What is the most positive way in a TLA to say that the tournament pay out will be a fixed rate payout so that players will know that the pay out will not be prorated up if there is a higher than expected turn out?
Should it be “Winning Payouts Are To Be Paid At Stated Values?” It is not the most positive to say “Winners’ Payouts Are Not Prorated Up Based On Turn Out.” The group of players are used to getting winnings being prorated up based on higher than expected turn out. So, the TLA should state that the payouts will be unprorated payouts in some positive way.
There is no obligation to increase based on prizes upward. So, based on X entries is sufficient.
However, a lot events do add $ for a better than expected turnout so the increase (pro rata) is expected. Even in the cases where money is added it is often not pro rata – it might be adding a prize or adding an amount to specific prizes.
Personally, I feel you don’t need to add anything to TLA, you are covered by the existing payout rules. Is someone challenging you?
1 Like
I’d like to clarify to determine whether or not guaranteed prizes would work.
Are you saying that a based on X tournament will get more than X players while a guaranteed tournament designed for X players and with the same prize fund will get less than X players? i.e. if a tournament is based on 100 do you get 110 hoping for increased prizes and only 95 if they know the prizes will not increase?
Or are you saying that, on average, the tournament comes in at less than X and not having to pay a pro-rated increase allows the tournament to at least break even overall? i.e. five tournaments each based on 100 for $1,000 each with various turnouts being 80, 90, 100, 110, 120 where 500 entries are taken and skipping a pro-rated increase means only $4,700 is paid out instead of $5,000. And changing the prize fund to $940 each (where a calculated based on including pro-rated increases comes to $4,700) would end up with even fewer players.
Or are you saying that one poor turnout can be financially ruinous if more than the based on minimum had to be paid out and leave no way to recover over time? CCA does a lot of tournaments with various guaranteed prizes with many of them occasionally losing money, many occasionally breaking even, some gaining money to cover a portion of the losses and some of the big ones covering the rest of the losses and allowing the business model to work. A number of other affiliates that are more locally active have enough of a cushion in the treasury to absorb the occasional losses and recuperate - though they are still at risk if there are multiple consecutive losses.
PS as Gary said, there would be no official US Chess penalty if only all of the full prize fund is paid out. Whether or not word of mouth disappoint would be a problem is a purely local matter with only purely local ramifications - granted those purely local ramifications are quite significant for purely local tournaments.
I am not being challenged. It is just that the players are used to prorated up payouts. They might play in the tournament assuming that payouts will be prorated up. Then if the payout is as stated, they may feel slighted.
Jeff is being generous in his previous post. I expect to charge only $15 for the tournament entry and $5 of that goes for fixed overhead per player. So, if 10 players show up which may be the case because another TD has been having monthly tournaments lately satiating the players desire for tournament play, the turnout for my tournament may be less than desired. However, the low entry fee is tied to $30 for 1st, $20 for 2nd, and $15 for 3rd based on 8 players. If 10 players show, that would be a bonus in monetary intake.
So, 10 players paying yields $150 and $50 comes out from the top. And $100 has $65 coming out for prizes leaving $35 to cover the rest of expenses which are the $5.25 filing fee and a $16 recuperation expense. Thus leaving about $13.75 to pay anything else like the Chief Assistant’s help.
Looks like a three-round Swiss (based on rating fee) and a site cost per player of $5 (site admission fee?) With a based on 8, then if 8 players show up you have $10.80 for expenses after the rating fee. If 10 players show up and you pro-rate the increase then you have $13.50 for expenses after the rating fee. If 6 players show up your based on reduces your prize pay-out and you have $8.10 for expenses after the rating fee.
With a guaranteed prize if 6 show up you have negative $8.15 for expenses after the rating fee. If 8 show up you still have $10.80 for expenses after the rating fee and if 10 show up you have $29.75 for expenses after the rating fee.