US Open payouts............
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
There are of course many ways to view the same situation. Here is one more. Play along for a bit.
Imagine breaking the 256 players into two groups,
128 players rated 750 and
128 players rated 650
Also imagine a big event that is no-entry for world-class pros (top group) and $1,000 entry for the rest, the dreamers.
So it has a payout purse of $128,000 from entry fees and $44,000 added or whatever. And that $170,000 is paid out to 25% of the field, around $50,000 to win and $500 to 64th place.
By going to 256 players, this is basically the situation we have.
As for criticizing matchroom or putting a yet-to-happen event under a microscope with each new piece of information, I think we owe it to them to let it play out so we can assess the whole thing with all the information.
But I suppose this IS a discussion forum ;-)
What good does it do to pay out $500 or $750 in a tournament that costs $1,000 to enter?
You didn't win anything.
Yes you’re right, but it still kills me when a payout is less than the entry. :angry:
The draw of this tournament was “Matchroom”, not the prize money. I believe if Matchroom did not add a dime, they would have still gotten 256 players.
Fans, players, sponsors, other promoters, the entire industry, are eager to see what Matchroom will translate this tournament into. Everyone wants to be a part of it. The prize money is a minor consideration.
Imo
Fans, players, sponsors, other promoters, the entire industry, are eager to see what Matchroom will translate this tournament into. Everyone wants to be a part of it. The prize money is a minor consideration.
Imo
Then all 3 of us are in agreement.
I do get your previous point, and yes being down $250 is better than being down $1,000.
But breaking even or finishing up $250 is much better.
And then can easily be accomplished by paying out less players.
The draw of this tournament was “Matchroom”, not the prize money. I believe if Matchroom did not add a dime, they would have still gotten 256 players.
Fans, players, sponsors, other promoters, the entire industry, are eager to see what Matchroom will translate this tournament into. Everyone wants to be a part of it. The prize money is a minor consideration.
Imo
Yet, paying out half the field still doesn't make sense.
In 1980 snooker paid a total of 60,000 pounds for the World Championship.
In 1990, after Mr. Hearn took over it paid 620,000. We are on the bottom floor,
and if he can re-create what he has done with snooker, we will see change. I am
curious if he can have the viewership like snooker in the rest of the world, and if so
pump up views here in America. We all want large prize funds, and a tour that supports
players, but it just can't happen overnight, we can see the past how it has failed.
16 seeded plus 16 invitational players is what I am looking for in the future, but we don't
have that structure in the works, and who really knows what will happen, I for one think
that this is the beginning of something great. Really we are talking about one extra match
for $10000 more prize money than last year...so?
In 1990, after Mr. Hearn took over it paid 620,000. We are on the bottom floor,
and if he can re-create what he has done with snooker, we will see change. I am
curious if he can have the viewership like snooker in the rest of the world, and if so
pump up views here in America. We all want large prize funds, and a tour that supports
players, but it just can't happen overnight, we can see the past how it has failed.
16 seeded plus 16 invitational players is what I am looking for in the future, but we don't
have that structure in the works, and who really knows what will happen, I for one think
that this is the beginning of something great. Really we are talking about one extra match
for $10000 more prize money than last year...so?
Yes, the field has doubled but, think about this:
I play in a tournament thats a few hours away ever year or so. They sometimes have as many as 120ish players with Fargo rating from low 700's to low 500's.
That same tournament also at times may have only 25 or 30 players with Fargo ratings in same range as above low 700 to low 500.
Well, guess what? In general, the same few players win it regardless of how big or small the field gets as long as they show up.
Same thing with the tournament field going from 120ish to 250ish.....
Top dogs are gonna get the cheess no matter how much dead money is in it.
Now, if your concerned about all the dead money.... well:
With all the EXTRA pay-levels, well, my dead money game just got a shot in the arm because mid-level players have a REAL chance of getting in at the bottom.
Ontop of that, mid to low level players dont "have to" make as much to just "break even" since they dont have to spend much in auctions to buy themselves.
I love that type stuff. Why? Last two tournaments I played in that were open....lol.... I went for almost nothing. (Memory...sucks)....$180 in one and lol....$50 in another.
I made pretty good money in both because I had much less invested. I remember I got next to last place in one and still cleared over $300 after all expenses. Not bad for a weekend of playing pool for a retiree.
That in itself gives bangers like me a LOT MORE incentive to play with the killers.
Just my .02.
Rake
Best post in the thread! :smiling-heart:
that's all fine and dandy for your local banger tournament, but this is the US Open.
I heard it mentioned, by Luke. He didn't make a profit with the Cup for 17 years.
Something is Waaaaaaaaay better than one out of the cash.
Many didn't expect to win, but many did enjoy the walking money. Paying down 40% to the players does work. Something is better than nothing, especially when you were not able to perform well. Getting some money back, close to your entry, is a nice chum to get players to return the following year.
I was at an event in 2016 in N. Cal, where the top three player payouts, got more than 1/2 the total prize funds. Paying out 1/4 of the field has been pretty common, but is it right? Prize fund payouts, have always heard the heavy breathing of the best players in the world, when these type of decisions are put together.
Your explanation is very similar to the feelings many of the players and teams had, when they received their checks at the control desk at the BCA Nationals in May at the Riv for over 25 years. They often were very happy.
Many didn't expect to win, but many did enjoy the walking money. Paying down 40% to the players does work. Something is better than nothing, especially when you were not able to perform well. Getting some money back, close to your entry, is a nice chum to get players to return the following year.
I was at an event in 2016 in N. Cal, where the top three player payouts, got more than 1/2 the total prize funds. Paying out 1/4 of the field has been pretty common, but is it right? Prize fund payouts, have always heard the heavy breathing of the best players in the world, when these type of decisions are put together.
Bottom line is that having Matchroom produce the U.S. Open is a big plus for Pool in this country! One thing for sure is that all the checks will be good, something we couldn't say for previous versions of this event. 
I also think we will see a steady increase in prize money over time. The first year is always the hardest to get a new event off the ground. Hopefully there will be a way for pool fans across the country to watch the final sixteen televised matches (ESPN3 or Facebook?).
I also think we will see a steady increase in prize money over time. The first year is always the hardest to get a new event off the ground. Hopefully there will be a way for pool fans across the country to watch the final sixteen televised matches (ESPN3 or Facebook?).
Last edited: