I don’t use based-on prizes as an organizer, so I don’t encounter them that often, but I noticed that 32C4 only discusses what to do when the tournament draws fewer than the “expected” number of players. It seems that there is nothing telling the director what to do if there are more. It seems that there are two options: either pay the guarantee or scale the prizes up based on the entries. Which do people do, and should there be a standard?
Alex Relyea
To answer Mr. Relyea’s two questions, and speaking solely for myself:
In the past I’ve increased the prizes when turnout significantly exceeded demand. I did not do it as a specific percentage increase of the prizes, and for the overall prizes of those tournaments a new overall prize was inserted while the top prize remained the same. A specific percentage formula could end up preventing more desirable distributions. Linking up to the class prize thread, if the increase was not smoothly distributed then I’ve been more inclined to increase the better represented classes more than the ones with low turnouts.
When I’ve exceeded 90% of the based on I have generally paid the full based on even though people knew such a payment was not required.
This has certainly been discussed before. I agree with Boyd that this is not something that should be codified. However, the wise organizer should follow the leads of the last two posters and increase the prizes appropriately. They should not necessarily be expected to pay out all of the “surplus” entry fees; after all, they do run the risk of a loss for subpar turnouts so they ought to be able to build some surplus to offset that risk. But if players feel like they are being taken advantage of they will vote with their feet.
I don’t think there should be any standard. The organizer can reap the full reward or share some of that with the players. The decision either way is a customer based decision for the organizer. The players do not bear the risk of the event failing. The organizer who does increase prizes may find it to be a good marketing decision. Bt I do not think we should mandate that business decision.
I would suggest there is a third alternative. Rather than scaling prizes proportionally, the organizer might instead choose to offer additional prizes. This might allow more players to leave with prize money rather than just putting more money in the winner’s pocket, which seems reasonable considering the turnout was better than expected.
While I have no problem with Mr. Ballou’s response, I’m not entirely certain it was intended for my post.
It was inartfully worded, but it was in fact meant as a contrast to Mr. Reed’s first point (increasing prizes proportionally). It is just a different way of paying more prize money to the players. It should be noted that the rules do not prohibit adding prizes after the tournament begins; players have no basis for complaining about an organizer doing more than was advertised. (In other words, a player who filed a complaint that an organizer added prizes instead of using the money to increase the advertised prizes would very likely find that whatever committee receies the complaint would deem it frivolous.)
I fully agree with Mr. Reed that there is no need for the rules to codify what the organizer does if the turnout exceeds the projection. I also believe there should be no requirement compelling the organizer to increase the prize fund beyond the advertised amount. An organizer may (and is likely to) increase the prizes for the purpose of customer satisfaction. However, there is no reason the organizer cannot choose to retain the additional profit either to make up for prior tournaments that have not done as well (and perhaps even lost money) or to guard against future tournaments losing money. In fact, I also see nothing wrong with the organizer simply retaining the extra profit as the payoff for a well run tournament, although I fully expect I am in a minority. (I am naive enough to still be astounded by players who think the organizer has no right to make any money off tournaments.)
Players should expect no more than the advertised prize for the target, and organizers are under no obligation to pay more than the advertised prize for the target.
All that said, based-on prizes are a shell game. That’s why I, like Mr. Relyea, choose to unconditionally guarantee my prizes.
Unconditionally guaranteeing your prizes is fine if you have a good feel for how many entries you’re going to get, or if you’re willing to assume an elevated degree of financial risk. Based on prizes can provide a level of protection for the organizer if neither of these conditions apply. They certainly can be a “shell game” if the organizer chooses an unrealistic number for the based on figure, but if all tournaments had to fully guarantee their prizes fewer tournaments would exist. If handled responsibly the fact that the prize fund is “based on” rather than guaranteed is not a problem. As you point out, players should expect only what percentage of the stated prize fund is guaranteed.