The correct un-opinionated fact based view of Galveston Payout Economics

[mikeyfrost]

IMO top heavy payouts shouldnt be a deterrent. People don't want to play tough fields with the best players in the world because there is still not enough dough to go around. Thats the real problem. Who cares if you pass $25k on down if you don't have lots in the pot to begin with. You won't fill a field because the action is too tough. Youre at an impasse and I dont see a way to improve attendance...the weaker players arent coming back, Justin Hall effectively killed the amateur event(if you have to play as good as Justin to be an amateur what is everyone else, novice?), the new players will be the best of the best from Taiwan and all over Europe, that's attractive right.

If I was Taylor Road I'd wait and see what the losses total up to and probably take it as a lesson. This year it is everyone else's fault, if they take this loss again next year, it will be their faults.

 

[tom mcgonagle]

As we all know in life, nothing is guaranteed. The biggest mistake you can make is promising something you may not be able to deliver.

That said, I've always contended that the payouts should be done on a percentage basis, based on the number of entries. I think this is a smarter way to operate a business. If it is determined the winner will receive a certain percentage of the money and that's what they get, there's nothing to argue about.

The number of places paid should also be done on a percentage basis. If I have a twenty-five to thirty percent chance of placing in the money, I might be more apt to travel to an event like the one in Galveston.

The game needs to support more than just the person that wins. In far too many events, the money is top-heavy.

I believe they waited to vote, on the change in prize money, after they had the top twenty-four players that were already in the money. If they were going to vote, they should have voted before they started play, not after they already established who was in the money.

 

[ShootingArts]

Well, right. All the last minute changes -- after the players had spent time and money, traveled to the event and were there -- put them in a hostage situation. They were stuck.

Personally, as someone who has more than a little familiarity with "spin," I don't believe there's enough spin in the whole world for them change the general perception of what actually happened. And in my mind, the way things unfolded, they may have permanently crippled future editions. (I really don't get the logic behind some claims here that next year will be bigger.) That doesn't mean another effort won't be made, but without some serious restructuring and a different mindset, I don't see how it can fly long term. But all that is just my opinion.

Lou Figueroa

Lou,

I'm very much hoping for a different mindset and different business model next year but I have to say that had they advertised from the beginning exactly what they produced almost all of us would have been fat dumb and happy with the event. It doesn't have to get better next year to be bigger, just a little more honest and open, and a little better planned. No real indication that anyone at Taylor Road is a moron so I'm thinking these things will happen.

I think somebody was feeding them a little Koolaid about numbers of competitors. With more real expectations for the next event the promoters should do a far better job. For the record, as much money as they spent I think they should have bit the bullet and paid what they advertised for first place too. I think that most people could see the same thing that you and I did, that there could be a heck of a gap between first and the rest of the field and they came for first place.

Hu