Tournament Payouts
- Thread starter jaycast16
- Start date
1/4 of the field is always pretty good but I also always considered how many days the tournament was going to be also. I never want anyone to be in the last day and not be guaranteed in the money.
I also do not like it when 1st and 2nd are too far apart in the money. For example, first $2500. and second $1250. That is too much of a spread.
I know people like to do it so they can advertise a larger first prize but first should not be twice as much as second IMO.
justinb386
Banned
I never been to any really big tournaments, but I have been to many handi capped weekly tournaments that have had over 30 people show up, and I do not think they paid over 4 or 5 places. Maybe 5th (at the highest) got in the money with 30 something players in it. By the way, these were like $10 entry fee weekly tournaments (not monthly or yearly special events).
macguy...Your thoughts follow my sentiments exactly. I have always made the spreads much closer, because I hate top heavy payouts. :thumbup:
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
I happen to have some guidelines for payouts, from 4 player fields to 128 player fields. Generaly one quarter of the field is paid. For our tour, we paid 3/8 of the field which brought in tons of players, and the only ones that *****-d were the top players of course. The more you pay, the more that will come back to play, period.
I even paid half the field a few times when I had tons of added monies and it was a goal to make it happen eventually. Win your first match, you cashed. It was a dream come true for the average player. But due to some short sightedness of some sponsors and their listening to some so called elite players they made some bad decisions and everything came to a screeching halt.
Another case of players shooting themselves in the foot.
Stop....I could go on for eons, but I have accepted this funny sport for what it is...and what it has made itself into.
I even paid half the field a few times when I had tons of added monies and it was a goal to make it happen eventually. Win your first match, you cashed. It was a dream come true for the average player. But due to some short sightedness of some sponsors and their listening to some so called elite players they made some bad decisions and everything came to a screeching halt.
Another case of players shooting themselves in the foot.
Stop....I could go on for eons, but I have accepted this funny sport for what it is...and what it has made itself into.
I could not agree more! I run into this all the time in the tournaments I run. The top performers think all the cash should only go to themselves.
Ken
Please define "slight vast difference". Which are you advocating? A big or small difference?
If you mean a big difference then I would disagree. The greater the difference between first and second the greater the chance of a saver occurring....IMO.
I mean why have a saver if the difference is small? The lower monetary risk would allow the players to play and declare a champion without effecting their next meal...so to speak.
Ken
(Please define "slight vast difference". Which are you advocating? A big or small difference?
If you mean a big difference then I would disagree. The greater the difference between first and second the greater the chance of a saver occurring....IMO.
I mean why have a saver if the difference is small? The lower monetary risk would allow the players to play and declare a champion without effecting their next meal...so to speak.
Ken)
Maybe I should have put the word 'slight' in quotes.
To give an example, I would rather have 1st place be $1000 and 2nd place be $500-600 versus seeing 1st place $1000 and 2nd place being $800.
And if there's 'side money' involved, that doesn't get effected either.
Wutang
If you mean a big difference then I would disagree. The greater the difference between first and second the greater the chance of a saver occurring....IMO.
I mean why have a saver if the difference is small? The lower monetary risk would allow the players to play and declare a champion without effecting their next meal...so to speak.
Ken)
Maybe I should have put the word 'slight' in quotes.
To give an example, I would rather have 1st place be $1000 and 2nd place be $500-600 versus seeing 1st place $1000 and 2nd place being $800.
And if there's 'side money' involved, that doesn't get effected either.
Wutang
I like this post...too many tournaments and tours create too many losers...
No matter how successful a start is, players get tired of coming back.
In golf, winner normally gets 18% of the purse.....
...that's how to sustain a tour.
Ahh yes! Very good clarification!
We definitely disagree! But that's ok... :thumbup:
Ken
I like the idea of paying more of the field but if the tournament is handicapped then everyone should have about an equal chance. 18% in a 64 person field for first seems a bit low to me but whatever draws the most players in is of course the best idea.
Most bowling tournaments I've helped run and bowled in a portion only got their money back or money back + 20 dollars for the lower lower finishers so in a 64 person field 9-16 would get say 100-120 dollars if the entry fee was 100 dollars. Top 8 would make the ladder and that's where the payouts started to increase.
Most bowling tournaments I've helped run and bowled in a portion only got their money back or money back + 20 dollars for the lower lower finishers so in a 64 person field 9-16 would get say 100-120 dollars if the entry fee was 100 dollars. Top 8 would make the ladder and that's where the payouts started to increase.
That 18% won't work while there is still small money...but as sponsored
money increases, spreading the payouts should be priority.
I'm sure golf wasn't so generous in the 50s.
Payouts
Hi Robin,
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Wishing you a Happy New Year.
I'll try to contact you next week or two.
Mark Griffin
Hi Robin,
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
Wishing you a Happy New Year.
I'll try to contact you next week or two.
Mark Griffin
I was asked to run a few tournaments for a new pool hall many years ago, so I came up with the following calculations when paying out 16 places (64 person field) in a double elimination tourney, maybe it will help you:
16 places
0.27 1st
0.176 2nd
0.125 3rd
0.085 4th
0.046 5th/6th
0.034 7th/8th
0.026 9th-12th
0.02 13th -16th
Simply multiply these percentages against the total money. You can always round up or down a little to keep the numbers whole, but maybe this would work as a guideline. It worked for me and was fair every time, people knew what to expect.
Dave
16 places
0.27 1st
0.176 2nd
0.125 3rd
0.085 4th
0.046 5th/6th
0.034 7th/8th
0.026 9th-12th
0.02 13th -16th
Simply multiply these percentages against the total money. You can always round up or down a little to keep the numbers whole, but maybe this would work as a guideline. It worked for me and was fair every time, people knew what to expect.
Dave
Happy New Year to you and the CSI team. In fact, I was thinking about calling you soon...over the Cyclop Aramith ball fiasco thread....you mentioned that you still had some old ball sets. I am a player on the sets...maybe all of them, to sell in the shop and replace some Valley balls that always seem to go missing.
i brought this up because i was really pissed on the last tournament i played.it is a handicapped tournament and staggerred entry fee.lowest handicap pays $30,i paid $45 then the highest is $65.there were 92 players in a 2 days tournament.guess what?they are paying the top 24 and $30 guaranteed in the b-side if you make it to the 2nd day.i really thought is ridiculous.i know it is not just the money that should motivate me to play.i should be after the competition.but, i also want a little bit of reward for my hard work...i am sure someone out there may feel the same way but i hope it won't prevent them to come back.