I believe that as tournament directors and Calcutta make the tournament
payouts and the Calcutta payouts more attractive for the middle players,
they will see more participants.
The tournament should cater to the masses and not the minority few who come
in 1st - 6th especially when their are 32-64 players in the tournament.
The Senior Tour pays out to the top 32 finishers and that tournament keeps
growing.
So while the Calcutta DEEP POCKET purchasers want to see the number of
payouts remain small ( so that they will get TOP returns on their investment
at the expense of all of the players), I think we should be looking at what
is good for all of the participants in the tournament, not just what makes
a very few that much "richer".
Besides I don't like to see a guy who has NO CHANCE of winning, being
intimidated into purchasing themselves for the minimum bid, knowing that he
has already paid his entry fee (and that he is in it for the experience of
competing against better players). While each person can choose to buy
themselves or not, it is "embarrassing" for some of the players not to buy
themselves for the minimum bid. I think we need to spread the money all
around for the benefit of the overall group as opposed to benefit of a
consistent few.
Unless we change the way we look at pool tournament payouts and Calcutta
payouts, we will continue to look at small fields. I think you have to give
the middle group something to chirp about.
Regards,
joeyA
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030811112937...@mb-m12.aol.com...
john mcchesney
I beg to differ about BCA and APA as "most" successful tournament promoters,
etc. .. they are certainly good at leagues
Texas Express has more than 10 times as many "promoted" tournaments that
either combined.
Over 3,000 T.E. individual events
You are correct when assuming that the middle to lower end of the pack
should be paid .. as it is they who comprise 85% of the field in "open"
events. Without them .. there would be no tournaments. Our average over the
years was 80 men and 18 women per event ( 2 divisions ); and the minimum
payback was held at 3/8 of the field(s) .. thus a 64 man bracket paid thru
24 places .. and I have always maintained that if there was ( enough )
sponsor inserted added/money that the fields should be paid to 50%.
As far as Calcuttas .. we always paid ( on first calcutta ) half what was
being paid in event, i.e., if event paid 24 .. then first calcutta paid 12.
Again .. 85% or so of the major amount of money raised in Calcuttas are for
the "whales/top hogs" sold and the buyers expect a payback.
One steadfast rule implemented in al T.E. events ( to protect the Calcutta
buyers from forfeits, etc. ) If a player was a no-show/forfeit in winner's
or loser's bracket, then the buyer had an option to keep player; or: request
and receive 100% refund; and, if refunded .. then the player ( only ) had
right to purchase him or herself .. or not at all. Player's who forfeit are
placed on a warning that in future they could NOT; either play, participate
in Calcuttas after 2nd infraction.
This rule .. if explained at Calcutta .. will enhance the pot as buyer's
knowledge that they can not lose money due to forfeits .. increased the sum
total in our events about 25-35% overall.
Note: another steadfast rule .. player's have option to buy up to 1/2 of
themselves PRIOR to posting the draw .. once the draw has been posted it is
up to the buyer as to whether to allow player his 1/2 or portion .. or not.
( this gets the players off their rear end to scurry and purchase prior to
seeing their respective position in the draw ).
Top-heavy payback tournaments historically have failed in the past .. as ..
again .. the top-dogs comprise a small percentage of the field ...
John McChesney
Texas Express
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bh8epm$gu0$1...@news.datasync.com...
Smorgass Bored
the player to 'opt out' of even having their name called if they choose.
I wouldn't call myself a calcuta 'Hog', but I have been the high bidder
in the 'blind bid' ($500 or more) portion of the calcutta as well as
bidding throughout the calcutta many times (as has Casey Kilian and
Gerald Huber, etc.) and I wouldn't drive two miles or make ANY bids if
the payout went beyond 3 or 4 places..... imo
As much as I like you (JoeyA), I think your idea of paying out as many
places and the same percentages as the tournament STINKS..... imo
and, it stinks to high heaven,
NEXT,
Doug
~>*(((>< Big fish eat Little fish ><)))*<~
JoeyA
pleasing the masses (and in turn bringing more people to the tournament)
rather than what a few HIGH Bidder rail birds want.
You probably won't be playing in the next tournament so you see my plump
friend, I will put your answer in the "round file". Not really. I
appreciate your sentiments and understand them entirely.
It is more important to please the people participating in tournaments
rather than those wanting to feed at the trough through buying favorites for
large sums of money and thereby feeding off of the very people who make the
tournament possible (the average skilled tournament player and the below
average tournament player).
I understand that you put money in action and that you spend money wherever
you go and you will always be welcome wherever I have a tournament but you
are not the person who is going to increase tournament participation. I
think that the average player and the below average player is far too
reluctant to respond to the unfairness of this current system of financial
distribution.
Paying small numbers of spots in Calcutta combined with larger percentages
means that few people will benefit from this policy. The average and below
average pool player in a tournament has very little chance if any of making
the top few spots of any tournament and if they buy themselves in the
Calcutta, it is to save themselves the embarrassment of not buying
themselves or just to get along with the rest of the people (or some other
similar reason) they reluctantly hand over the minimum Calcutta money
knowing that they have no chance of getting any portion of it back.
I don't think that is fair.
Even though I don't consider myself an underdog or even an average player, I
have won MORE than my fair share of Calcutta money. I think by spreading
the Calcutta money out over a larger portion of the field, there will be an
inclination for the average skilled player to compete more frequently. At
the very least, there were will be several more individuals that will be
happy to feed at the table of aplenty.
Regards,
JoeyA
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:27736-3F...@storefull-2318.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JoeyA
while I mention APA AND BCA tournaments as being among the most successful,
there are many ways of defining successful as you have pointed out.
If 85% of the money raised in a Calcutta are for Whales/Top hogs, why should
85% of the field have to support them?
Texas Express Calcutta's cuts the number of payees 50% as compared to the
payouts of the tournament money.
Why do that? To satisfy the needs of a few? I just don't understand that
and I think it hurts tournament participation especially amongst the average
player and below average player. And please don't tell me that they don't
have to buy themselves. They (the 85% you mentioned) and all of us already
know that but THEY would rather avoid the angst and embarrassment of saying
"NO, I don't want to buy myself for the minimum bid" so they fork over the
money and then cuss themselves for even getting in the tournament in the
first place. The average and below average players are already supporting
the tournament by putting up their entry fees. The additional Calcutta
money is just a greedy way of getting more out of the pockets of the less
skillful.
While I can do with or without Calcuttas, it just seems a lot more fair if
the money is spread across a larger section of the tournament players.
Even if tournament auctioneers would quit trying to cajole or intimidate
people into buying themselves, this would not solve the problem.
If it fair to pay 25% or 50 % of the field with tournament money, it should
be fair to pay the same portion in Calcutta money places and percentages.
Satisfying the needs of a few does not in any way that I can see, enhance
the chances of greater numbers of tournament participants or increased
frequency of participation in tournaments.
And you probably won't hear much from the 85% because they are a little
embarrassed about discussing this subject at all even with "friends".
As I have learned here on RSB, there are limited amounts of discretionary
funds to be spent and it is my belief that (concerning Calcuttas and
tournament prize money payouts) if those discretionary funds are "re-funded"
more fairly to a larger per centage of the participants, there will be
greater appreciation for the tournament trail and for its promotion.
The results of spreading the Calcutta money and the tournament money to more
people in the tournament could mean in the future, a bigger pie for all to
share and have fun with.
Regards,
JoeyA
"john mcchesney" <johnmc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:S0RZa.471$O17.34...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
JoeyA
EXPRESS TOUR.
If so, please make available the web site where interested parties may learn
more.
Thanks for what you do for pool.
JoeyA
"john mcchesney" <johnmc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:S0RZa.471$O17.34...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
john mcchesney
we do ahve some plans .. take a look-see
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bh8vpc$orj$1...@news.datasync.com...
lfigueroa
calcutta. Not only does it give them some kind of bragging rights, a big
calcutta with limited payouts does seem to attract the high rollers.
But, if your question is: what's best to increase tournament participation,
then I think there can be little doubt as to what the better policy is.
The vast majority of the pool playing public, who even begin to entertain
the idea of entering an open tournament, have absolutely no chance of
finishing in the top four. They have marginally little better odds of
finishing top eight. That rarified air is reserved for the
professionals -- guys that play more pool in a month than the amateur
might play all year. They are an elite, talented, but very small group
of individuals.
The majority of the field has no chance -- knows it -- but still
contributes the money for the pros to win. IOW, entry fee prize money is
coming straight from the pockets of guys that just want the thrill of
playing; the competition; the chance to test their mettle under fire;
an opportunity to walk into the arena. Every time I played in the US Open
I went with the full knowledge that I was doing little more that donating to
the professional pool players retirement fund and that was OK. But these
limited payout calcuttas are really little more than a poke in the eye to
the average player who is already in for the entry fee and expenses
and then gets pinched for a further donation via the calcutta.
IMO, paying out more places in a calcutta is a great idea if your objective
is to grow the event and get more participation. There's much to be said
for giving the average Joe a shot at just winning his entry fee back via the
calcutta, even if that's just $50 or $100. IMO, looking out for the players
who are supporting the event by sucking up the time, effort, and expense
to play is the smart thing to do, rather than appease the rail birds.
Lou Figueroa
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bh88qc$dsk$1...@news.datasync.com...
Smorgass Bored
I understand that you put money in action and that you spend money
wherever you go and you will always be welcome wherever I have a
tournament but you are not the person who is going to increase
tournament participation.
JoeyA
(*<~ Well, I happen to think that you are full of crap. I have
ALREADY done more for tournament participation than you may ever do. I'm
the guy that shows up at 3:00 in the afternoon to make certain that we
have tournament sheets and ample tables for the tournament and that the
balls are cleaned and there is new chalk (2) for each table. And then I
juggle all the players into four categories of handicaps and then remain
there until 3:00 a.m. refereeing & calling shots and maiking sure the
money's right. And, I've done it at least once a week for over 4 years
(except when I'm on the road to sweat other action)and run 9 Ball
tournaments and Wheelchair tournaments and BCA Women's Qualifiers and
introduced & taught the basics of one-pocket to 25-35 B & C class
players and implemented local one-pocket tournaments. And, spent
thousands of dollars and driven thousands of miles to come sweat YOUR
action. I feel that I've done 'something' to increase tournament
participation.
If you want to nit pick the calcutta payouts to 24 or 32 places, be my
guest. Don't look for me to attend or bid at any such tournament.
Isn't this upcoming Jim Bob tournament the same one that you got so
much flack for last year, for how deep you paid the players ? I'm
certain that the players that come in 19th and 32nd will enjoy getting
some calcutta money, but when you've run off the 'big calcutta hogs',
what are you going to have to split up ? It's hard to pay off 32 places
with $500.... imo
your good friend,
Smorgass Bored
Even if tournament auctioneers would quit trying to cajole or intimidate
people into buying themselves, this would not solve the problem.
(*<~ Make up your mind. You're the one that told me (and others)
that you admired and would like to emulate the calcutta auctioneer that
worked the Breaker's tournament in Mobile. You said that he was the best
at getting the most money out of everyone.
And you probably won't hear much from the 85% because they are a little
embarrassed about discussing this subject at all even with "friends".
(*<~ Not at all. I'm in that 85% and always buy myself without
embarrassment, even though I usually go 2'nout. I believe that I am
closer to the players that go two or three and out than you are and I'm
not certain that you speak for that group at all. You are speaking for
the 'nits' and I guess that ain't so bad, because someone has to.......
imo
Regards,
JoeyA
Regards right back at you, buddy .....
George Starcher
support the option for a player not to even have his name called if he
wishes.
I play OK at times but would certainly be considered "dead money" in most
tournaments. Even so, I would play in a lot of them except that I don't like
the calcutta side of things. I've had enough of "team play" in both APA and
BCA. In individual competition, I don't need the additional pressure of
having to evaluate my shot decisions, etc in light of having someone else's
money riding on the outcome.
Another consideration is that when the calcutta outcome is high relative to
the tournament itself, strange things happen. More than once, I've seen a
player/buyer in position to send his own horse to the barn and deciding to
dump so his guy can stay in the hunt for the real money.
BTW, in the local tournaments around here, you must be in the calcutta if
you want to play.
George Starcher
JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bh8tsa$o3l$1...@news.datasync.com...
john mcchesney
Points well taken ...
I, and anyone else associated with T.E. has never "forced" player
participation in the calcuttas .. as I have seen via some other well known
tours ..
Number one: In every state in the U.S. .. calcuttas are illegal ( and
particularly illegal when held in a facility where a liquor license is in
place .. as the calcutta is an illicit activity to solicit additional bar
business .. and the alcohol boards in each state frown big time !! ) .. so
for 99.9% of the calcuttas .. we would "no bid" those players whose wish it
was to not bid themselves .. then sell them in a combined group at the end
for one price. Advertising pertinent any event that states a minimum amount
due by player participants in the calcutta is just asking for legal
problems.
I too agree that the calcuttas should pay deeper .. but alas .. for the most
part, the calcuttas are supported by stakehorses .. and we know who they
buy. We have tried to pay deeper .. but it never enhanced the lower rung of
players to purchase themselves ..
Found out the hard way that the law and the casinos frown super big time on
calcuttas held in Vegas .. Atlantic City and other major "casinos" outside
those two. Seems they don't get a piece .. so they don't want the promoters
to do it !!! ( takes away from their machine and table play ) ... they
assume ..
Unfortunately ... the main problem is lack of sponsorship funds .. if we had
enough then the entry fee would be insignificant .. because we could pay
back 100% of the participants ...
John McChesney
Texas Express
"john mcchesney" <johnmc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:S0RZa.471$O17.34...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
lfigueroa
on a NG vice face to face.)
Smorg -- you don't really think Joey was being unappreciative of all the
great work you've done at Planet 9ball, are you?!
Clearly, what he was saying was only in reference to you as a potential
bidder in a calcutta and had no connection to your past good works.
everyone here knows you're practically the Mother Teresa of Tampa pool.
More to the point: while you might choose not to attend an event with a deep
calcutta payout, there might be more players that would be encouraged to
participate more frequently if they had a shot at some calcutta cheese.
Yes, you're right: there would not be much to cut up with a $500 calcutta.
But for the majority of players, their piece of a $500 calcutta far exceeds
anything they'd receive from a four deep payout with a $5,000 calcutta which
currently (in US dollars) would equal exactly zippo, nada, zilch.
Lou Figueroa
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21384-3F...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
lfigueroa
has
heard about the Smorg Fortune and knows you like to throw it about. The 85%
does not have access to anything approaching the Smorg Bankroll.
And you saying that Joey is speaking for the "nits" perfectly illustrates
his point about intimidation, embarrassment and players buying themselves,
if for no other reason than to save themselves from the ignominy of no one
bidding on them; being bullied into another contribution; and being called a
"nit."
Lou Figueroa
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21384-3F...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JAM
>From: "lfigueroa" to "JoeyA"
>"...everyone here knows you're practically the Mother Teresa of Tampa pool."
It is folks like you, with an obvious love of the game and strong dedication,
that make pool available, and enjoyable, to folks like me.
Tournaments held in certain States in my neck of the woods will not to allow
Calcuttas for reasons stated previously in the thread. There are some pool
rooms, though, that get around legal loopholes with the 10-percent donation to
charity.
Calcuttas do give the rail something additional to enjoy. It's always fun to
see a long shot, who bought himself for 20 bucks, collect first place in
Calcutta.
Just like the red-dot or blue-dot cue ball, two-shot/push-out rules versus ones
used today, Gold Crown III's versus Gabriels, Simonis cloth versus slow cloth,
big buckets versus shimmied pockets, room temperature, lighting, smoking, beer
availability, there will always be somebody who will not be content with the
division of the Calcutta payouts.
The division of the Calcutta payout should be based on who are the anticipated
attendees, whether they even like big Calcuttas. I have attended events when
75 to 90 percent of the Calcutta belonged to just a select few, the hogs(?).
The buy-back-in at the DCC is enjoyed by the majority of pool players who
attend, but there are some who think the large division of the payout monies
makes coming in 12th out of a 300-plus field kind of skimpy.
If you are fortunate enough to have events at the same locale, then it could be
catered to that audience, what they prefer. Just a thought.
JAM (You're in Tampa. Do you know Geese?)
Art Tripp
Gulfport had a Calcutta which paid 8 places: $720 (37%) for 1st, down to $85
(4%) for 7th and 8th places. The tournament field was 48 players, so the
Calcutta paid places amounting to 1/6th, or roughly 16% of the field. The
tournament itself paid 12 places: $800 1st, down to $85 for 9th-12th.
Doc
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21384-3F...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Smorgass Bored
(well, this is why there are problems when people try and talk to each
other on a NG vice face to face.)
Smorg -- you don't really think Joey was being unappreciative of all the
great work you've done at Planet 9ball, are you?!
(*<~ Sorry Lou, but Joey can no longer wander the sideline. It's time
to make his newsgroup bones. If it seems that I'm 180° opposed to
Joey's calcutta payout and giving him a ration of shit, it's because I
am. I'm not going to kowtow to him because he's older and a superior
player. He'll just have to take his licks arguing with me.
If I go to a tournament and pay $500 in the blind bid and pick the
favorite and then the rest of the 85% of players bring a total of
$500-$700 for a grand total of $1,000-$1,200,I can't even win my money
back collecting 25% of the total pool if my horse wins the race. It
doesn't matter whether the player buys half of himself or not, it's a
losing proposition. You also have no shot at coming out a winner if you
buy multiple players in the auction. Ibelieve that the Breaker's
Tournament was $10,000 guaranteed and the calcutta paid more than the
tournament payout. The second chance calcutta collected about $6,000.
Calcutta's are for Gamblers..... imo Most poolplayers are
gamblers.... imo
When the hogs, whales and stakehorses realize that they can't even
make even money on their bids, they'll stop buying players. Who's going
to put the money into the calcutta that will allow Joey to pay 24 places
? I mean, think about it. If the big bidders don't bid and the
embarrassed 85% aren't going to bid, then where will the calcutta money
come from ?
Smorgass Bored
JAM (You're in Tampa. Do you know Geese?)
(*<~ Yep, both Big and Little Geese. Little Goose was illuminated
yesterday in the $5,000 Added Florida Pro Tour by Ray Martin.
Smorgass Bored
Gulfport had a Calcutta which paid 8 places: $720 (37%) for 1st, down to
$85 (4%) for 7th and 8th places. The tournament field was 48 players, so
the Calcutta paid places amounting to 1/6th, or roughly 16% of the
field. The tournament itself paid 12 places: $800 1st, down to $85 for
9th-12th.
(*<~ Joey got a ration of shit from all his friends and
acquaintances for paying out 8 places last year. Why on earth does he
want to pay 12,24 or 32 places NOW ?
I think he's simply trying to prove a point.
it would serve Joey right to win the tournament and get $11.64 for
1st in the calcutta...... NEXT,
JAM
> "(*<~ Yep, both Big and Little Geese. Little Goose was illuminated
>yesterday in the $5,000 Added Florida Pro Tour by Ray Martin."
LOL on "Little Goose." Know him very well, emigrated to FL from MD.
When I saw Kid Delicious this past weekend, I couldn't get over the
resemblance. He is an EXACT DUPLICATE of Geese. Glad to hear Mike is FINALLY
competing in tourneys down there, even though he would rather be playing
one-pocket. Hope he watches what he drinks after his Naples experience of
Diet-Coke being spiked.
In keeping with the thread on Calcuttas, I played in a handicapped tourney in
Queens, NYC, same place where Big Apple tourney is going to be held this coming
weekend. The movie star with the 2-minute speaking part and I were on our way
back from winning first place at a Joss event, shooting down Ronnie Alcano like
Swiss cheese. We were invited to stop by Queens on our way home to this
every-Sunday-night tourney.
I, being, AGAIN, a Newbie in the pool room was given the handicap of the
5-ball. When they announced my name in the Calcutta, several unfortunate poor
souls bid on me, thinking I must play pretty good. When it was my turn to
shoot, Frankie Hernandez, Ginky, and other notable players were 3 feet from me,
never saw me shoot before (for good reason), and I was so nervous, I couldn't
make a ball. I didn't bid on myself in the Calcutta, or take half.
I have attended many events and see the same hogs(?) traveling to the same
Calcutta events, never shooting pool. They study their horses and bid very
wisely at each event. If there is no Calcutta, lines are mysteriously created
on the side, allowing these guys to sweat something during the event.
JAM (Is Baker's pool room still in Tampa, the one on the corner?)
Smorgass Bored
No. Smorg, you are not closer to the 85%. Everyone, from here to the
Gulf has
heard about the Smorg Fortune and knows you like to throw it about.
(*<~ I'm sorry to report that the Smorgass fortune is gone. The
Barbarachnid (my creepy-scary, red-headed, blood-sucking, spider-wife)
not to be confused with The Black Widow, thinks that I squandered it. I
think it was spent wisely on one-pocket, beer, donuts and bait.
Now that I've finally closed my Antiques & Collectibles shop after 12
years, I find myself unemployed and broke. At last, I'm a POOLPLAYER....
Yeehaaaaaaa !
and then, there's the money I spent on gas,food, hotels,gambling and
booze, sweating Joey's action in New Orleans, Biloxi, Gulfport, Slidell,
Mobile and Naples....... but who's counting ?
Frank Howe
"Smorgass Bored" wrote
( When the hogs, whales and stakehorses realize that they can't even
make even money on their bids, they'll stop buying players. Who's going
to put the money into the calcutta that will allow Joey to pay 24 places
? I mean, think about it. If the big bidders don't bid and the
embarrassed 85% aren't going to bid, then where will the calcutta money
come from ?
I think the same could be said if the TD only paid out the top three spots.
How many people in any tournament have a chance at the top three. Take
Breakers
events-- There were good players there and still I figure only a few have a
legit
shot at top 3. I think theres a lot of guys that get in the tournament
knowing that they
are going to get shot down quickly and I have always wondered why they buy
half of themselves
in the Calcutta. However, it is optional and I have refused half of myself
more than once.
I think the event should pay back fairly deep into the field but the
calcutta is a catch 22 IMHO.
I am a partcipant in every calcutta I have ever been around and still ask
myself a few times what the
hell I am doing. I have made way more money bidding on the cheaper guys and
them getting a little ways
into the money than anytime I ever went for a champion.
If the calcutta paid only 3-4 spots I probably wouldnt bid. Mainly not
because of percentages
but because you never really know about a player. They could set up savers
and all kinds of splits
and screw me.
I wonder if calcuttas actually get more people in the door at all. I would
not think it would be a lot.
What I am more concerned with is the amount of dollars paid for
registration fees, green fees,
cards(to play one local event) and the amount of dollars some of these tours
require the owners
to fork up. I didnt play in an event here because it was going to cost me
$80 to play this one event.
60 entry, 10 registration fee, and 10 for the tour. Call me cheap but I
would have paid 50-60 to
play with the big dogs and go 2 and out but not with 25% of my money going
elsewhere than into
the event. The event sucked except for the player (Efren, Parica,and many
others were there) but
cokes were 3 bucks and table time was 15 per hour. I did enjoy watching
Efren play Parica.
I am not really in disagreement with you Smorg and see you points on the
calcuttas but I dont know how to make
all parties happy. I am usually right there like you pumping out my money,
playing and buying
half of myself in the calcutta.
frank howe---realy doesnt like it when the top players bitch about how many
spots the event
pays back. If it paid back less then a lot fewer would enter.
BTW-- when is the next Breakers tournament?
casey kilian
What is the purpose of the Calcutta? Who pays the Money that goes
into the calcutta's (not the top players) I will not spend my money
on any calcutta's that do not have a reasonable payback, I will play
for the Tournament money only, $2000 added with $65 entry fee per
player seems a much better value for my $$$$. I say payout 32 places
on the Tournament side and forget the Calcutta. IMO Casey
JAM
>Date: 8/12/2003 3:04 AM Eastern
>What is the purpose of the Calcutta?
Some pool players I know consider the tournament Calcutta payouts just as
important, if not more important, and take that into consideration when
deciding whether to attend an event. Top pro players who are sponsored, who
make their living in pool, have their hotel and entry fees paid, which sure
does help when deciding which events to participate in. We all know what it
costs to attend a week-long event like U.S. Open or Derby City Classic.
Tournaments like Big Apple this weekend and Capital City Classic in Philly at
end of the month have a large enough payout to attract pro pool players,
non-American pool players, local top dogs, and even the guy who just wants the
experience of playing Jose Parica.
It is always amusing to me when a loss is incurred by somebody in the Calcutta
rankings and the person who lost on the rail claims there was "a business deal"
going on between the two players because of the Calcutta monies being so large.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but more times than not, the loss is just
that, a loss. The player feels bad enough and then faces the accusations of
dumping.
There are often occasions when the two competing players who are very good
friends end up playing each other in the upper rankings and make a saver with
each other, i.e., if you win the tournament, you will give me, as an example,
$500, and if I win, I will give you $500, only if one of us wins. It won't
affect the Calcutta. Both players know either one of them can win and are
willing to engage in this "saver" agreement; an insurance policy, if you will.
Earl summed it up best. Million-dollar golf tournament entry fees are $100,
but look at the payouts. Pool entry fees can reach as high as $500, and first
place, as we all know, never exceeds $20,000, in most cases.
What is the purpose of the Calcutta? Calcutta is gambling, just like going to
the track or playing poker. Whenever there are high payouts, especially
exceeding the tournament payouts, there will always be an element of doubt as
to the veracity of the win.
JAM
Pat Hall
wonder what would happen if at sign up time you asked each player "would
you like to be a participant in the calcutta" I would guess that a good
percentage of the field when asked this in relative privacy would opt
out of the calcuta and I wouldn't be surprised if a number of the "Big
Dogs" would selct this option too. Of course this would realy screw up
the calcutta when the top 10 finishers were not participating. LOL
Just a thought.
PatH
Smorgass Bored
JAM (Is Baker's pool room still in Tampa, the one on the corner?)
(*<~ But, of course. I believe that it's the oldest operating
poolroom in Florida.
However, Bakers/Robby just got some major grief from the State about
people still smoking in the place. You're only allowed to smoke in the
poolroom (building) if your food sales are less than 10% of your
business and Bakers has a liquor license that is a 51%-49% , meaning
that your food sales have to be 51% or more of your business....
O <----rock ---- hardplace----> I
Leave it up to Big Brother to close the oldest operating
poolroom....... imo
JAM
>JAM asks Smorgass Bored: "(Is Baker's pool room still in Tampa, the one on
the corner?)"
>
> Smorgass Bored replies: "(*<~ But, of course. I believe that it's the
oldest operating
>poolroom in Florida."
I remember that spot well, could see the Tampa football stadium from the
corner.
I will bet if the walls could talk in that pool room, they would have some
stories to tell. Met Grady there for the first time when he was traveling
around in a Cadillac with pointed tail lights and female friend (pre-Randi, of
course) and pitbull puppy. Saw Steve the Miz play there.
Florida has something to offer pool players desiring to play in tournaments as
of late. Many, many good ones. Will be on the road soon and Florida is a pool
player's paradise. Hope to see the old Baker's and check out some of these
tournaments coming up, with or without the Calcuttas (staying on topic of the
thread).
JAM (Ask Geese about the 9-ball ring game on the front snooker table. After
watching him stay benched for 10 games, I immediately excused myself and
departed for the bar across the street to prepare for drive home)
JoeyA
There are many people who bemoan your leaving Planet Nine Ball, I feel sure.
Your efforts must be appreciated by the locals. If you did a good enough
job they will surely be calling you up from retirement.
Now if your true interest is to build tournament participation nationally,
perhaps there is hope for you to join "our" side who believes that paying
deep in Calcuttas will help tournament participation.
There wasn't much flack from that last tournament. In fact, many people
told me personally that they had a good time. There will always be people
like yourself who don't see eye to eye with the way things are but that can
be a good thing. Even so, perhaps your past and future contributions will
help increase tournament participation. That is my only goal.
You will be sorely missed at Jim-Bob's in Gulfport, MS this Saturday and
Sunday.
JoeyA
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21384-3F...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JoeyA
increased if the Calcutta pays more spots.
And paying 37% for first place Calcutta is sinful. It is FAR too great of a
percentage of the pot. That was my mistake for trying to be a nice guy. It
should be around 25% for 1st place at the most.
An added benefit: If the payout spots were more numerous and the money
spread more fairly, there would be far less talk about players dumping.
You apparently don't want to see the benefits of paying more spots in the
Calcutta or you just don't care and only want it YOUR way.
Here's hoping one day Tampa-Tubby Bob will see that the benefits of paying
deeper in the Calcutta will increase tournament participation.
BTW, you are in the minority on this subject as far as pool tournament
participants are concerned.
Warmest regards,
JoeyA (would still try to win the tournament if first place Calcutta paid
$11.64 and he bought half of himself).
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23527-3F3...@storefull-2316.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JoeyA
TO be against the law. It is an immoral rule.
Thanks for your opinion and important points.
JoeyA
"George Starcher" <poolpl...@bullmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ktVZa.752$_3....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
JoeyA
Calcutta, which is just fine with me. I am for having greater tournament
participation and increased numbers of pool tournaments.
Even the host site lose revenue to the Calcutta!
Why would a host site want to listen to any of the "vocal" but apparently
"in the minority" pro-Calcutta people? You would think the ywould want to
increase tournament participation, not get some bragging rights that they
reduced tournament participation because they had a big Calcutta that paid
just a few people.
1. The majority of tournament players apparently would like to have the
Calcutta pay more positions.
2. The owners of the site location don't like the Calcutta because it cuts
into their revenue.
3. It is obvious that spreading the Calcutta wealth around will increase
tournament participation.
4. Ending the Calcutta altogether might increase tournament participation
even further.
Please don't tell me that you are just one of those selfish individuals who
must have it his way and his way only.
There is hope for you Dougie. Tickets are still available.
IT IS JUST NOT CALLED THE GRAVY-TRAIN ANYMORE
Get on board, Dougie, the train is leaving without you!
FWIW:
It would be fine with me if the Calcutta was discontinued altogether, if it
meant increasing tournament participation.
I also like the idea of not having a person's name called at all if they do
not want to participate in the Calcutta. This could be determined when
entry fee is paid. Thanks for the idea George. Maybe some warm-hearted
Calcutta auctioneers could have this implemented if there is one.
Regards,
JoeyA
"john mcchesney" <johnmc...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ONVZa.471$wB....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
b p
(Smorgass Bored) wrote:
>However, Bakers/Robby just got some major grief from the State about
>people still smoking in the place. You're only allowed to smoke in the
>poolroom (building) if your food sales are less than 10% of your
>business and Bakers has a liquor license that is a 51%-49% , meaning
>that your food sales have to be 51% or more of your business...
What kind of crap math is that ?
Don't they make money on tables ?
Smorgass Bored
Dear "good friend",
There are many people who bemoan your leaving Planet Nine Ball, I feel
sure. Your efforts must be appreciated by the locals. If you did a good
enough job they will surely be calling you up from retirement.
(*<~ Man, you're hard to argue with, being so soft spoken and all.
It's funny that you mention being called up from retirement. I was
called at home by Charlie Williams to referee some of the Patriot Cup,
but sadly I had to decline. Only yesterday, the owner of Planet 9-Ball
called and spoke with me for about an hour concerning being the TD for
the big deal International Wheelchair competition next month, where the
finals will be filmed for ESPN (Steve Tipton is being brought in for
THAT) ( I didn't want to have give my real age, weight and name AND they
won't let me wear my hat). They want me for the three days leading up to
the finals and I'm 'thinking it over'. The owner's wife called me only
30 minutes ago to find out 'my demands' to get me back. We're pretty
close on the cash and BEER, but we're at an impasse on donuts....
Now if your true interest is to build tournament participation
nationally, perhaps there is hope for you to join "our" side who
believes that paying deep in Calcuttas will help tournament
participation.
(*<~ Tournament participation NATIONALLY ? That's a lot for this
poor little country boy to bite off.... IMO
Me, join the 'dark side' ? Not likely..
You will be sorely missed at Jim-Bob's in Gulfport, MS this Saturday
and Sunday.
JoeyA
(*<~ Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm all choked up.
but, they DO have great hamburgers....... hmmmm
I'm thinking here,boss.. I'm thinking here,
Smorgass Bored
<snip happens>
(*<~ For God's sake, man. Stomp your foot, scream, holler, argue,
CURSE, but please stop being so level headed. I can't fight THAT.... imo
BTW, you are in the minority on this subject as far as pool tournament
participants are concerned.
(*<~ What's new ?
Warmest regards,
JoeyA
right back atchya,
Smorgass Bored
Perhaps the real answer to even GREATER tournament participation is have
no Calcutta, which is just fine with me.
(*<~ Blasphemy, heretic.
I am for having greater tournament participation and increased numbers
of pool tournaments.
(*<~ Me TOO !
1. The majority of tournament players apparently would like to have the
Calcutta pay more positions.
(*<~ Maybe in New Orlean & Mississippi, but I think Florida players
feel differently.
There is hope for you Dougie. Tickets are still available. IT IS JUST
NOT CALLED THE GRAVY-TRAIN ANYMORE
Get on board, Dougie, the train is leaving without you!
(*<~ I require a boxcar filled with fresh hay.
I also like the idea of not having a person's name called at all if they
do not want to participate in the Calcutta. This could be determined
when entry fee is paid. Thanks for the idea George.
(*<~ I believe that I mentioned it first.
Regards,
JoeyA
Regards,
Doug Wiley
JoeyA
payouts on the Calcutta are from Louisiana or Mississippi.
And please reserve your thinking when you are drinking alone.
Warmest regards,
joeyA
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:17308-3F3...@storefull-2312.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Smorgass Bored
Warmest regards,
joeyA
(*<~ I have not yet begun to drink,today. Unless you count the three
bowls of Cheerios and Bailey's Irish Cream I had for 'brunch'.
I noticed that you signed your name with a small j and big A. Maybe
you are a Big A.
but, I still like you (anyway)
Bruce Boyd
>Earl summed it up best. Million-dollar golf tournament
>entry fees are $100, but look at the payouts.
>Pool entry fees can reach as high as $500, and first
>place, as we all know, never exceeds $20,000, in most cases.
Earl's summation is slightly myoptic. It takes a great deal more than
coughing up a very few dollars to compete for milk and honey riches.
If you are not in possession of a tour card, regardless of how good a player
you are, you, most commonly, apply to q school ($2500 entry) and play a 72
hole tournament in October with all its attendant costs and finish towards
the top; then another 72 hole tournament in November with more costs and a
good performance; then a 108 hole final in December. Last December, only 38
received tour cards.
Over the course of the following year, all players, including the new guys,
must play in at least 15 tournaments and finish in the top 125 money makers
at the end of their fiscal year or it's back to q school.
In addition to all that performance related stuff, almost every new player
on the tour needs backers paying the hotel, meal, and airfare bills until
the player establishes himself (or not). A full schedule on tour can run
over $100,000 in expenses before earning a nickle. Backers, both individual
and syndicates, usually consider their contributions to be an investment and
expect a return. Sometimes several years into the future. It's not always a
great deal for the player and it's hardly easy pickings as Earl's pov would
lead one to believe.
--
Protection Island Bruce (been enjoying jam almost daily lately and still
losing weight)
JAM
>losing weight)
Had no idea about those golf accreditations, and I read with interest your
informative post. Hope Earl realizes those same well-taken points about the
golf-and-pool analogy. I know I wasn't aware of them.
LOL on jam almost daily and not losing weight. It reminds me of a thread on
AzB about what did Forest Whitaker REALLY MEAN when he said to Paul Newman in
The Color of Money, with a smirk, "Hey, let me ask you something. Do you think
I need to lose some weight?" The debate went on and on as to what he really
meant by "weight."
Staying with the theme of this thread, maybe this is what the UPA is trying to
do for pool players. I don't know too much about the UPA benefits, but its
intentions could be a good start to help elevate this sport we all know and
love.
JAM
Bob Johnson
to crack the PGA Tour really is. Very small percentage ever get a shot at a
tour card, and it's an expensive trip getting there!
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
bo...@cris.com
"JAM" <jama...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030812073146...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Bob Johnson
the Nationwide Tour is a privilege to get a shot at. At least, now that
it's available, there's a way for some of these kids to earn a small living
while going after the big show.
"Bob Johnson" <bo...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:bhbrbo$b...@dispatch.concentric.net...
Art Tripp
the tournament? Dunno. Anyway, the plain fact is that when one's name is
called in the Calcutta auctioning, one does not have to bet on oneself. In
local tournaments I'll participate in several bids on myself, since I have
the ability to finish in the dough. In larger regional events, I'm not
going to make the top 8, maybe not even the final 16, so I'll occasionally
make a token bet just to be in action, but I'll never go higher, nor will I
take 1/2 of myself at a higher bid. Then I take my money and try to buy the
true top players, like the "CAJUN COWBOY", JOEY A!!!!
Doc
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bhb0uj$vv8$1...@news.datasync.com...
George Starcher
"Art Tripp" <gulfp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TAf_a.5234$rh1...@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Maybe he meant you couldn't bet in the Calcutta unless you were playing in
> the tournament? Dunno.
Art, I apologize for the e-mail reply. I'm on the laptop right now and
finger-glitched the touchpad. This is the same thing for the group.
Actually I meant what I said even if I didn't make it clear to all. I wanted
to play and asked the TD specifically if I could enter the tournament and
NOT be auctioned in the calcutta. The answer was an emphatic "no".
George Starcher
TheRacker
ball events I felt sort of pressured to opt for the minimum bid in the
calcutta. One place finally closed (owner very old) and the other did away
with the calcutta because it just wasn't working due to a couple players who
dominated. I've played in some Viking Cue events and never felt embarassed
when I opted out of the calcutta, I think their tournaments are very well run
and the t.d. treats everyone fairly and makes them feel comfortable. I can
understand though if I'm one of the people dropping big bucks to buy a top
player than I should get a big return on my bet. The only realistic way I can
see to do that is pay fewer places like maybe the top five giving them
something like 40% 25% 20% 10% and 5% That rewards the guys betting the
big bucks if their horse wins and I mean really, the only way I'm going to win
is if its a 64 man tournament and 63 hookers show up offering freebies and I
wind up drawing the short straw.
Art Tripp
I assume the TD meant that your name must be available for auction-- not
that YOU would have to bid on yourself. If that's the case, what does it
matter to you if someone buys you? You have no obligation to them. At
times I've told guys that were about to bid on me that I wasn't playing
well, so I wouldn't be a good bet. But whatever they do with their own
dough is their business.
Art
"George Starcher" <poolpl...@bullmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r9g_a.11246$Ea.1...@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
JoeyA
I wouldn't mind seeing the TOP 8 PLAYERS sold in a separate Calcutta or the
only Calcutta. That way the big "gamblers" could really bet it up amongst
themselves.
They could really get some odds on their money with eight people to bid on
and bid against, they could divide up the money to five places with your
percentages 40%, 25%, 20%, 10% and 5%. They wouldn't have to spread their
money around so much so they could concentrate on putting most of their
money on ONE HORSE and then they could reap the benefits of betting on the
horse of their choice and wouldn't have to rely on the underdog to fund
their lagniappe fund.
But to be fair to everyone, I think that the percentages and number of
places should be announced before the Calcutta. That is something I learned
last year.
JoeyA
"TheRacker" <ther...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030812222126...@mb-m19.aol.com...
George Starcher
> Hi George,
>
> I assume the TD meant that your name must be available for auction-- not
> that YOU would have to bid on yourself. If that's the case, what does it
> matter to you if someone buys you? You have no obligation to them. At
> times I've told guys that were about to bid on me that I wasn't playing
> well, so I wouldn't be a good bet. But whatever they do with their own
> dough is their business.
>
> Art
>
From my initial post on the subject:
"I've had enough of "team play" in both APA and
BCA. In individual competition, I don't need the additional pressure of
having to evaluate my shot decisions, etc in light of having someone else's
money riding on the outcome."
Art, you do make a valid point that I have no obligation to them. That's
fine in theory but in practice, it is not that simple for me. In local
events, the buyer is quite likely to be a friend and in new places, you have
no idea what the buyer is like. Either way, it affects my play. Just a
single example if you will: I'm a nut for three rail kicks and banks and am
prone to shoot them anywhere at any time even though the proper play is to
duck safe. If the only money on the line is mine when the spurs start to
jingle in my head and John Wayne is looking over my shoulder, screw the
safety, the game and the match - I'm taking the shot. That's part of the fun
and thrill of the game for me. Under team or calcutta conditions, that can
understandably piss off even a friend so the percentage play becomes the
shot, the fun goes away, and playing becomes just a different kind of work.
Hope this 'splains it.
George
Smorgass Bored
in my head and John Wayne is looking over my shoulder, screw the safety,
the game and the match - I'm taking the shot. That's part of the fun and
thrill of the game for me. Under team or calcutta conditions, that can
understandably piss off even a friend so the percentage play becomes the
shot, the fun goes away, and playing becomes just a different kind of
work.
Hope this 'splains it.
George
(*<~ My sentiments exactly, EXCEPT that I always shoot the 'crowd
pleaser' and let the chips fall where they may. People that stake me,
bet on me or buy me in a calcutta had better be in sound health or
carrying a suppy of nitrglycerin.
Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
has buried two dead stakehorses,
NEXT,
Cheese Chasin Tampa Tubby-Bob
lfigueroa
"lagniappe" in it.
Lou Figueroa
"JoeyA" <jo...@1Pofficespecialties.net> wrote in message
news:bhdf44$649$1...@news.datasync.com...
JoeyA
Now go buy those new briefs by Depends called "Ice Cubes" to keep your A**
cool.
JoeyA, Grrrrrrr
"Smorgass Bored" <Smorga...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2994-3F3...@storefull-2313.public.lawson.webtv.net...
JoeyA
JoeyA
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:r9v_a.99459$0v4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Donald Tees
news:bhdf44$649$1...@news.datasync.com...
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing the TOP 8 PLAYERS sold in a separate Calcutta or
the
> only Calcutta. That way the big "gamblers" could really bet it up amongst
> themselves.
>
> They could really get some odds on their money with eight people to bid on
> and bid against, they could divide up the money to five places with your
> percentages 40%, 25%, 20%, 10% and 5%. They wouldn't have to spread their
> money around so much so they could concentrate on putting most of their
> money on ONE HORSE and then they could reap the benefits of betting on the
> horse of their choice and wouldn't have to rely on the underdog to fund
> their lagniappe fund.
>
What if they did both? Like the top 8 are each one calcutta spot, and the
9th calcutta spot is labeled "underdogs" ... and auctioned of the same as
all the other players. If any of the "underdogs" wins, the top money goes to
that better. There could be lots of permutations and combinations of that
... top three players, second tier player group, and third tier player
group, for example.
Donald
Donald Tees
Donald
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:r9v_a.99459$0v4.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Donald Tees
> "CAJUNS RULE!"
> JoeyA
Absolutely ... 'course it just means corrupted Canadian doesn't it?
Donald
;<)
TheRacker
>> But to be fair to everyone, I think that the percentages and number of
>> places should be announced before the Calcutta.
I don't think you'll find any argument there. Even if they don't make a point
of announcing it I'd be shocked if any tournament director wouldn't tell you
ahead of time if you asked.