Tournament payouts stack top or share the wealth?

Handicapped tournaments should have a longer
list of payouts.

I think for an open tournament this sounds good.
If they can fill a 40 man open field during covid,
that's pretty good.
No, I don't think everyone deserves a few bucks
for showing up. Although you get bigger fields
if you payout that way.

I say pay only the top 3 in open tournaments.
Makes a person want to work hard to get there.
Placing high should mean something.
5-6 or 9-12 should be a reminder to practice
and come back stronger.

Used to play with purses

I used to help people that put on events play around with purses. Got to keep people happy to keep them coming back. One thing that worked was show-up money. A top heavy purse but then a token payment down deeper. Kept those middle of the pack guys thinking they could get a decent payday with a little different breaks.

The serious competitors don't care what fifth place pays, they come for first place. Years ago a dirt track spent huge money advertising a $100,000 to win fifty lap race. Nobody had ever paid anything like that for a twenty-five mile race on dirt! When I read all the ad's being the suspicious sort I wondered what the entire purse was. I used to tow based on where break even was as well as what winning paid. I wasn't towing to lose money.

Anyway, over two hundred of the best dirt late models in the country showed up to that race. They paid $100,000 for first, the same as a weekly show for second down. Maybe four hundred for second. Angry people! Near rioting at the track and furious people across the country!

The next year they ran the race again, $100K to win, chump change for second down, and they posted the entire purse. Over 350 cars showed up!

If I were running an event I'd add five dollars to the entry and use it to give the people further back a taste but there would be a sharp drop and then a leveling off. Yep, it is a "participation trophy" if it pays less than the entry but that is what keeps some people coming and providing the payday for top players.

Hu

If you don't spread the money out, you're asking for failure.
..you're not supporting the game by making the $ top heavy.

There are a lot of millionaire golfers that have never won a tournament...
...pool following golf''s method would not be a bad thing.

top heavy is fine when the field is handicapped closely or fairly even.

other wise just suckers enter to give the top players their money. or use the excuse that is how to get to play with them. or watch them run out while you sit.

the good players will still show up they have to eat and dont have any better options other than get a job.

I say spread the wealth.

Sadly, in pool, there ain't much wealth to be spread!

I don't think you should never pay over 20-25% of the field and that is a generous spread. Top 3 in most cases should get the majority of the money depending on the size of the field. All others should drop significantly. When you climb the mountain and get there first, you want to have a good view. You deserved it.

My typical payout

My experience with $5 weekly tournaments, with the house matching. 16 players yield a pot of $160. I like half to first and progressive steps.

First $80
Second. $40
Third. $20
Fourth. $10
5th/6th. $5

In our weekly tournament we like to pay out 20% to 25% of our entire field. Even if the lowest finishers in the money just get their entry fees back, that’s still better than nothing.

For a 15-20 player field, we would pay out 4 places for both the entry fee $ purse as well as the separate Calcutta $ purse. The approximate payout percentages would be 50%, 25%, 16% and 9% for both purses.

Well..,

couldnthinkof01 said:

I say pay only the top 3 in open tournaments.
Makes a person want to work hard to get there.
Placing high should mean something.
5-6 or 9-12 should be a reminder to practice
and come back stronger.

Click to expand...

There are to many strong players to ask guys to come and expect to get in the top 3-5 no matter how good they play, doing that will insure that the tournament just wont get a good field more than one or two times.

There is also a lot of expense involved with with a two or three day tournament so giving more players a chance a some win-back means they are more likely to come back.

gregcantrall said:

My experience with $5 weekly tournaments, with the house matching. 16 players yield a pot of $160. I like half to first and progressive steps.

First $80
Second. $40
Third. $20
Fourth. $10
5th/6th. $5

Click to expand...

That seen fair, no one is going to pay a Mortage, or their Car Payment of the winning from a small Tournment. They are about have some cheap entertainment, and some competition.

Personally never saw any reason to enter a big Tournment with a large entry fee unless I had a chance if getting into the payout.

Would not even consider say the BCAPL thing in Sin City, I understand I am not the caliber player to finish in the money.

Besides I am not an 8 Ball kind of player, I like One Pocket.

King T said:

There are to many strong players to ask guys to come and expect to get in the top 3-5 no matter how good they play, doing that will insure that the tournament just wont get a good field more than one or two times.

There is also a lot of expense involved with with a two or three day tournament so giving more players a chance a some win-back means they are more likely to come back.

Click to expand...

I agree it's completely unsustainable.

I just think it's funny that if you ask a guy
to play a race to 3 or 5 for $20, they laugh in
your face.

Ask a guy to play a tournament for $20 that
they will have to work hard to win, could take
a year or two, they squeeze that $20 like a
winning mega millions ticket.

"They should at least pay 5-6, etc. I'm not
gonna play that if I don't at least get my $ back"

ChrisinNC said:

In our weekly tournament we like to pay out 20% to 25% of our entire field. Even if the lowest finishers in the money just get their entry fees back, that’s still better than nothing.

For a 15-20 player field, we would pay out 4 places for both the entry fee $ purse as well as the separate Calcutta $ purse. The approximate payout percentages would be 50%, 25%, 16% and 9% for both purses.

Click to expand...

This idea makes the most sense to me of everything I have seen proposed here- how can anyone complain about a 20 to 25% participant payout policy? If someone feels they cannot get into the top 20/25% of the field then they should be showing up to: improve and look at this as a challenge or just have fun.

Pool could have better pots, or payouts, if all of Pool was under one group, or scantioning body. That is just an idea.

Could find more deversed advertisers like most other sports.

Count me in the 20% - 25% crowd.

Your right

couldnthinkof01 said:

I agree it's completely unsustainable.

I just think it's funny that if you ask a guy
to play a race to 3 or 5 for $20, they laugh in
your face.

Ask a guy to play a tournament for $20 that
they will have to work hard to win, could take
a year or two, they squeeze that $20 like a
winning mega millions ticket.

"They should at least pay 5-6, etc. I'm not
gonna play that if I don't at least get my $ back"

Click to expand...

Your right and I made the same decision about a few tournaments in my area. If they are not going to pay a little deeper, I don't play, I just go and ask people to gamble.

I have played in more race to 2-3 tournaments then I can remember, just for something to do, and I have been knocked out by guys that wouldn't bet the same $20 that it cost to get in the tournament.

Funny... Just last week I played in a little tournament, just over 20 players I think (handicapped entry fee), and the payout went something like:

1st - 100
2nd - 70
3rd - 40
4th - 20

It was my first time in this particular hall and I did manage to finish up in 4th. Guy running the show handed me the 20. I smiled, thanked him, gave it back and told him to add it to 1st. He asked why, and I told him the guy who grinds it out to the end deserves more than $30 difference of 2nd place.

I skimmed through the thread, and I'm not sure if this particular point of view was expressed. However, I think the depth of payout should be based on the cost of entry. If you're playing a $20 tournament then frankly you shouldn't care, let alone expect to get anything back for less than 3rd. I don't care how many players are in the field. It's $20, and you get to play at least 2 sets of pool. If you're fortunate, you got annihilated by one of the top players. Fact is, the top finishers are most likely putting in a long day for otherwise short money. Sure if the field is so large that the 4th - 6th place finishers are putting in a substantial day then extend it down to them.

The attitude in amateur pool is so backwards these days. My pool playing buddies and I used to travel for hours and donate decent money (>$80) into tournaments we had zero chance of placing in. Mostly because we wanted the experience of being around the top players, and the off chance we'd get destroyed by a travelling pro. Hell one of my greatest regrets was dropping a set against a local guy for the opportunity to rack the balls of Ralf Souquet.

Fact is... these days everyone expects a participation prize. That's what is killing the local tournament scene. It used to be about gaining experience, hanging out with like minded people and hopefully playing well enough to end up getting knocked out by the best. Thinning out the prize pool discourages the players who you want at these tournaments as an attraction. Why on earth would a strong/high level player pay $20 to win a $<200 and have to sit in a hall for 6-8-10+hrs to do so...? Worse yet, give up a handicap as well.

Can't tell you how many times I've seen action get stirred up between top shots during the early rounds of tournaments and they end up just dropping out to gamble instead.

King T said:

Your right and I made the same decision about a few tournaments in my area. If they are not going to pay a little deeper, I don't play, I just go and ask people to gamble.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you're a fringe player. The kind of guy that does well against most but feels he isn't likely to win against the top percentile in his area.

I'm not judging, but when I was at your point (assuming the above), was when I enjoyed playing in those local tournaments the most. I wasn't expected to win against the top tier, but when I did break through, the ensuing chatter in the local halls made me feel like all the effort was worth it. That said, I sure didn't get rich putting those hours in...lol.

Different strokes, different folks. For me back then, it was more about the validation
and respect then the prize money.