Stop right there. The problem is that most prize funds are designed to encourage quick draws among top players in the final rounds.
As I said before, two words: Plus Score.
If prizes are paid by score instead of place, and if the difference between any two prizes is less than the difference just above it, last-round draws are discouraged.
For example, with 4 rounds:
4.0 $100
3.5 $50
3.0 $25
2.5 $10
If two players at 3-0 face each other in round 4, they will win a total of $125 for a decisive result, or $100 for a draw.
By “the difference between any two prizes is less than the difference just above it”, I mean as follows. Scores and prizes are shown at the left, and differences at the right:
If each difference were equal to (or, heaven forbid, greater than) the difference above it, draws would not be discouraged. Note that even the last difference (between the lowest money-winning score and the highest non-winning score) follows this rule.
Plus Score also has the advantage that, even if the players collude, nobody else’s prize is affected.
What happens in this +Score method if there are several players with the same score? Do we pay the whole amount to all those players, or is the money divided and split? (For me, the rule book isn’t clear on this, but it does say that taking a loss is prevented).
The whole amount is paid to each player with that score.
Otherwise, in a 4-round tournament, at most 4 prizes would be given (or split) – one each for $100, $50, $25, $10. You would have the ridiculous result that if, for example, three players had 3.0 and one had 2.5, the player with 2.5 would get more money than each player with 3.0.
Not to mention, you would completely lose the advantage that the result of a last-round game will never affect the money won by any of the other players.
Pascal’s triangle shows that, in a “perfect” (no draws) 4-round 16-player Plus Score, there will be one player with 4.0 and four with 3.0. That’s a payout of $100 - $25 - $25 - $25. With an entry fee of $20, the $200 prize fund would easily be covered by the $320 entry fee income.
If you have more players, you’ll give out more money, but you’ll also take in more entry fees. The prize fund expands or contracts automatically with the turnout, yet each individual prize is guaranteed.
First, Pascal’s triangle is written in Greek, but I will be satisfied with how you explain it.
More questions: You give the payout in a “one player with 4.0, and four with 3.0.” scenario as $100 - $25 - $25 - $25. But your example prize fund shows: $100, $50, $25, $10. 1st, you’ve listed only three $25 payouts - shouldn’t that be four @ $25, I assume the $25 is for the 3.0s -, and 2nd, shouldn’t that $amount be 50?
I goofed by omitting one of the $25s. When I wrote $100 - $25 - $25 - $25 I should have written $100 - $25 - $25 - $25 - $25 – one $100 payout for 4.0 and four $25 payouts for 3.0. This still adds up to $200, so the $320 in entry fees more than covers it.
In this no-draws example, nobody scored 3.5, so nobody wins the $50 for scoring 3.5.
In Maryland we use score-based prices almost exclusively in our events. I prefer to call it score-based prizes because the concept does not require payments to everyone with a plus score. One point I’d like to make is that you should not base your payouts on there being no draws. If so, you will greatly overestimate your payouts and the players will feel it is unfair. Even in our under 1000 sections we see 5-10% draws. In the top sections the draw fraction is around 30%. This significantly lowers the average payout and the prize amount for each score needs to be increased to account for that.
For now, we only have used it in five round events with 5-0 scores being up to 10-16 times the entrance fee. Next year, we’re planning a seven round event and the 7-0 score will be an even higher multiple of the entrance fee.
I really feel this is a great format to use. The two biggest advantages are that the total prize fund adjusts to the number of players while the prizes are all guaranteed and that it discourages draws by always having a lower total payout when a game is draw. You can see an example tournament in this year’s Maryland Open. themdopen.com
The Maryland events seem to be one of the very few where this idea has been used on a large scale, and I congratulate the organizers for doing so. In the Chicago area they seem to be used mainly for 1-day events.
When I first used this concept at Northwestern University in the 1970’s, during the first two rounds players were coming to me and saying, “You guys are going to lose your shirts on this format.” By round 4 (the second-last round), they were saying, “You guys are going to make a killing on this format.” The latter turned out to be closer to the truth.
