Players have a reasonable expectation for advertised prizes to be paid as advertised. I have no problem prohibiting a windfall to the organizer simply because the terms of the contest limit the amount a player may win.
Profit isn’t a dirty word, but the opportunity for profit comes with inherent risk. Part of that risk involves setting a prize fund that the organizer can afford to pay, even in the worst case.
I’ve always been a bit put off by the notion of a ‘windfall profit’. It seems to me that the underlying logic is this: If a business suffers a loss, well that’s part of the risk of being a capitalist. If it manages to make a profit, they must have done something shady.
That being said, allowing winnings-limited players into a tournament can certainly LOOK like something shady is going on. That’s why I would prefer the rules say that the prizes paid to winnings-limited players are IN ADDITION to the advertised prizes, making it the organizer’s risk to even permit winnings-limited players into his events.
Let’s say an organizer advertises a prize fund, advertises that a subset of players have restricted winnings, and a remarkably high number of restricted players end up winning, such that a high percentage (name it) of the advertised prize fund remains.
Has the players’ reasonable expectation that the advertised prize fund be paid out been met here?
What if the organizer gave concessions to these players to play, such as a reduced entry fee for unrated players? Reasonable practice to entice newcomers to tournament play, but also increases the chance of a reduced payout. Is that reasonable to the rest of the field?
An organizer ought to seek profit by generating entry fees and other income that exceed the advertised prize fund, labor, and overhead. She ought not seek profit by caveating the advertised prize fund and enticing caveated players to play, and hopefully win.
There’s nothing at all wrong with profit, but finding excuses not to pay advertised prizes is dirty pool.
Whatever part of a prize fund an organizer guarantees must be paid out. If a prize limited player wins a prize, then whatever money is not paid to him because it exceeds his prize limit must be paid out to some other player or players. The organizer does not have the option to pocket it. To do so would be fraud.
In the legitimate base case, all the advertised prizes were paid except those won by limited players. If an organizer is involved in unscrupulous practices beyond a legitimate case, then shouldn’t that be addressed by:
The market
US Chess
Players complaining to US Chess?
I find the argument: “The organizer should increase prizes beyond what players legitimately expected to win for that prize because some organizers might be unscrupulous” to be uncompelling.
The idea that we should make general rules based on exceptional circumstances is often not a good idea.
Isn’t this a false statement? If for example, there is a class prize, and no players at the end of the tournament eligible to claim that prize, I believe that prize goes unpaid. 32c3.
No, it doesn’t. It currently must be paid because US Chess rules require it. There appears to be no logical, moral, or financial reason that I have yet seen to require it to be paid.
Not at all. When an organizer guarantees a prize fund, what is meant is that all prizes are guaranteed to be available at the amount advertised. If there is no player eligible to collect a prize, no one would receive that prize.
The player who earns second place and is paid the second place prize in the amount advertised has no complaint. The same goes for the third place player, the 4th place, etc. There IS NO PLAYER who can lay claim to the unpaid amount from a limited prize player. No player has damages - and therefore there is no fraud.
Suppose an organizer runs an U/1600 event and allows 3 unrated players he knows to be expert strength to play as prize-limited participants, and pockets the unpaid portions of the top prizes that they easily win.
It may not legally be fraud, but the other players have definitely been impacted by the organizer’s actions.
For those looking for simpler rules, here are two possibilities:
Don’t allow payout-limited entrants.
Make the organizer take on 100% of the risk for payout-limited entrants by making their winnings IN ADDITION to the advertized prizes.
But again, if an organizer repeatedly creates the example you give above, then players can vote with their feet and/or complain to US Chess. The complaint here is that players are, with the organizer’s assistance, misrepresenting themselves and that violates the code of ethics.
If unpaid prizes are simply going to the house on a routine basis - we already do that.
Are you saying that the in the situation that occurred:
A) the prize fund is $500 - $250 - $150 - $100
B) the sole first is limited to $100
then the prize fund paid should be $100 - $250 - $150 - $100
If so then should 32C6 be ignored? or should it be followed until it is repealed?
You are correct in the special case where no one eligible for a prize enters. In that case the prize does not need to be paid out. You can’t pay a prize if there is no one to collect it. If there is at least one player eligible, then it does need to be paid out.
If you advertise $10,000 as guaranteed, for example, then unless some prize need not be paid out because no one is there to qualify for it, like, for example, a top female prize when no females enter, you absolutely do need to pay out $10,000. It is logically, ethically, morally, and probably legally indefensible not to do so.
So we now have
$500 $250 $150 $100
becoming one of the below (C pays $600, D pays $1100, A/B/E pay the advertised $1000)
A) $100 $500 $250 $150
B) $100 $650 $150 $100 (or maybe $100 $500 $300 $100)
C) $100 $250 $150 $100 (pending a rule change to allow it or an announced 1B variation)
D) $100 $500 $250 $150 $100
E) $100 $400 $250 $150 $100
Note that currently the balance of a limited prize is different from a class prize with nobody in the class. 32C6 requires reallocating the balance of a limited prize while 32C3 allows the organizer to keep a class prize if there are no players in that class completing the schedule.
I note that the treatment is different, but the principle is the same.
If you ran a tournament, and no one came, are you required to pay out the prizes? To whom? If one player came, would they get all the prizes? No - they can only get one! So the same thing happens.
Rules should not be based on extreme cases, but one can test extreme cases to see if rules hold.
If no one wins the grand prize in lotto, the lesser prizes aren’t increased.
The current 32C6 basically ASSUMES that the limited player in question was acting unfairly, therefore the other players were harmed, therefore there should be “restitution” therefore the prize fund should be redistributed.
But the first assumption is faulty. It’s not necessarily true.
I would note that C) pays all prizes fully except for a prize won by a limited player.
The real problem is that 32C6 doesn’t specify who should get the excess over the limited prize payout. That should be corrected, if we can decide who should get the money.
I also sympathize with Tom’s point that players 2 and 3 should never get MORE than the advertised payouts to first and second place just because they finished second and third! But SOME player has to get it, the question is who? That player (or players) will also be getting more than the advertised prizes, after all.
But as is often the case, I think the good Dr. Sloan has hit on the real crux of the problem, the organizer.
That goes without saying. But why should it be the other players who get the extra? Each player who wins a prize receives what was advertised. Why should each winner receive more than what was advertised?
Are you then saying that if there is a balance from a limited prize then that amount should be added to the next tournament’s top prize, just like with the lotto’s top prize when nobody wins it (it doesn’t all get added to the top prize since some goes into the lesser prizes of the next week’s lotto as well)?
Then perhaps a monthly tournament with a $500 - $250 - $150 - $100 prize fund would have a one-time payout of $100 - $250 - $150 - $100 with the following month having $800 - $300 - $175 - $125. Then you could see a slight version of lotto-fever increasing the number of the next month’s entries.
The analogy was to the expectation of the (other) prizes being won currently. Certainly, an organizer can do that with a windfall profit if he wants to - but my argument is that, since it isn’t clear WHAT the issue was, it should be the organizer’s choice, not a mandate. If we KNEW that the player was sandbagging that would be different (but if we KNEW, then a limitation wouldn’t be the best answer, either.)
