Tournament Payouts

[Drew]

Option 2 is fairer for the masses but the best players will like Option 1.

I believe in paying deep,, 25% of the field minimum and not so top heavy with first place.

My thinking is that if the majority of the players get a decent taste of the pie, they will be back and others will join the festivities.

If most of the dough is collected by one or two, the event is destined to struggle.

Coming from a solid C player...Option 2 sucks!!

I'm one of those guys who is perennially stuck on the bubble. Sometimes I cash, and sometimes I don't. But every once in awhile, I play great and win. Then I get my winnings....WTF!!! I just played the best pool of my life and I made $40 more than if I played my average speed. When I play well, I'd like to be rewarded.

"Fair" is for the guys who don't want to play better.

1st should pay 50% of the purse.

 

[JoeyA]

The weaker players of course all would like to alter payouts, cuz it benefits them, but why? When they already pay cheaper entry and play as a hobby and work for a living. These players are ok no matter what. Amd the top players are also more loyal to tour events. Alot of recrreational players dont always show up...
My advice, Keep doin it the way ur doin it ozZy, you get top names that help your tour image, and its always a plus to see that tourneys pay 1,000. Soon you will recruit a title sponsor that will help increase your payouts and numbers better than they are now.

Unfortunately, the sponsors are not stepping up to the plate. You can't blame them with the small demographics that they are exposed to.

If the sponsors aren't ponying up the dough, then it has to come from somewhere else and that happens to be from the have-nots and wannabees of pool. They want to make their contribution but just want a chance to sit at the dinner table every once in a while with the big boys. If that doesn't happen the lesser players just sit on the sidelines and knock the venues or simply find some other sport to entertain them.

The better players should want greater participation in the events and increased competition, not less. It can't be both ways. You can't generate enough revenue to have a good tournament by making sure that the only ones who win enough money to pay for their trip, are first, second and third place.

I have heard quite a few professional players complain about going to professional events, where there is thousands of dollars added. Some of them won't go to these events because it costs a hundred dollars a night for a hotel, $350 for an airline ticket, and $50 a day to eat. On a four day tournament, that probably means close to an easy $1,000 of out of pocket expense. That means that they have to come in first, second or third place to make money. The rest of the places means losing money.

And its no wonder that you see some of the amateur events taking off like gangbusters. Shorter races, lower entry fees give the amateurs a chance, however small it may be to bang it out with their peers and those in the class above them. I don't even think the lower entry fees for the lesser players is all that good of an idea. I think the shorter races (more competitive and yes, more luck involved) and the prize money & the Calcutta money being spread more generously down the totem pole is the secret to bigger events and ultimately greater money to be won BY ALL.



It's all good. We all want the same thing, an opportunity to sit at the dinner table and not just look at it form the sidelines. We just need a bigger table, with more food and that's not going to come from providing a smaller table with more food to just the most highly talented.

 

[Snapshot9]

Options

Option 1 is better if you are trying to draw in out of town players, even then out of town players will only makeup about a 1/4 of the field.

Option 2 is better if you are running more of a local tournament, and the field consist of mostly local players and a few out of towners.
650 to 450 for second, I feel, is not really being fair to 1st though.

In your example, you pay 12 places. Is that a 25% of the field? If so, the tournament had 48 players. I am asking because when I won the Kansas State BCA Championship in 2003, we had 48-50 entries, and I won $560
for taking 1st, and there was no calcutta with it.

Even for local players, it is easy for them to have $100-200 invested in a 64/128 entry tournament when you count entry fee, quarters (all our tournaments are on Bar Tables), buying half of yourself in Calcutta, food, drink, and a little gas money driving back and forth over 2-3 days.

 

[sweatinNbettin]

In my view option 1 is better, when I hit that cash spot, I want to hit it right.
I always look at the economic feasibility of the cost of attending. I know I'm just filler in most tournies but I enjoy the competition. So the tournies I do attend I look at my cost and try to make sure what I spend isn't way out there. That way if the pool gods do let me cash, I have a nice chunk of cash to hide from the wife. lol And Option 1 allows for the bigger profit margin, after taking out attendance costs.

 

[Perk]

Option 2 will stop the better players from coming. All I can say is "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
Let's say you have an event in bmore, and I'm in richmond. 3 1/2 hour drive. That 30-35$ in gas, 60$ hotel 40$ food and 100$ entry. That's coming up on the 250$ range of expenses, soooo not worth it if first was 650.
Almost all players and midlevel players play as recreation and work for a living and they would come anyway. Don't drive away or hurt the players that grind these tours out for a living.

I am in the same boat believing in having big payouts worth the trip, however respectfully understand that everyone else has the same expenses as you minus approx $30, $40, or $50 depending on their skill level. As the poll results and comments of this thread show, this is a subject that has merits from all sides.

What does everyone think of a 3rd option that the GSBT uses? The first round of money payouts for Shannon's tour is a paid entry into another event.

 

[Perk]

Option 1 9-12 is 40% less that option 2 9-12.....That's not a big difference?

When I am putting out a couple hundred dollars for a weekend event, I dont consider $40 very much. When you do come through with a win, place, or show I believe you should get paid for that accomplishment. I have always felt like huge differences between top 3 payouts was more of an issue over the few bucks difference between min cashes. If you disagree with this statement, why do you see so many chops or deals once you get that far?

As a recreational average player I come out to play the good players and attempt to win. Any money coming back is a good thing, however I dont look at min cashes as a good finish. The bracket needs to get down to individual payouts, i.e. 4th before I feel like its an accomplishment (for these smaller field events). Neither option would sway my decision to play as long as I feel like there will be a decent size field with a good mix of strong players.

 

[manfromoz]

Good Comments

Thanks for providing your opinions and insightful comments. This is an issue with very good points on both sides of the argument. I posted this poll because I saw both sides of this issue but I was curious what the rest of the pool world thought. I am leaving this pool open for two weeks if anyone else cares to comment and/or vote. Thanks again.