Tourney Side game: Calcutta (1 Viewer)

[WedgeRock]

Edit:. Damn, this turned out to be longer to read than I intended... Watch out for teal deer!

So I proposed a Calcutta for Saturday's single table Fish & Chips Poker Tour Championship. Auction was only offered to the players participating in the event.

For those not familiar with a Calcutta, you can bid on any player in the tournament to win. Highest bidder "owns" that player and highest bid amount goes into the prize pool. Repeat for all 9 players. When the tournament winner is determined, his "owner" wins the prize pool (total bids on all 9 players).

Currently, bids are $48 total. The highest bid in any player is $10, the lowest bid is $2. Then tournament is a $100 entry with first place just south of $1000. Three places paid.

There was some discussion about the Calcutta affecting play. The example was if Player A and Player B were both big stacks and Player C was the short stack, but also "owned" Player B (and Player A was owned by someone else not still in the tournament). The discussion was whether Player C was incentivized to give Player B action because even if he lost, it would help his Calcutta chances.

Two options I see for reducing/avoiding chip-dumping:

1.). The owner has to pay the player his bid amount. (If I bid $10 on Player A and Player A wins, I win the $50 Calcutta prize pool, but must pay my $10 bid to Player A, so I net $40.) This just acts to reduce the Calcutta win by the amount bid, but doesn't eliminate the problem. It might encourage people to bid on themselves, tho (to avoid paying out the bid). That would disincentivize chip-dumping.

2.) A blind Calcutta. No open bidding. Instead, you secretly place one bid in an envelope for each player (if you don't want to bid in that player, you bid $0).

No one knows who owns what players. Also, no one knows how much the Calcutta is worth. I think that helps avoid chip-dumping.

When someone is eliminated, that players envelope is opened and all bids are revealed. Only the highest bid on that player has to pay his bid into the prize pool. Tie bids would be split equally.

The downside is you don't know how much you are spending because you could win several bids on losing players. Presumably, these would be low bids, but if you knew you had $20 on your favorite, you might not bid $10 on your second favorite. Or if you knew your favorite was being bid up by others maybe you'd put more on your second favorite.

The blind bid really impacts your ability to spread out your bets, target your favorites and/or pick up some dark horses cheaply.

The other issue is collecting money. If Player 9 is first out, he generally leaves the tournament, but he may owe winning bids on the other 8 players. I'm not worried about getting stiffed, but my concern would be not being able to pay the Calcutta that night.

Thoughts? Maybe a combination of both options?

 

[detroitdad]

none of us are cheaters. No need to worry

 

[Sprouty]

I'm more concerned about the feelings of those players that received a mere $2 bid.

 

[mike32]

I'm more concerned about the feelings of those players that received a mere $2 bid.

Can I have a Kleenex please? (Although if it's me, and I think it is, I did double up since yesterday).

It was me who brought up the chip dumping scenario, but now I kinda regret it. It is not a big deal Eric so no worries on my part. I could see it being a big deal in a higher stakes atmosphere. I am not at all opposed to y'all having a Calcutta.

 

[BGinGA]

In most backgammon tournaments, the winner of a Calcutta auction bid is required to offer 50% of his action back to the purchased player (assuming the player doesn't buy himself outright, which is somewhat frequent). Players can also be auctioned off as singles or teams (typically between 2 and 4 players each) -- in most large events, the top players are auctioned off as singles, while the balance of the field is paired (either randomly, pre-set, or by buyer selection) and sold as 2- or 3-player teams. Those buyers are also obligated to offer a percentage back to each team member (33% or 25% each).

In most cases, the potential auction winnings are rather inconsequential to the potential tournament winnings, and do not skew player decisions. I'd suspect the same to be true in poker.

 

[WedgeRock]

Good insight, @BGinGA.

Here, tournament payouts are expected to be $985, $495 and $330. The Calcutta has not yet reached $50. So even third place is 6x the Calcutta prize.

@mike32, it's a legitimate concern. I specifically didn't mention you as the whiner cry baby person raising the issue because I am not really ever in favor of a side game that affects the way a tournament is played.

Just wondering if others see that it may get to be a problem.

FWIW, afternconsidering it more, I'm not really in favor of a blind Calcutta. I do like Jim's idea of just doing it live right before the tournament.

 

[DoubleEagle]

In most backgammon tournaments, the winner of a Calcutta auction bid is required to offer 50% of his action back to the purchased player

I was going to post the same thing. That is how it is customarily done in golf tournaments also.

 

[APatHand]

TL;DR
We have a Calcutta every year for our main event. Each player is entitled to purchase 1/2 of the Calcutta action on himself back from the buyer prior to the start of the event. This often trickles out until the first break due to the size of the tourney.
Calcutta pool pays out at the same schedule as the tournament pool.
Our tourney got to have so many players that we started auctioning pairs of players instead of singles, except for the previous year's final table. A individual playet could purchase 1/4 of his pair's action. Purchasing syndicates formed which helped insure every pair was purchased.
The Calcutta pool size often approached the tourney pool size.
I have been eliminated by my pair, in the past.

 

[Beakertwang]

Good insight, @BGinGA.

Here, tournament payouts are expected to be $985, $495 and $330. The Calcutta has not yet reached $50. So even third place is 6x the Calcutta prize.

@mike32, it's a legitimate concern. I specifically didn't mention you as the whiner cry baby person raising the issue because I am not really ever in favor of a side game that affects the way a tournament is played.

Just wondering if others see that it may get to be a problem.

FWIW, afternconsidering it more, I'm not really in favor of a blind Calcutta. I do like Jim's idea of just doing it live right before the tournament.

Who knew he could be such a jerk?

 

[WedgeRock]

Each player is entitled to purchase 1/2 of the Calcutta action on himself back from the buyer prior to the start of the event.

That might be the solution right there... Increases the chances that everyone will bid on themselves, thus dus-incentivizing chip-dumping. Also, that may juice the prize pool. If I only want to pay $20 on my favorite, maybe I got to $40, expecting the player to buy half the action.

I like it.

 

[APatHand]

That might be the solution right there... Increases the chances that everyone will bid on themselves, thus dus-incentivizing chip-dumping. Also, that may juice the prize pool. If I only want to pay $20 on my favorite, maybe I got to $40, expecting the player to buy half the action.

I like it.

Yeah, we've found that the buyback invigorates (or embiggen's) the Calcutta pool.
:apu:

 

[WedgeRock]

It increases the prize pool big-ly?

 

[APatHand]

It increases the prize pool big-ly?

The Calcutta pool.
Please to be doing the needfull to be keeping the Calcutta pool separate from the prize pool. Thanks and come again, please.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

I've only played in one tournament with a Calcutta. The Calcutta pool increased to ~95% of the tourney pool, and in my opinion chip dumping became an issue, as the chip leader had money on 2 other players as well as himself when seven handed, and chips started sliding their way more... My suggestion is to cap the price that can be paid at 25% of entry fee (or higher if rebuys and add-ons are available). If multiple people bid cap, hold a raffle for right to purchase. At a low enough percentage cap, there will be little incentive to dump.

It also made for some issues when the question of a chop was introduced, as some people outside of the tourney were now weighing in on players to either chop or not chop, so if you run one, I'd suggest stating up front that Calcutta will be chopped via icm at same time as prize pool. In the above example, when 7 handed, we chopped prize pool, and played for Calcutta. Original payout had 6 places paid. One of the seven had not purchased any portion of himself, so he just autojammed every hand, not caring if his Calcutta made any money or not (dick move, but whatever). His "purchaser" was none too pleased when his horse finished in a raging seventh place shoveathon.

Just my thoughts, YMMV.

 

[DoubleEagle]

It’s not uncommon in golf Calcutta’s around here to give the player 10% if he doesn’t want to buy half. Keeps him in the game.

 

[Lemonzest]

In most backgammon tournaments, the winner of a Calcutta auction bid is required to offer 50% of his action back to the purchased player (assuming the player doesn't buy himself outright, which is somewhat frequent). Players can also be auctioned off as singles or teams (typically between 2 and 4 players each) -- in most large events, the top players are auctioned off as singles, while the balance of the field is paired (either randomly, pre-set, or by buyer selection) and sold as 2- or 3-player teams. Those buyers are also obligated to offer a percentage back to each team member (33% or 25% each).

In most cases, the potential auction winnings are rather inconsequential to the potential tournament winnings, and do not skew player decisions. I'd suspect the same to be true in poker.

I feel like there is this awesome degenerate underworld of backgammon gambling that I don't know about and I am missing out on. Me and my wife play sometimes and it is tons of fun!

 

[Lemonzest]

IMO Calcutta Pool should be kept seperate from prize pool and the bidding should remain anonymous. If people are playing the tourney and have significant action on another player of course that will influence the action.
I realize many live tourney players take action on each other all the time. However, in a home setting the "influence" of this auction could become painfully clear and really ruin the tourney.