BeeR Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I don't really even get the question. Didn't you set this all up before the season even started? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I'm reading some of these, and some of you are talking about leagues where it's like $500 for first / $250 for second, but you'd still split and take $375 each. Is the money really that divorced from the competition for some people? Not really trying to judge so much as find out if some people simply look at the money part of it and the winning part of it as entirely seperate/nothing to do with each other sort of things, so just making an economic decision and the trophy handles the competition side. Our league is filled mostly with sports gamblers, so the money and the competition are heavily entwined - one team one year offered to split it and so much venom went their way over it they were out of the league in 2 years. However, remember another league I was in for 3 years, and it split every year - I kept saying that it was ridiculous (total pot was less than $1000) that they were doing it, but the counter was simply the 'economic' argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I can understand the argument about it cheapening the victory, but is this really why you wouldn't do it? Because it's against the rules? Do you ever J-walk? I would think a more logical manner in looking at the split defined by the league as what each person is entitled to if he chooses, not some dogmatic law telling another man what he can or can't do with his money. All the other rules are there to ensure fair competition. No sketchy trades, setting your lineup by kick-off, etc. How does this effect anyone else? It is still to me, a form of collusion. The idea is to have a winner, and to the winner goes the spoils. Maybe Dallas and NE can argee to split the Super bowl trophy too? Sure people can do what they want, but I don't have to like it, either. And I don't like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Scorp Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 I have only been offered a split once and took it. I lost so it was a great deal for me. xMRogers has a good point about the $$ being seperate from the winning. I rarely recall a champion at the draft talking smack about how much $$ they won the year before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 xMRogers has a good point about the $$ being seperate from the winning. I rarely recall a champion at the draft talking smack about how much $$ they won the year before. Actually, where I was going on it was it seems that point: "money seperate from winning" varies by league. In my local, it's definitely not seperate - we talk about the money and the winning both, and the concepts are intertwined. In others, seems it's definitely two independent things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 It is still to me, a form of collusion. The idea is to have a winner, and to the winner goes the spoils. Maybe Dallas and NE can argee to split the Super bowl trophy too? Sure people can do what they want, but I don't have to like it, either. And I don't like it. That is just stupid. A league becomes concerned about collusion when it involves multiple owners to the detriment of the other owners in the league that are not involved in the secret agreement. When the last 2 teams agree to split the pot 1) there is no secret agreement, they have publically asked the treasurer/commissioner to distribute the money in a fashion different from the defined payout schedule and 2) THE SPLITTING OF THE POT DOES NOT HARM ANY OTHER OWNER (because their seasons are all over). Attempting to compare that to the NFL is ludicrous as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 That is just stupid. A league becomes concerned about collusion when it involves multiple owners to the detriment of the other owners in the league that are not involved in the secret agreement. When the last 2 teams agree to split the pot 1) there is no secret agreement, they have publically asked the treasurer/commissioner to distribute the money in a fashion different from the defined payout schedule and 2) THE SPLITTING OF THE POT DOES NOT HARM ANY OTHER OWNER (because their seasons are all over). Attempting to compare that to the NFL is ludicrous as well. Ah, that is the charming and tactful Grits I know. Maybe, according to you, there should be no FF super bowls. Just hand out the money, and even split to whichever two teams make it. No need to keep score. Hey, why not, using your logic, have the last 4 teams in the playoffs split the money? If all 4 owners agree, that doesn't affect any of the other owners either. Gee, the more I think about it, the more I agree. Just have one pot, and all the teams that make the playoffs can split it. Yep, that's the way to go for sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Ah, that is the charming and tactful Grits I know. Maybe, according to you, there should be no FF super bowls. Just hand out the money, and even split to whichever two teams make it. No need to keep score. Hey, why not, using your logic, have the last 4 teams in the playoffs split the money? If all 4 owners agree, that doesn't affect any of the other owners either. Gee, the more I think about it, the more I agree. Just have one pot, and all the teams that make the playoffs can split it. Yep, that's the way to go for sure! Actually, Grits is 100% right. If a team is eliminated from the competition, and can not win a single dollar under any circumstance, how can they be colluded against? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Although Grits overstated it a bit, it's not collusion by any means....it's just two guys being my little buddy's That's right, I said it - if you split, you are a my little buddy. ("my little buddy" = alternative name for cat...which is a stupid replacement - why not use "alternative name for cat") Edited December 20, 2007 by xMRogers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 So.... then you ARE saying that it would be OK for the last 4 teams in the playoffs to agree to split? Same logic... not collusion, doesn't affect any owners that are out of the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) So.... then you ARE saying that it would be OK for the last 4 teams in the playoffs to agree to split? Same logic... not collusion, doesn't affect any owners that are out of the playoffs. If all four said yes, why the hell not? If one guy wants to play for it all, deal is off. The only point we are trying to make here is that nobody is affected by the decision regarding how to split money who's not splitting the money. If they have a problem, they can go to hell or make the damn play-offs themselves. What is so hard to understand about that? There's still a winner and still a loser in the final game. If you're keeping track of who's won it all the most times, it still very much counts. If you're a dynasty league the winner still gets the last pick in the draft, etc. Personally, I would never agree to a 50/50 split. I would still like to have something on the line. That's why in my league, where there's $875 at stake, we're going $300 to the loser, $575 to the winner rather than the league specified $800 winner $75 loser. Believe me, since I understand that $575 is bigger than $300, I still very much want to win this week. However, if I had lost last week and found out that the two playing this week went right down the middle, god bless. It's their freaking money and they can do what the hell they want with it. I lost my rights to decide what happens to it the moment I was eliminated from the competition. Believe me, I understand 100% that there are those who would not want to split the pot. I can understand why they would think it's a pussily move. However, your attempts to paint it as underhanded or "wrong because it's against the rules" are very odd. Oh, and I agree with Grits that your NFL example is basically lame. Edited December 21, 2007 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grits and Shins Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 If all four said yes, why the hell not? If one guy wants to play for it all, deal is off. The only point we are trying to make here is that nobody is affected by the decision regarding how to split money who's not splitting the money. If they have a problem, they can go to hell or make the damn play-offs themselves. What is so hard to understand about that? There's still a winner and still a loser in the final game. If you're keeping track of who's won it all the most times, it still very much counts. If you're a dynasty league the winner still gets the last pick in the draft, etc. Personally, I would never agree to a 50/50 split. I would still like to have something on the line. That's why in my league, where there's $875 at stake, we're going $300 to the loser, $575 to the winner rather than the league specified $800 winner $75 loser. Believe me, since I understand that $575 is bigger than $300, I still very much want to win this week. However, if I had lost last week and found out that the two playing this week went right down the middle, god bless. It's their freaking money and they can do what the hell they want with it. I lost my rights to decide what happens to it the moment I was eliminated from the competition. Believe me, I understand 100% that there are those who would not want to split the pot. I can understand why they would think it's a pussily move. However, your attempts to paint it as underhanded or "wrong because it's against the rules" are very odd. Oh, and I agree with Grits that your NFL example is basically lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 If all four said yes, why the hell not? If one guy wants to play for it all, deal is off. The only point we are trying to make here is that nobody is affected by the decision regarding how to split money who's not splitting the money. If they have a problem, they can go to hell or make the damn play-offs themselves. What is so hard to understand about that? There's still a winner and still a loser in the final game. If you're keeping track of who's won it all the most times, it still very much counts. If you're a dynasty league the winner still gets the last pick in the draft, etc. Personally, I would never agree to a 50/50 split. I would still like to have something on the line. That's why in my league, where there's $875 at stake, we're going $300 to the loser, $575 to the winner rather than the league specified $800 winner $75 loser. Believe me, since I understand that $575 is bigger than $300, I still very much want to win this week. However, if I had lost last week and found out that the two playing this week went right down the middle, god bless. It's their freaking money and they can do what the hell they want with it. I lost my rights to decide what happens to it the moment I was eliminated from the competition. Believe me, I understand 100% that there are those who would not want to split the pot. I can understand why they would think it's a pussily move. However, your attempts to paint it as underhanded or "wrong because it's against the rules" are very odd. Oh, and I agree with Grits that your NFL example is basically lame. Totally agree!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Agree that this is somehow "wrong" or "against the rules" is incorrect (although would ask this - what if you put a rule in saying "no splitting of proceeds either publicly or privately"? - could happen in theory). Agree that it's the winners money to do with what they will Agree that for every split the rest of the league knows about, there's another one they don't (meaning two guys in the superbowl don't want to let the rest of the league know it - they just decide to split, and the one who gets the bigger payout pays the other one) In saying all that - still a big time pussily move (IMO I know.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Splitters are wink wink lover boy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_bone65 Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) I always start out at the draft by thinking to myself, boy I really hope I get a chance to split the prize at the end of the year Edited December 22, 2007 by T_bone65 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 OK, I ask you this. Say you play a $10 parlay on seven games. It's been a while since I played one, so I forget the odds. Let's just say it pays $800. Now, one of the games is Monday night and all the others cover. So, you're one win away from the money. Of course, you could lay $200 the other way on that game meaning that you are assured of winning money (either win $190 or $600) rather than be in an all or nothing situation. What is so bad about that? I mean, besides the fact that, by virtue of playing a parlay, you're accepting crappy odds to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 OK, I ask you this. Say you play a $10 parlay on seven games. It's been a while since I played one, so I forget the odds. Let's just say it pays $800. Now, one of the games is Monday night and all the others cover. So, you're one win away from the money. Of course, you could lay $200 the other way on that game meaning that you are assured of winning money (either win $190 or $600) rather than be in an all or nothing situation. What is so bad about that? I mean, besides the fact that, by virtue of playing a parlay, you're accepting crappy odds to begin with. Gambling with bookies is not FF. Hey, you want to wimp out and split, go ahead. I still say it's a puzzlie (let's see if the language filter catches that one too) move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 It is still to me, a form of collusion. The idea is to have a winner, and to the winner goes the spoils. Maybe Dallas and NE can argee to split the Super bowl trophy too? Sure people can do what they want, but I don't have to like it, either. And I don't like it. Gambling with bookies is not FF. Hey, you want to wimp out and split, go ahead. I still say it's a puzzlie (let's see if the language filter catches that one too) move. OK, just so I have this straight. Engaging in what is essentially a form of gambling with your friends where you put up an amount of money with hopes of a higher odds-driven payday is nothing like betting with a bookie but exactly like owning a real NFL team? Care to 'splain that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 You play to win the game not to split although if I lucked my way intro the SB, I probably would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 You play to win the gamenot to split although if I lucked my way intro the SB, I probably would Every game I play, I play to win. I've never played scrabble for money but I'll be damned if I don't care whether or not I win. Same goes with countless other games. How, exactly, does agreeing to a distribution of 1st and 2nd place money other than that set in place by the league mean that one is not "playing to win"? Oh, and, to a degree, everyone who makes the SB "lucks" their way there. I've played about 12 seasons and have made 6, so I'd imagine I'm doing something right. None the less, I'd be fooling myself if I thought I wasn't helped by some luck along the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Gambling with bookies is not FF. Hey, you want to wimp out and split, go ahead. I still say it's a puzzlie (let's see if the language filter catches that one too) move. So, if you were playing in your league Super Bowl against the Brady/Moss/AD/Tomlinson owner and you thought your team had ZERO chance to win, you wouldn't talk deal with the other guy for fear of looking like a "puzzlie"? Who hates money that much?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zooty Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Every game I play, I play to win. I've never played scrabble for money but I'll be damned if I don't care whether or not I win. Same goes with countless other games. How, exactly, does agreeing to a distribution of 1st and 2nd place money other than that set in place by the league mean that one is not "playing to win"? Oh, and, to a degree, everyone who makes the SB "lucks" their way there. I've played about 12 seasons and have made 6, so I'd imagine I'm doing something right. None the less, I'd be fooling myself if I thought I wasn't helped by some luck along the way. I'm playing to finish first not to finish 2nd or tied (splitting) for 1st. Either way there are still times when I would consider a split. I've split top 2 at poker tournaments, kind of the same thing. But in a league with friends its better to win it all and tell them how you spent their money IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Again, really comes back to the fact that half us view the money and the championship as synonymous and a split or economic decision (or viewing it as simply gambling in a different form) is heresy. The other half views it either as "my money, do with it what I want" or "it's gambling - economics should be the play" Just different strokes....but still a pussily move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 The idea of splitting a pot is lame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.