"Equal Distribution" tournament format

J

jbayx

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This past weekend i attended a reputable, handicapped, touring tournament that drew about 50 players. After three days of commuting and hard play i finished 5th. Not bad for a mediocre player! However, being a business owner, this does not make monetary sense... I will elaborate. $60 entry, $40 calcutta, $40 gas, $45 food and tip and over 40 hours of play and time away from my family, 5th place pays $100. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Having said all of this, the money is not the primary reason i play pool... But for some, it is. The cut from the tournament was fair, the way it was orchestrated was smooth and the people involved in making the tournament happen were outstanding. After much thought, i have come to the realization that it is time to do away with the current way tournaments are funded. Here is a format i created in an attempt to change the current norm , i will call it "Equal Distribution"

Format

Entry fees $60, $100 and $150

Entrants can choose their own entry fee, Think of this like a multi line slot machine. Each coin (entry) activates a different pay out. You need the maximum coins to receive the largest jackpot. The machine will pay on cherries, bars and sevens. The sevens pay the most coins. If you play one coin ($60) you can collect only on the cherries. If you play two coins ($100) you can collect on cherries and bars. You need three coins inserted ($150) to collect on the sevens. The following format would encourage players to play with "maximum coins".

For the sake of argument, here is a simple example of the entrants and the payouts without money added or subtracted from an outside source.

(20) entrants have chosen to pay $150 (1st tier )
(20) entrants have chosen to pay $100 (2nd tier)
(20)entrants have chosen to pay $60 (3rd tier )

Total available prize fund for 1st tier players $6200
Total available prize fund for 2nd tier players $5200
Total available prize fund for 3rd tier players $3600


Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $150 entry fee

1st place $2400
2nd place $1200
3rd place $800
4th place $600
5th/6th $400 each
7th/8th $200 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $100 entry fee

1st place $2200
2nd place $1000
3rd place $700
4th place $500
5th/6th $300 each
7th/8th $100 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $60 entry fee

1st place $1400
2nd place $800
3rd place $500
4th place $400
5th/6th $200 each
7th/8th $50 each

Okay, now what happens if a lower tier places. For the sake of argument, here is another example.

1st place was a third tier player, they would win $1400
2nd place was a third tier player, they would win $800
3rd place was a 1st tier player, they would win $800
4th place was a 2nd tier player, they would win $500

And so on...



Inevitably there will be "extra" money left over from the the tournament after the payouts. This money should be dumped into the following tour stops 1st tier prize fund. The monetary growth of the the "jackpot" would be substantial from stop to stop and would encourage players to play with "maximum coins". This format, in my opinion, would work best in a handicapped tournament.

Your Thought?
 
I think the amount of increase would need to be better selected.

There is an $800 jump in winning payout from 60-100. A $40 dollar entry difference, when the difference from 100-150 is only $200. I would probably scale the initial large difference down a touch to help it even out more. With your idea the $100 entry should be about midway for the prizes, not almost equal with the tier 3 players..

I'm only referring to first place prize btw, the rest seem fairly distributed...everyone is going to look at the grand prize though.
 
Last edited:
You have a good point.
One of the things that is nice about this program is that it is flexible. The tournament director could change the payout percentages and depth as they see fit. Also, the entry fees could be raised or lowered as well. This format could be tailored to fit a touring pro event with 200 players all the way down to your local pool room with 15 players. I think with minimal effort it could be tweeked in a short period of time.
 
It's an interesting idea. It has a high potential to raise a lot of money for whatever organization is hosting the tournaments...anything is worth a shot I suppose
 
What happens if the top 8 spots are all won by tier one players and they are the only ones in the event? Who makes up the difference?

Ray
 
Great question Ray, I appreciate you commenting on the post.

Hypothetical entries based on 60 players

(8) entrants pay $150 (tier 1)
(26) entrants pay $100 (tier 2)
(26) entrants pay $60 (tier 3)
Total money in pot $5300

Total money available to tier 1 entrants $5300
Total money available to tier 2 entrants $4900
Total money available to tier 3 entrants $3600

For the sake of your question Ray:

1st place (tier 1) $1900
2nd place (tier 1) $1100
3rd place (tier 1) $800
4th place (tier 1) $500
5th/6th place (tier 1) $300 each
7th/8th place (tier 1) $200 each
 
jbayx said:
Great question Ray, I appreciate you commenting on the post.

Hypothetical entries based on 60 players

(8) entrants pay $150 (tier 1)
(26) entrants pay $100 (tier 2)
(26) entrants pay $60 (tier 3)
Total money in pot $5300

Total money available to tier 1 entrants $5300
Total money available to tier 2 entrants $4900
Total money available to tier 3 entrants $3600

For the sake of your question Ray:

1st place (tier 1) $1900
2nd place (tier 1) $1100
3rd place (tier 1) $800
4th place (tier 1) $500
5th/6th place (tier 1) $300 each
7th/8th place (tier 1) $200 each
Click to expand...

8x150 = 1200
52x60= 3120


Total collected = 4320

Paid out - 5300

deficit - (980)

I still think it would work - Who decides who is in what tier? That would be your only obstacle. Maybe a board?

Ray
 
u did pretty well

jbayx said:
This past weekend i attended a reputable, handicapped, touring tournament that drew about 50 players. After three days of commuting and hard play i finished 5th. Not bad for a mediocre player! However, being a business owner, this does not make monetary sense... I will elaborate. $60 entry, $40 calcutta, $40 gas, $45 food and tip and over 40 hours of play and time away from my family, 5th place pays $100. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Having said all of this, the money is not the primary reason i play pool... But for some, it is. The cut from the tournament was fair, the way it was orchestrated was smooth and the people involved in making the tournament happen were outstanding. After much thought, i have come to the realization that it is time to do away with the current way tournaments are funded. Here is a format i created in an attempt to change the current norm , i will call it "Equal Distribution"

Format

Entry fees $60, $100 and $150

Entrants can choose their own entry fee, Think of this like a multi line slot machine. Each coin (entry) activates a different pay out. You need the maximum coins to receive the largest jackpot. The machine will pay on cherries, bars and sevens. The sevens pay the most coins. If you play one coin ($60) you can collect only on the cherries. If you play two coins ($100) you can collect on cherries and bars. You need three coins inserted ($150) to collect on the sevens. The following format would encourage players to play with "maximum coins".

For the sake of argument, here is a simple example of the entrants and the payouts without money added or subtracted from an outside source.

(20) entrants have chosen to pay $150 (1st tier )
(20) entrants have chosen to pay $100 (2nd tier)
(20)entrants have chosen to pay $60 (3rd tier )

Total available prize fund for 1st tier players $6200
Total available prize fund for 2nd tier players $5200
Total available prize fund for 3rd tier players $3600


Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $150 entry fee

1st place $2400
2nd place $1200
3rd place $800
4th place $600
5th/6th $400 each
7th/8th $200 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $100 entry fee

1st place $2200
2nd place $1000
3rd place $700
4th place $500
5th/6th $300 each
7th/8th $100 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $60 entry fee

1st place $1400
2nd place $800
3rd place $500
4th place $400
5th/6th $200 each
7th/8th $50 each

Okay, now what happens if a lower tier places. For the sake of argument, here is another example.

1st place was a third tier player, they would win $1400
2nd place was a third tier player, they would win $800
3rd place was a 1st tier player, they would win $800
4th place was a 2nd tier player, they would win $500

And so on...



Inevitably there will be "extra" money left over from the the tournament after the payouts. This money should be dumped into the following tour stops 1st tier prize fund. The monetary growth of the the "jackpot" would be substantial from stop to stop and would encourage players to play with "maximum coins". This format, in my opinion, would work best in a handicapped tournament.

Your Thought?
Click to expand...

You paid $60 to play in a tournament, you won $100. So you were $40 winner. You spent $40 on a Calcutta? 5th did not get any Calcutta money? Oh well. You bought food and drinks which are essential to survival whether or not you were in a tournament you would have to eat and drink something.

You have an unique idea, however not many pool players are going to pay a higher entry fee, unless it is required, they enjoy the cheap shot to take off the BIG prize.

Better luck next time.
 
Bigtruck, i think you are misunderstanding.

8 paid $150 $1200
26 paid $100 $2600
26 paid $60 $1560

Total Collected $5360

You also asked "who decides who is what tier". Answer, Players would decide to be in any tier they choose. Its kind of like betting on yourself, you would post more money to win more money. Thats what makes this format so inviting. Say for instance that i was playing really good and i liked the field, i would most likely go ahead and enter into tier one for a shot at more money. Or i could say "im not feeling good about my game and the field is pretty tough at this stop so i think i will just enter into tier three".

Mark, you have a valid point about the food and drinks. There was no money for 5th place calcutta.
 
I am glad to see new discussion on this topic, and I like the premise behind your idea. I would even like to see you take it a level further. Let me explain why.

I know many players like myself that are solid pool players, we know the game, and we can give anyone a decent competitive game. With that understood, we do not want to pay $100 to enter a pool tournament when Hennessey, Larry Nevel, Shannon Daulton, and a host of other near-pro level players are competing. It's not that I am scared to play them, I would just rather take that $100 and gamble with someone I actually have a chance of beating if I play well. But your plan addresses such concerns with the reduced entry option (I would like to see it go down as low as $20 for league-level players). I personally would gladly pay $50 or less (all fees included) to play in these tournaments, just to have the experience of playing these guys, and the reduced payout amount means nothing to me. If I were to even qualify for a payout in a field like that, I would be thrilled with any amount. In other words, most of us know we are making a donation when entering these tournaments, try making it less painful, and folks will come out to play.

So, yes. I find validity in your plan. One of the Tours, I think Viking, is already doing something similar with the lower entry fees, and last I heard, it was working well. As for the payouts, I believe pool could take a big step forward by linking in with para-mutual style betting along with the Calcutta pots. Let everyone put $10 down on SVB if they want to. If SVB wins, they get their share of the 1st place payout from the para-mutual wagers. 10% of the pot would go to the prize fund (instead of the track in horse racing). I think someone up North has been working on the legalities of this (heard him talking with Jay Helfert on a YouTube One Pocket Match).

Anyway, good discussion and good points are being made here. Get the little guy (like me) interested in playing and increase the prize funds with new ways of betting (if we can).
 
jbayx said:
Bigtruck, i think you are misunderstanding.

8 paid $150 $1200
26 paid $100 $2600
26 paid $60 $1560

Total Collected $5360

You also asked "who decides who is what tier". Answer, Players would decide to be in any tier they choose. Its kind of like betting on yourself, you would post more money to win more money. Thats what makes this format so inviting. Say for instance that i was playing really good and i liked the field, i would most likely go ahead and enter into tier one for a shot at more money. Or i could say "im not feeling good about my game and the field is pretty tough at this stop so i think i will just enter into tier three".

Mark, you have a valid point about the food and drinks. There was no money for 5th place calcutta.
Click to expand...

No I didn't misunderstand. I just changed it to 8 tier one and everybody else the lower tier. It still looked doable since we haven't even factored in any added money yet. I always like to look at worst case scenario. and best case scenario. You will inevitably fall somewhere in the middle.

What would someone do if they wanted to only have one event a year like this and not a tour? Any ideas?

Thanks,

Ray
 
Krypto said:
I am glad to see new discussion on this topic, and I like the premise behind your idea. I would even like to see you take it a level further. Let me explain why.

I know many players like myself that are solid pool players, we know the game, and we can give anyone a decent competitive game. With that understood, we do not want to pay $100 to enter a pool tournament when Hennessey, Larry Nevel, Shannon Daulton, and a host of other near-pro level players are competing. It's not that I am scared to play them, I would just rather take that $100 and gamble with someone I actually have a chance of beating if I play well. But your plan addresses such concerns with the reduced entry option (I would like to see it go down as low as $20 for league-level players). I personally would gladly pay $50 or less (all fees included) to play in these tournaments, just to have the experience of playing these guys, and the reduced payout amount means nothing to me. If I were to even qualify for a payout in a field like that, I would be thrilled with any amount. In other words, most of us know we are making a donation when entering these tournaments, try making it less painful, and folks will come out to play.

So, yes. I find validity in your plan. One of the Tours, I think Viking, is already doing something similar with the lower entry fees, and last I heard, it was working well. As for the payouts, I believe pool could take a big step forward by linking in with para-mutual style betting along with the Calcutta pots. Let everyone put $10 down on SVB if they want to. If SVB wins, they get their share of the 1st place payout from the para-mutual wagers. 10% of the pot would go to the prize fund (instead of the track in horse racing). I think someone up North has been working on the legalities of this (heard him talking with Jay Helfert on a YouTube One Pocket Match).

Anyway, good discussion and good points are being made here. Get the little guy (like me) interested in playing and increase the prize funds with new ways of betting (if we can).
Click to expand...

I don't think the format was meant to be the "exact" way it was outlined. I think it was super simplified to get the point across. I like the idea a lot. Para mutual opportunities is a whole other discussion imo.

If the lowest amount was $20 and the highest was $100 and a top player entered for $20 and won it. It would leave a lot of money in the "kitty" for the next event. I like the idea of the player picking the amount they want to play for. VERY interesting.

If nothing else it will keep the number crunchers busy. :D I think payout schedules should be posted with percentages instead of amounts, since you really won't know the amounts until you get all the entries in.

I think I'm gonna host a trial run tournament as soon as I can get all the particulars outlined.

Ray
 
jbayx said:
This past weekend i attended a reputable, handicapped, touring tournament that drew about 50 players. After three days of commuting and hard play i finished 5th. Not bad for a mediocre player! However, being a business owner, this does not make monetary sense... I will elaborate. $60 entry, $40 calcutta, $40 gas, $45 food and tip and over 40 hours of play and time away from my family, 5th place pays $100. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Having said all of this, the money is not the primary reason i play pool... But for some, it is. The cut from the tournament was fair, the way it was orchestrated was smooth and the people involved in making the tournament happen were outstanding. After much thought, i have come to the realization that it is time to do away with the current way tournaments are funded. Here is a format i created in an attempt to change the current norm , i will call it "Equal Distribution"

Format

Entry fees $60, $100 and $150

Entrants can choose their own entry fee, Think of this like a multi line slot machine. Each coin (entry) activates a different pay out. You need the maximum coins to receive the largest jackpot. The machine will pay on cherries, bars and sevens. The sevens pay the most coins. If you play one coin ($60) you can collect only on the cherries. If you play two coins ($100) you can collect on cherries and bars. You need three coins inserted ($150) to collect on the sevens. The following format would encourage players to play with "maximum coins".

For the sake of argument, here is a simple example of the entrants and the payouts without money added or subtracted from an outside source.

(20) entrants have chosen to pay $150 (1st tier )
(20) entrants have chosen to pay $100 (2nd tier)
(20)entrants have chosen to pay $60 (3rd tier )

Total available prize fund for 1st tier players $6200
Total available prize fund for 2nd tier players $5200
Total available prize fund for 3rd tier players $3600


Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $150 entry fee

1st place $2400
2nd place $1200
3rd place $800
4th place $600
5th/6th $400 each
7th/8th $200 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $100 entry fee

1st place $2200
2nd place $1000
3rd place $700
4th place $500
5th/6th $300 each
7th/8th $100 each

Payouts for entrants that have chosen to pay the $60 entry fee

1st place $1400
2nd place $800
3rd place $500
4th place $400
5th/6th $200 each
7th/8th $50 each

Okay, now what happens if a lower tier places. For the sake of argument, here is another example.

1st place was a third tier player, they would win $1400
2nd place was a third tier player, they would win $800
3rd place was a 1st tier player, they would win $800
4th place was a 2nd tier player, they would win $500

And so on...



Inevitably there will be "extra" money left over from the the tournament after the payouts. This money should be dumped into the following tour stops 1st tier prize fund. The monetary growth of the the "jackpot" would be substantial from stop to stop and would encourage players to play with "maximum coins". This format, in my opinion, would work best in a handicapped tournament.

Your Thought?
Click to expand...


I think you could accomplish the different payout structure based on the varying entry fee by having a side pot for a one time event .
 
Ray,

I like the idea of posting the percentages rather than the actual dollar amount. As far as a single tournament goes, you wouldn't want any money to carry over. So below is a format for a once a year tournament. Pretty much the same format with a small change.


Each corresponding prize pool would be up for grabs to the next highest finisher of their particular tier.

"Equal Distribution" has a wide range of benefits and I think the pool community will welcome it with open arms. It is not only recreational players who benefit. This format improves the game for everyone. The concept not only allows players with larger bankrolls the chance to play in a tournament with huge guarantees, it also allows players with smaller bankrolls play in tournaments where their idols are competing. Many pool players wish they could play against the likes of Archer, Van Boening or Strickland but to do so they would have to buy into tournaments with a buy-in of $200 - $500. With this format they will be able to rub shoulders with their heroes for a much smaller investment.


As you can see, the possibilities for this format are endless, and it offers pros a better chance to cash (although they will have to pay more) without giving them an edge like reentry tournaments offer.
 
Bigtruck said:
I don't think the format was meant to be the "exact" way it was outlined. I think it was super simplified to get the point across. I like the idea a lot. Para mutual opportunities is a whole other discussion imo.

If the lowest amount was $20 and the highest was $100 and a top player entered for $20 and won it. It would leave a lot of money in the "kitty" for the next event. I like the idea of the player picking the amount they want to play for. VERY interesting.

If nothing else it will keep the number crunchers busy. :D I think payout schedules should be posted with percentages instead of amounts, since you really won't know the amounts until you get all the entries in.

I think I'm gonna host a trial run tournament as soon as I can get all the particulars outlined.

Ray
Click to expand...

That's great Ray. I really like the idea as well. I agree that left over money--should a lower-tier player win-- could be distributed to the top 3 (or even 5) in the Premier Level. This means that a third place premier player (who could otherwise be way down and out of the money) could win more via this bonus than the lower-tier tournament winner.

I think this type of format would eventually lead to more entrants in all levels, as lower tiers that perform well will gain confidence and eventually up their entry level in the tournaments that follow.

Again, great discussion and a super idea. This may actually make tournaments popular enough to fill 64 person boards and bring in revenue to the room owners.
 
Krypto said:
That's great Ray. I really like the idea as well. I agree that left over money--should a lower-tier player win-- could be distributed to the top 3 (or even 5) in the Premier Level. This means that a third place premier player (who could otherwise be way down and out of the money) could win more via this bonus than the lower-tier tournament winner.

I think this type of format would eventually lead to more entrants in all levels, as lower tiers that perform well will gain confidence and eventually up their entry level in the tournaments that follow.

Again, great discussion and a super idea. This may actually make tournaments popular enough to fill 64 person boards and bring in revenue to the room owners.
Click to expand...

I have been running this idea by some top level players and am getting a lot of good feedback.

One thing a LOT of people have a hard time wrapping their head around, me included, is the fact that just because someone enters in the lower tier that doesn't mean they are a lower level player. Might just be their budget.

The biggest obstacle I can see is....how to overcome the overage and underage that will most certainly occur? Time for some number crunching.

Ray
 
I must be missing the concern somehow. Too much money has never been a problem in my experience, and I do not see how you can come up short.

Host Room: $500
Ten $100 Premiers: $1000
Twenty $75 Mids: $1500
Twenty $50 Lows: $1000

Total Prize fund: $4000

1st Pays: Premier $2000
Mid $1500 ($500 bonus to top Premier Finisher)
Low $1000 ($1000 bonus to top Premier Finisher)

2nd Pays: Premier $1000
Mid $750 ($250 bonus to second place Premier Finisher)
Low $500 ($500 bonus to second place Premier Finisher)

And so on down the scale. This could actually increase payouts for those choosing to play Premier and would help sell that entry to quality players (Pros). And yes, a Pro could play low tier, but why would he want to? Maybe he is low on funds and just wants to score some scratch or take the Calcutta cash (which I assume would not be affected in any way by this system. And if he does, so what? With this system, one would be a fool not to play Premier level if the tournament pays the top 5, and only 4 players are taking Premier. One could theoretically cash at Premier level and never win a match if that should occur.

Interesting stuff, but I do believe the room will sell more chicken fingers and Budweiser with this approach (once the concept becomes known). Local players would be more likely to participate.
 
Krypto said:
I must be missing the concern somehow. Too much money has never been a problem in my experience, and I do not see how you can come up short.

Host Room: $500
Ten $100 Premiers: $1000
Twenty $75 Mids: $1500
Twenty $50 Lows: $1000

Total Prize fund: $4000

1st Pays: Premier $2000
Mid $1500 ($500 bonus to top Premier Finisher)
Low $1000 ($1000 bonus to top Premier Finisher)

2nd Pays: Premier $1000
Mid $750 ($250 bonus to second place Premier Finisher)
Low $500 ($500 bonus to second place Premier Finisher)

And so on down the scale. This could actually increase payouts for those choosing to play Premier and would help sell that entry to quality players (Pros). And yes, a Pro could play low tier, but why would he want to? Maybe he is low on funds and just wants to score some scratch or take the Calcutta cash (which I assume would not be affected in any way by this system. And if he does, so what? With this system, one would be a fool not to play Premier level if the tournament pays the top 5, and only 4 players are taking Premier. One could theoretically cash at Premier level and never win a match if that should occur.

Interesting stuff, but I do believe the room will sell more chicken fingers and Budweiser with this approach (once the concept becomes known). Local players would be more likely to participate.
Click to expand...

I know one thing for sure....until someone can figure out a way to explain it in a simple way, it aint happening.

Working on it,

Ray
 
I will put some more thought into the vocabulary needed to explain this format a little easier.

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top