PDA

View Full Version : I Don't Want To Use the "C" Word, But...



Barbara
10-26-2004, 09:13 PM
By definition, the word "Collusion" means you have defined/and or have knowlegde of what's going on. I would prefer the term, "incredible coinstances". (!)

Some of us know very well what goes on, but cannot prevent this phenonmenon of "incredible coinstance'.

So without naming names, how would you go about correcting these "incredible coinstances"?? That would pertain to matches? Early on, later, doesn't matter, right? Yeah...

Barbara

trailboss
10-26-2004, 09:31 PM
Sounds like politics are afoot here. Would you care to elucidate further on this?

Barbara
10-26-2004, 09:34 PM
trailboss, I've edited my post, please re-read.

Barbara~~~needs a new kybord bd. occhd. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Chris Cass
10-27-2004, 04:05 AM
Hi Barbara,

I used to have a clue but sometimes I never know till it's all over, said, and done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Regards,

C.C.~~when I do know it's not good for any opponent. unless, I'm still clueless as to what your talking about. lol

Troy
10-27-2004, 07:32 AM
If I understand the question correctly ---

No, it doesn't matter when it occurs, it's still COLLUSION and should be handled harshly. It doesn't matter what you call it either. Dumping, splits, savers, etc., all fall into this category.
Forfeiture of all match wins, forfeiture of all money won, and ejection from the tournament/tour should reduce the problem.
And I don't care what the names are either.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> By definition, the word "Collusion" means you have defined/and or have knowlegde of what's going on. I would prefer the term, "incredible coinstances". (!)

Some of us know very well what goes on, but cannot prevent this phenonmenon of "incredible coinstance'.

So without naming names, how would you go about correcting these "incredible coinstances"?? That would pertain to matches? Early on, later, doesn't matter, right? Yeah...

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

landshark77
10-27-2004, 07:44 AM
My 3 cents......

If you're talking about what I think you are talking about, then I agree with Troy, 100%.

Vagabond
10-27-2004, 07:51 AM
Howdy Barbara,
It happened few times to me and I could not prevent the collusion of souls.Cheers
Vagabond

Barbara
10-27-2004, 07:54 AM
Yeah, but how do you prove it???

Barbara /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Christy9
10-27-2004, 08:04 AM
That's a very good question Barbara. How in the world can you prove something like that? Many of us are aware of the problem, but I don't see how it can be eliminated. Sure, players can be kicked off the tour or even made to forefeit prize monies won, but it still doens't answer the question of "How do you prove it?"

Steve Lipsky
10-27-2004, 08:16 AM
Hi Barbara. I think the real problems of collusion only begin to creep up when players in the same tournament are not eligible for the same prizes.

Tony Annigoni has had a few problems with this in his USPPA tournaments. I like Tony, but when you have a system where one guy in the finals is eligible to win $9,000, and one guy is eligible to win $3,000 (or something like that), what do you think is going to happen? (I think Tony's addressed the situation since that incident, btw.)

I realize the collusion to which you are referring is a little different. There's no way to stop a match for the hot seat from being thrown, as long as it's not done in a ridiculously overt manner. But I don't really see any other matches being thrown (would it make sense for pro1 and pro2 to throw a match early in the tournament?).

I think the real issues of collusion, when you really begin to see it at earlier stages of the tournament, occur in qualifiers. Easy way to stop that... nobody can play unless she is competing for that spot. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Steve

Barbara
10-27-2004, 08:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> Hi Barbara. I think the real problems of collusion only begin to creep up when players in the same tournament are not eligible for the same prizes.

<font color="blue">My thoughts exactly.</font color>

Tony Annigoni has had a few problems with this in his USPPA tournaments. I like Tony, but when you have a system where one guy in the finals is eligible to win $9,000, and one guy is eligible to win $3,000 (or something like that), what do you think is going to happen? (I think Tony's addressed the situation since that incident, btw.)

<font color="blue">What happened and what did he do?</font color>

I realize the collusion to which you are referring is a little different. There's no way to stop a match for the hot seat from being thrown, as long as it's not done in a ridiculously overt manner. But I don't really see any other matches being thrown (would it make sense for pro1 and pro2 to throw a match early in the tournament?).

I think the real issues of collusion, when you really begin to see it at earlier stages of the tournament, occur in qualifiers. Easy way to stop that... nobody can play unless she is competing for that spot. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Steve <hr /></blockquote>

It's just so discouraging and very hard to prove.

Barbara

Rich R.
10-27-2004, 08:44 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr>I realize the collusion to which you are referring is a little different. There's no way to stop a match for the hot seat from being thrown, as long as it's not done in a ridiculously overt manner. But I don't really see any other matches being thrown (would it make sense for pro1 and pro2 to throw a match early in the tournament?). <hr /></blockquote>
I may be a little off base here, but, Barbara's problem may not necessarily be collusion, in a technical sense.

For example, I have seen this happen.
Four players are friends and travel to a tournament together. The first two players are touring pros, therefore, only qualify to win the money. The other two players are very good and want the qualifier.
Of course, the touring pros beat and possibly eliminate a substantial portion of the field. Even if two of the friends meet in a match, it only sends one to the one loss side.
Everything progresses and at the end of the tournament, one of the TP's is in the hot seat, and the other wins the one loss side, making them 1st and 2nd place and taking the bulk of the money. At least one of the other two players finishes third, getting the qualifier.

Now, in this senerio, none of the players dumped a match, to a friend or anyone else, however, the TP's certainly make it easier for their friend to win the qualifier, by eliminating a large portion of the field, including some of the better players.

Is this collusion? I don't think so.
If it is, I don't know how you would ever prove it.

Rip
10-27-2004, 08:52 AM
This sounds like a job for the "Collusion Detector".

Pool Collusion Detector (http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/universal_pictures/meet_the_parents/_group_photos/ben_stiller2.jpg)

Rip /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Steve Lipsky
10-27-2004, 09:11 AM
Hey Rich. I think your argument (which I agree with entirely) concerns Barbara's other thread. This one is specifically referring to collusion - the actual dumping of matches.

In its simplest form, two friends are playing in the hot seat match. The better one loses on purpose, so that when she gets knocked to the loser side, she has a better chance against the 3rd place finisher. The two friends then again meet up in the finals and play for real; doesn't matter at that point, they're splitting all the money. Had they not colluded in the hot seat match, girl #3 might have beaten the loser of the hot seat match.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding this too, lol /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Steve

landshark77
10-27-2004, 09:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr>
Now, in this senerio, none of the players dumped a match, to a friend or anyone else, however, the TP's certainly make it easier for their friend to win the qualifier, by eliminating a large portion of the field, including some of the better players.
<hr /></blockquote>

If this is the case, both non-TP's would have the same statistical chance of drawing and/or playing one of, if not both of their TP friends. Therefore, they stand the SAME chance as EVERY other player, statistically. Thus, nothing was made easier for the non-TP friend, except the luck of the draw.

Steve Lipsky
10-27-2004, 09:17 AM
Hi Barbara. He wrote a long piece in AZBilliards (might've originally been a press release), concerning his decision to withhold the lion's share of the prize.

His tournaments are structured such that a player who has played in more of his tournaments is eligible for a bonus fund if he wins, which carries over from tournament to tournament. In theory, it's a great system. I think at the tournament in question, the bonus fund had grown to some astronomical number, like $6,000.

In Tony's article, he said that there were just too many questionable plays in the finals. The one who "lost" was apparently making very uncharacteristic mistakes, and Tony refused to pay them off.

How you go about proving something like this, I have no idea.

- Steve

woody_968
10-27-2004, 09:19 AM
Barbara, you sure put some tough questions out there /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Something like this would be almost impossible to prove. Really I think the only way to even come close to proving it would be to look at past matches. If you looked at past tournament boards and saw that player A only lost 6 times, but of the 6 times player A lost 5 of them were to player B I think you would have grounds to question the losses. Of course this only works if player B's skill level is obviously below player A's, but if it wasn't then no one would even be asking the question then would they.

I commend you for bringing such a tough subject out for open discussion.

Woody

Nostroke
10-27-2004, 09:27 AM
"How you go about proving something like this, I have no idea."

Beating a confession out of them comes to mind but then again, some liberal judge would probably just throw it right out.

houseman
10-27-2004, 09:29 AM
Barbara,
It is a real shame this goes on. It always has and probably always will. This is just one more of the reasons pool will always have a negative image to some people that don`t know the real deal.

Barbara
10-27-2004, 09:40 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> Hey Rich. I think your argument (which I agree with entirely) concerns Barbara's other thread. This one is specifically referring to collusion - the actual dumping of matches.

In its simplest form, two friends are playing in the hot seat match. The better one loses on purpose, so that when she gets knocked to the loser side, she has a better chance against the 3rd place finisher. The two friends then again meet up in the finals and play for real; doesn't matter at that point, they're splitting all the money. Had they not colluded in the hot seat match, girl #3 might have beaten the loser of the hot seat match.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding this too, lol /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Ding ding ding ding ding!!!

Steve, you nailed it right on the head!

And BTW, coinstance is not really a word. I meant coincidence. It was real late and I was doing the league stats...

Barbara

Barbara
10-27-2004, 09:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vagabond:</font><hr> Howdy Barbara,
It happened few times to me and I could not prevent the collusion of souls.Cheers
Vagabond <hr /></blockquote>

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Hey Vagabond! The first time I went to Vegas I saw you in action at that Italian restaurant at the Riv with a certain "Empress"! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

You've had a lot of "collusions"!!

Barbara

Mr Ingrate
10-27-2004, 09:47 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> By definition, the word "Collusion" means you have defined/and or have knowledge of what's going on. I would prefer the term, "incredible coinstances". (!)
Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

Barbara,

I love it when you talk dirty like that making up new words - coinstance.

Speculating on its meaning, I came up with:

Coin stance - A coin has two stances, flat or on edge.
Co instance - The other part of the same instance.

Coincidence, I think not!

Barbara
10-27-2004, 09:57 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Mr Smarty Ingrate caught me on that one!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Barbara~~~meant coicidence...

Rod
10-27-2004, 10:00 AM
Proving that is difficult unless you know it to be a fact, not likely. Why prove it? What I mean is a "well" written short speech before a tourney puts it out there for everyone to hear. You could do it in a players meeting only but this get everyone involved. The would be dumpee might have second thoughts. I've had to make little speeches to everyone concerned. Just a thought.

Rod

Tom_In_Cincy
10-27-2004, 10:32 AM
Tough call Barbara, difficult to prove and yet almost everyone knows or at the very least, suspect it is taking place.

The only thing I could think of is making an annoucement at the begining of the tournament that the penalty for such acts (collusion) will be Disqualification. TD's ruling is final. Being somewhat vague, would get some attention. This would be a good time for Q&amp;A from the players. Not during the tournament.

Maybe that is why it is so common with the more seasoned players. No way to prove the 'collusion'. Unless the players make it real obvious. It could be a missed bank or a poorly played position for a safe or for a key ball, or even a missed kick from a safety. Tough in anycase to make the 'collusion' call. And if you decide that there was collusion, then you are immediately accused of 'controlling the outcome'. Lose-Lose situation. You're discredited either way.

Savers, Splits, and the 'dumps' are very difficult to deal with.

I have mixed feelings about players that decide to CHOP in weekly or monthly tournaments. I'm not sure what to do about this and would welcome suggestions. This is a very common practice in all tournaments. I have been guilty in the past of Chopping up 1st 2nd and 3rd, just to be able to get home at a decent hour.

Perk
10-27-2004, 10:37 AM
Most would be guilty in tourneys like that as players. As far as splits and savers go. I think its a bad thing when Calcuttas are concerned or any other type of incentive money. Players are greedy, most want money,not championships/1st place trophies. I could care less if 2 players elect to split the prize money if it only effects them. You see it ALL the time. Its when there is side money that 'eyes' tend to raise, and you always wonder.

I think the topic of Proving it is the hardest.

Steve Lipsky
10-27-2004, 11:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> Savers, Splits, and the 'dumps' are very difficult to deal with. <hr /></blockquote>

Tom, I agree that splits are bad for the game (spectators don't want to see the finalists just chop the money and go home). But I have never understood why some people have a problem with savers. Why should the finalists be at the mercy of the TD, in terms of payout? It usually serves the TD well to advertise a tournament with a big 1st place, but this isn't in the best interest of the players. What's wrong with making an unpublicized private agreement between the players?

- Steve

Barbara
10-27-2004, 11:14 AM
What's a "saver"?

Barbara

Tom_In_Cincy
10-27-2004, 11:28 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with making an unpublicized private agreement between the players? <hr /></blockquote>

Steve, I agree, nothing wrong with PRIVATE agreements. But, all to often, these agreements are made public and then they are often 'percieved' negatively. Still, NOT what pool needs to be more respected.

cueball1950
10-27-2004, 11:31 AM
I was at a pro event,all the big guns were there, that was being held at Mike X's place in new bedford mass. a few years ago. There is a person there that everybody knows setting the betting line. I place a bet on pro player 1 over pro player 2. The line being 11/7 favoring player 1. so i take the bet on player 1. now player 2 cannot win 7 games or i lose. after awhile the score is 8/6 favoring player 1. the 1 i bet on....player 1 goes to the guy setting the line and asks where all the money is. the line maker says it is all on you. player a then proceeds to lose the next game on purpose giving player 2 seven games. then player 1 wins the next 3 games and wins the match but everybody who bet on player 1 loses their bet..(me and alot of others) about 10 minutes after winning his match player 1 is seen collecting some money from the line maker. So,,, would you call this collusion. I do..as a matter of fact i went to the line maker and told him i wanted my bet back or everybody in the place will know what i just saw. He gave me back my bet, with the understanding that i keep quiet. this is a true story and if i told you who player 1 was you would be very surprised. cuz he sure fooled me. cuz all that time i thought he was a stand up guy.......mike

Tom_In_Cincy
10-27-2004, 11:32 AM
A 'saver' is an agreed upon percentage of money, players intend to share.

Player A agrees with Player B that if either player cashes, a certain percentage will be 'saved' for the player that doesn't cash.

Perk
10-27-2004, 11:33 AM
A Saver is when participants agree to provide money to each other if one places in the money. This can be any amount of money, commonly the amount of entry. This saver is usually brought up amongst friends that travel together, or when 2 favorites have to play a match early in the tourney. Kinda guarentees some cash for the loser of the early match.

Eric.
10-27-2004, 11:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> What's a "saver"?

Barbara <hr /></blockquote>

It's when 2 people decide to split the 1st palce and 2nd place pot instead of playing for it.


Eric

Steve Lipsky
10-27-2004, 11:35 AM
Barbara, if the tournament pays $3,000 for 1st and $1,000 for 2nd, the players might make a $500 saver. This would make the payout $2,500 for 1st and $1,500 for 2nd.

The saver can be any amount the players agree on, and obviously the players have to trust each other - because the TD is going to pay them what is advertised.

I wanted to make one with Jason Kirkwood in Valley Forge about 5 years ago, because of Allen's lopsided payout ($5k for 1st, $2k for 2nd) - but I couldn't even ask Jason because we didn't know each other. As the better bar table player, he may very well have turned me down, but I definitely would've asked. That prize difference is absurd.

- Steve

Eric.
10-27-2004, 11:48 AM
I just looked at the responses to Barbara's question "What's a saver" and the back to back timing of them and it makes me wonder if, umm, too many people have been there before?


Eric &gt;Mariano Rivera

Perk
10-27-2004, 11:55 AM
Steve,
Knowing Jason, he probably would have, especially with that kinda difference.

Deeman2
10-27-2004, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> I just looked at the responses to Barbara's question "What's a saver" and the back to back timing of them and it makes me wonder if, umm, too many people have been there before?


Eric &gt;Mariano Rivera <hr /></blockquote>

Eric,

I don't think there's anything wrong with a saver as long as no one else's money is touched. I don't think any of us play less agressively just because the split is more reasonable. At least I don't think so.

Deeman

Eric.
10-27-2004, 12:30 PM
Agreed. I think we're on the same page, D. I was just pokin fun at the on going shiny image of poolplayers (i.e. the dumping, savers, splits, etc). Hey, until there's more money in it, ya gots to do, what ya gots ta do.


Eric

Perk
10-27-2004, 12:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> I don't think any of us play less agressively just because the split is more reasonable. At least I don't think so.
Deeman <hr /></blockquote>

I have watched some pretty strong players once the split was on play some 'freewheeling' pool that was out of this world. Taking risks/shots that they would not normally take.

Ken_4fun
10-29-2004, 03:35 AM
Has anyone read Mark Wilson's article, which mag i dont remember, on how we dump, or "c-word" on leagues. It really is the same thing as well. Seldom do we play at "full speed" and spend the majority of our time trying to keep handicaps down instead of trying to improve.

I appreciated his observations. I notice that most league players really dont improve much really. I think I improved more when I try to match up somehow. The focus is really not on improving in leagues but winning the trip, session or whatever.

Checkers sell more than chess.

ken

Chris Cass
10-29-2004, 08:01 AM
Hi Steve,

I think he would have.

Regards,

C.C.

Chris Cass
10-29-2004, 08:08 AM
Hi Mike,

That stuff happens all the time. Because of the money involved. There isn't much you can do about it. Even in smaller tourneys where the players are from the same area and go togather. They'll even go as far as to agree on a split before the tourney starts.

Heck, I even know of a promoter that brought players in from out of state and paid entry fee, compt the room and split the prize money. Minus gas of course. The guy had quite a few players in it. All of which cashed in the high positions. I know it sounds terrible but it happens. There's things going on that only a select few know.

Regards,

C.C.

Deeman2
10-29-2004, 08:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken_4fun:</font><hr> and spend the majority of our time trying to keep handicaps down instead of trying to improve.

I appreciated his observations. I notice that most league players really dont improve much really.


ken <hr /></blockquote>

Ken,

I think you are right. I play in a BCA league with my wife. We just came from Alabama and an APA league where you could coach players and we had a regular practice night. The players on our team listened and they brought their handicaps up and became better players. Here, they say we can't coach during matches (I guess BCA has changed over the years since I played) and no one will show up for practice. These folks are not bad players but have very little strategy skills and could make hugh leaps with a little coaching but are not interested or feel they already know enough. Oh. well, it's just so my wife can play in a league but I think they are missing some good chances for improvement. At the end of the season we'll have a few with great handicaps but little ability to improve our team position.

Deeman