Suppose a tournament announcement says, “Prizes: x% of entries.” In your mind, what value (or range of values) of x separates the credible tournament from the sketchy one?
80% might seem plausible, lower if the site has to be paid for.
120% might be the minimum some people want.
I’m not sure how to answer that. At least the players know what to expect, regardless of the value of x. For the Massachusetts and New England Blitz Championships I say that 75% of entry fees will be returned as prizes, while for the one day side events at the Massachusetts Open I used to say that 50% would be returned. I don’t remember getting complaints about the 50% payout being too low. The players entering the side events were paying a lower entry fee than if they’d entered the main tournament. Most players in the blitz championship also play in the main tournament, which is a reason for the payout to be higher.
It might depend how the prizes are distributed. For example, 1st-2nd-3rd 18%-16%-14%, under-2000 12%, under-1600 10% would add up to 70% total.
We tried this idea occasionally at the Lunt Avenue club, but it appears players don’t like percent signs, preferring $$ signs instead. Those events never drew as well as the good old Plus Score format. The latter is virtually a no-risk plan for the organizer, yet guarantees each individual prize as a dollar amount.
Bill Smythe
The truth is, for the most part, whatever X is has very little to do with
the attendance at most local tournaments. Nor does trophy size,
quantity, or that type of thing, either. What matters most, is the
overall tournament organization, and key to this is starting on time.
Rob Jones
I think the point is that with a % there is theory is more money for the players, but it seems the players may not realize this. If a tournament advertises a $150 first prize, with a total prize fund under 500 based on 30 players with a $20 entry fee and only 10 players show up to play; then the first prize is reduced to $50. If the prize fund advertised 25% of entries for first, then with 10 players at $20 entry fee first prize would be $50. There is usually no different between cash and percentage prizes. The problem is with the math for both the player and sometimes the organizer.
Larry S. Cohen
Would it be allowable to withhold a constant from the prize fund for fixed costs if, for example, the playing site costs the same no matter how many people show up? Instead of your example of $5.00 per person for that prize, it might be $6.50 per person less a constant ($45.00 in this example) to insure the $150 prize based on 30 players is met.
Once again I am reminded of Chevy Chase imitating Gerald Ford in a presidential election debate. "Um, I was told there would be no math … "
The more math you make players do, the smaller your turnout. Percents draw less well than dollars. And percents after expenses – like 70% of entry fees after $50 is deducted – are even worse.
Two words: Plus Score.
Bill Smythe
I know you love plus score, Bill, but you’re unasking the question.
I don’t think I’m unasking it so much as ignoring it. (I apologize for hijacking your thread, if that’s what I’m doing.) My personal feeling, and my experience, tells me that percent-based prize funds are not popular with the players, so I really don’t care about the question of what might be considered “credible”.
Bill Smythe
For one player’s perspective, I also like to see the precise dollar amounts, which I can then adjust based on the guaranteed %. What I don’t like about the based on prizes is the absence of the lower bound. So, I generally ignore the based on events, unless I know how many players they generally draw.
For my very first tournament in Texas, I drove 200 miles to a based on event, where I ended up getting a 1st prize in the amount equal to my entry fee as a favor, since I believe it could have come out to even less money using the advertised percentage of the total take. Besides the low turn-out for this event, almost all other players were juniors who paid half of the entry fee. I also got a speeding ticket on the way, which was at least 3x the prize (1996 rates).
Michael Langer
Please go through the prize allocation in a plus score event again.
Allen, see the ‘Plus Score Format’ thread I just bumped to the top.
Basic premise: $20 entry fee, 4 rounds
$100 to a 4.0 score
$50 to a 3.5 score
$25 to a 3.0 score
$10 to a 2.5 score
If I remember right, the breakeven is around 12 players. Above that and it is impossible to lose money. And EVERYBODY in the top third assumes they’re going to go 4-0.
You can tinker with the entry fee and the payout matrix a bit, just make sure that a 4.0 score and a 3.0 score earn more than two 3.5 scores, etc.
Thanks, Mike.
We all had some really great conversations in the good old days, didn’t we?
Bill Smythe
Those were the days, my friend.
I have two recordings of that song, one by the Limeliters, the other by (who else) Frankie Yankovic.
Bill Smythe
Could we wax poetic about the old days of the Northwestern Chess Club, before the Norris Center opened, when Terry Brown and George Martin (yes, THAT George RR Martin) used to be in a hurry for the meeting to end so they could do an Arby’s run?
Could we close the thread if no one is going to discuss the topic?
I see only three innocuous off topic posts. That is hardly enough to close or lock the thread. Besides, no insults were made. Yet. What is the big deal with people wanting to lock threads? Let them die off as a natural consequence of disinterest. Otherwise, there will be nothing to “bump.”
On topic.
I prefer to play in events where the prizes are guaranteed. Based on prize funds that name a % payout are grudgingly accepted. My preference for those is a 70% minimum. Prize funds that say “prizes based on entries” leave me cold and I tend to avoid those unless I hear from the organizer that he has a substantial advance entry. I have gone to a couple of the latter and was disappointed to find only a half dozen entries. Winning the tournament did not even pay for gas money and the entry fee. If an organizer wants to build up a reputation for holding good tournaments, then he had better guarantee prizes or pay out 80+%. Once he goes the 50% route a couple of times, he will see his entry lists shrink. Class players do not like to play for cheap or no prizes.
As I recall, it was a Talbott’s run (big cheeseburgers and beer), not an Arby’s run. The Arby’s part happened during long car trips to collegiate tournaments in far-away states, when George was rumored (not quite truthfully) to eat six Arby’s per stop.
Bill Smythe