It’s “consistent”, but I’m not sure it’s right. In the example I was working on, the limited players were not eligible for the under prizes. When you monkey with down-ballot place prizes (remember, you are altering closest fit prizes rather than cascading top prizes down), you may change the order in which under prizes vs place prizes come in to the calculation. I’ll try to come up with a simpler example than the one I used.
TomDoan. . .how about this?
$400-$250-$100 U2200 $100 U2000 $90 U1800 $80 U1600 $70 U1400 $60
how would you do
5.0 Able(2050) - $400 (1st Place)
4.5 Baker(2307),Charley(2210),Dog(2030) -
[$250 + $100] ÷ 3 = $116.67 (2nd & 3rd
Places)
4.0 Easy(2250) - No Prize,
Foxtrot(2105) - U2200: $100
George(1975) - U2000: $90 ÷ 2 = $45
How(1875) - U2000: $90 ÷ 2 = $45
3.5 Item(2170) - No Prize
Jig(1935) - No Prize
King(1730) - U1800: $80 ÷ 2 = $40
Live(1695) - U1800: $80 ÷ 2 = $40
Mike(1530) - U1600: $70
3.0 Nan(1775) - No Prize
Oboe(1599) - Under 1600: $70 ÷ 2 = $35
Peter(1420) - Under 1600: $70 ÷ 2 = $35
Queen(1355) - Under 1400: $60
Other People - Unknown
Sorry, no.
- The three players at 4.5 are eligible for 2nd, 3rd and U2200. ($250+$100+$100)/3=$150 each. The only check here would be whether Dog is better with just the U2200 money. Since that’s just $100, the $150 each is the correct value for each.
- The U2200 is gone so Foxtrot gets zero.
- You gave out the U1600 money twice.
The rest is correct.
You have to scroll to the right to see that the Under1600 prize is split into 2 halves.
Mike got the U1600 at 3.5, so the 3.0’s can’t get any.
Monkeying with the down-ballot place prizes is just a manual shortcut for starting at the top and doing the prize cascade immediately for each player rather than cascading the players down. As long as you do an initial determination of which type of prize a person is eligible for (place, class, under, etc.) then the cascade stays with that type of prize. For instance if there a U2200 player with a $100 limit that is in a tie for 5th ($300), 6th ($300), top U2200 ($400) 2nd U2200 ($200) then U2200 is the top prize the player would be eligible for and the cascade effect means that the $100 eventually comes out of 2nd U2200, leaving 5th ($300), 6th ($300), top U2200-now 2nd ($400), 2nd U2200-now 3rd ($100). If 5th was $400 instead of $300 then the $100 would eventually come out of 6th leaving 5th-now 6th ($400), 6th-now 7th ($200), top U2200 ($400), 2nd U2200 ($200).
The “fun” part of the tie comes when there are multiple players eligible for multiple classes. If the limited player is the one bringing in a class prize to the tie (a master and limited expert tie and the expert priize is brought in) then the cascade goes through the class prizes. If the limited players brought in an overall prize (a master. an expert and a limited expert tie then the limited player brought in the lowest of the tied prizes = 6th place in the example above - and the cascade goes through that group).
If the prize brought in is less than the limit but the split of the prizes is more than the limit (the four prize example above where 5th is $300 and with two masters and two experts when one expert is limited to $250) then simply give the limited player the limit and split the rest (300+300+400+200=1200 then 1200-250=950 split three ways so the others get 316.17 each instead of the 4-way spit of 300 or the 3-way split of the top 3 prizes (333.33 each). I think that is how you were programming it anyway. If a master was the limited player in the split then note that the experts were also eligible for 5th/6th and do the same split of $250 limited player plus 3x$316.67 for the other players. Any time any prize in a split is less than the limit but the overall average is greater than the limit then giving the limited player the limit automatically gives the remaining players a little more money but still less than they would have received if the limited player was not in the split.
Still pay attention to class players sharing only the class prizes. With 5th=300, 6th=300, top U2200 =400, 2nd U2200=200, 3 masters, an expert and another expert limited to 250, a 5-way splt would give each of the five $240 while the two experts would normally get $300 and the three masters would normally get $200. The two experts do better taking only U2200 money with the limited player geting $250, the other expert getting $350 (more than $300 but still no more than the top U2200 prize of $400) and the three masters get $200 each. Change one of those 3 masters into a 3rd expert and the 5-way split of $240 is better then a 3-way expert split of U2200 money giving the three experts $200 each, so the experts participate in the five-way split. $240 is less than the limit so everything goes through ignoring the limit. If the limited player was limited to $220 instead of $250 then previously mentioned logic is used where $220 is taken out of the $1200 and the other four split $980 each for $245 each (which sounds like what you were already programming).
That two-expert split of 400 and 200 where one expert has a 250 limit is the same as if they were the only two tied for first/second overall with first=400 and second=200. The limited player’s limit is less than a simple split so the 250 is taken out of the lowest prize at least as large as the limit (400) with the balance going to the next prize where 200 plus the left over 150 leaves 350 for the unlimited expert.
Just to avoid questions about limits with masters and experts being involved we can figure this is a tournament with a premier section and an under 2300 section with the limits for provisional players in that under section.
Over the years I would make a broad guess that somewhere between 10% and 30% of Local TDs would make the #1/#2 prize logic misunderstanding. 20% to 50% of Club TDs. The #3 mistake is a simple oversight error rather than a logic misunderstanding. Errors are correctible with diligent double and triple checks that verify the split. Logic misunderstandings survive double and triple checks (the calculations always follow the same incorrect logic) and are only correctible after learning the logic itself is wrong.
TomDoan. . .how can 2 players with 4.5 points receive the Under 2200 prize when they are over 2200?
There are three players with 4.5 points, one of whom is 2030. Locking Dog out of the U2200 prize means three players that collectively qualified for three prizes ended up splitting only two prizes. Dog should get $150 when the $100 U2200 prize is added to the split. If the U2200 prize was $200 then Dog would get that while Baker and Charlie split the remaining $350 and receive $175 each.
It is a very common misunderstanding when thinking (incorrectly) that Baker and Charlie are getting U2200 money. Actually Dog is bringing in the U2200 money that he earned by scoring 4.5 and thus ending up with $150 instead of $116.67. With the erroneous logic, if the U2200 prize was $120 then 2105 Foxtrot at 4-1 would have made $3.33 more than 2030 Dog at 4.5-0.5, though some TDs would have erroneously “corrected” that by giving Dog the $120 (more than $116.67) and letting Baker and Charley get $175 each for having the same score as Dog.
The 4.5’s are entitled to some split of the $250 2nd prize, the $100 3rd prize (all three are eligible for those) and the $100 U2200 prize (which Dog can bring in).
The only question then is whether any of those can do better by taking after the others, and the answer to that is no. (If Dog lets the others take first, they get the $250 (2nd) and $100 (3rd) and he gets only the $100 U2200). So they all get the average of $150. As I said above, do not (repeat: do not) try to do what you are trying to do. This is the US Chess procedure, which is designed to be fair to everyone when reasonably large class prizes (relative to the place prizes) are the norm (and pretty much expected when a decent share of the entry fees go to prizes).
So when the Under 2200 prize is greater than the usual split of (2nd+3rd+Under 2200) ÷ 3, we must give the greater Under 2200 amount instead of the lesser split amount?
Thus ($250+$100+$200) ÷ 3 = $183.34 which is less than $200 for the Under 2200 prize of $200 so therefore, the split changes to (2nd+3rd) ÷ 2 = $175 for the 2 players rated greater than 2200 while $200 goes to Dog?
And you don’t use (2nd+3rd) ÷ 3 = $116.67 going to Dog plus another $200 going to Dog because Dog can only get 1 pay amount?
Correct. The only exceptions to one monetary prize per person would be extra prizes like “Best Game”, “Biggest Upset”, “Mixed Doubles”, “Farthest Traveling Attendee” and so on.
The US Open’s extra $200 to the winner (either clear first or being one of the top two on tie-breaks and winning the Armageddon playoff) would be another example.
Non-monetary prizes (trophies and medals) are also one per person and you can use tie-breaks for them (cutting two trophies in half and giving half of each to two tied players just doesn’t look pretty). The scholarships for the National Tournaments of State’s Champions - Denker (High School), Haring (Girls), Barber (Middle School), Rockefeller (Elementary School) and Ashley (K-3) - are also investments for future use rather than cash and tie-breaks were used for them. The Irwin (Senior) awards were cash and were splittable.
TomDoan. . .how about the following?
$400-$250-$100 U2200 $100 U2000 $90 U1800 $80 U1600 $70 U1400 $60
how would you do
5.0 Able(2050) - $400 1st Place
4.5 Baker(2307),Charley(2210),Dog(2030) -
[250+100+100] ÷3 = $150 Each for 2nd
and 3rd Place and U2200
4.0 Easy(2250) - No Prize
Foxtrot(2105)- No Prize
George(1975),How(1875)- ($90 ÷ 2) =
$45 Each for U2000
3.5 Item(2170)- No Prize
Jig(1935) - No Prize
King(1730),Live(1695) - $80 ÷ 2 = $40
Each for U1800
Mike(1530) - U1600: $70
3.0 Nan(1775) - No Prize
Oboe(1599) - No Prize
Peter(1420) - No Prize
Queen(1355) - U1400: $60
Other People - Unknown
Correct. Now see what you would do if eliminate Live from the 3.5’s:
3.5 Item(2170),Jig(1935),King(1730),Mike(1530)
(at that point, you still have U1800 $80 U1600 $70 U1400 $60 left.)
TomDoan. . .
3.5 Item(2170)- No Prize
Jig(1935) - No Prize
King(1730) - Under 1800: $80
Mike(1530) - U1600: $70 because
$70 is more than half of Under 1800
3.5 Item(2170)- No Prize
Jig(1935) - No Prize
King(1730) - Under 1800: $80
Mike(1530) - U1600: $70 because
$70 is more than half of Under 1800
Of those remaining prizes, which ones are each of the 3.5s eligible for?
Since Live(1695) is not in the tournament this time around, that is the only result that is adjusted for the 3.5 point group. What other prizes would you contend the 3.5 group be eligible for? The only prizes available are for U1800 and below. No one of them is under 1400 which is the last remaining prize.
Note that previously, there were three players involved who qualified for money (two for U1800 only, one for both U1800 and U1600). Mike did better by taking the full share of U1600 and letting the others share the U1800. Now there are only two players involved who qualify for any of the remaining prizes.
You are not trying to mean that King and Mike split the Under 1800 and Under 1600 prizes into 2 parts? So King and Mike each get $75 are you? Under 1800 $80 + $70 Under 1600 = $150 ÷ 2 = $75 Each?