Don’t forget the playoff for an extra $200 in ‘clear first’ money (assuming it was held.)
Bonus assignment:
Suppose the 2300-2499 place prizes were: $5000, $3000. How does that affect the distribution of prize monies?
Ah I didn’t see that prize. Good catch.
So $3225 for 100% payout and $1838.5 for 57%.
The tied players shared the monies and Hikaru got $200 more than the rest.
after that lengthy thread - we really do need to know what amount the players got (excluding the $200). I’m especially curious, because I’m not a big fan of “based on” prizes in general - and specifically not for a “first time” event. I consider 57% to be a disastrous turnout - and it’s interesting to ask if was a disaster because the players did not come, or because the Organizer grossly overestimated the number of players who would come.
I really think there should be some stronger rules/guidance on how to structure a “based on” prize fund. I see far too many organizers saying “we expect 100, so let’s advertise ‘based on 200’. We’ll still pay out the prize fund for 100 players, and everyone will be hapy”. Well, more often than you’d like, this approach CREATES a disaster. Consider, for example, what happens when only 50 show up, because of some unusual circumstance.
As you may recall, Ken, there was a motion out of the workshops in 2004 to require that tournaments with a total prize fund in excess of some amount (I think it was $10,000) would have to guarantee 100% of the prize fund.
It was overwhelmingly rejected by the Delegates.
Did you happen to have an answer to the question I asked?
As for the motion (which I voted against) - I remind you yet again that there is a difference between what one CAN do and what one SHOULD do. Meeting the exact letter of USCF regulations is not the highest standard that man can aspire to.
And now…I ask again - how much was actually paid out? “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer - but it is perhaps best expressed by…silence…rather than mis-direction.
I don’t know how much was paid out in Miami, I wasn’t there.
If you didn’t want anyone to respond to your call for stronger rules or guidance for based-on prizes, why did you bring that up?
It appears you’re in favor of ‘stronger rules’ for based-on prizes, just not THOSE stronger rules.
That sounds about right.
Of course, the problem with some rules is that they place an unnecessary burden on th e Office, who must enforce the rules. For example, I would argue that it makes little sense for a BRAND NEW EVENT to use a “based-on” prize fund. But, this might be difficult to administer. I would prefer to publish it as a “guideline”.
In my opinion, “based on” prize funds were originally intended to protect the Organizer against a financial bath when turnout was low. The players are protected by the 50% rule. If I had my druthers, “based on” numbers should be tied to recent history (same event, same location, same Organizer, or some combination of these). In order to advertise a “based on” prize fund, the Organizer should be able to point to a previous “comparable” event, and report the ACTUAL turnout at the comparable event (think of Real Estate here…). There should be some limit (say, 125%) connecting the ACTUAL turnout in the comparable event with the “based on” number in the proposed event. That is, if last year there were 100 players, then you are allowed to advertise “based on 125”.
But this already starts to be a little hard to manage. Again - promulgating this sort of “best practices” guidance might be enough…especially if the PLAYERS know about the guidance, and know how to use MSA to look up last year’s event.
When last year’s event had 100 players, and the Organizer advertises “based on 200”, my personal response is “no, thank you”. I know that other players have another response (which I think is bad for the Organizers AND the Players). When they see “$5000 prize fund based on 200 entries”, they say “oh, the guaranteed prize fund is $2500” and make their decisions about whether or not to play based on this halving of the advertised prize fund. Worse - this little dance has become so normal that some organizers now think: “hmmm, I think we’ll draw 100 players - let’s advertise it as based on 200 so we can advertise a bigger prize fund - don’t worry, we only HAVE to pay half of what we advertise”. And so, the contract between the Organizer and the Player begins with both of them assuming that the Organizer is lying.
what’s the point?
In my opinion, the most respected Organizers advertise “Absolutely Guaranteed Prize Funds”. They run similar events often (at least! once per year) and have a good feel for the turnout. They design conservative prize funds that will not break their bank. They sometimes have to pay out more than they take in - but they operate with a capital fund that allows them to lose money 1 year as long as they MAKE money the next 4 years. These upstanding folks necessarily advertise REASONABLE prize funds - which look puny next to the competing “we’ve drawn 25 players for the last 10 years but…who knows…this year we might draw 50” Open.
These respected Organizers vote with their feet - they “Just Say No” to based-on prize funds.
I think they are right - I would support abolishing them, but I have no illusions that this would every pass on the floor of the Delegates’ Meeting. It’s too ingrained in the USCF culture.
Good estimates, Sevan. Unfortunately, the low turnout will make future events in Miami seem suspicious in making the numbers.
All the best, Joe Lux
While forcing tournaments to guarantee 100% of their prizes does seem unreasonable, based on the possibility of an unpredictable random downswing in turnout, I would think that a rule requiring that they guarantee at least 70% or something like that wouldn’t be too unreasonable. It would force organizers to make more reasonable estimates than what some of them do now.
As for Miami, I’m still wondering where they got their 650 estimate for a first time tournament. The biggest tournaments in Florida routinely bring in only 175-200 people. The Florida State Championship earlier in the month was only around 150. This one did have added incentives to get more people to show up, namely norm possibilities, a large prize fund, and a bottom section with a much smaller entry fee and no cash prizes (trophies only). But the large entry fee kept a lot of people away - I know dozens of players who didn’t come from within an hour’s driving distance.
–Fromper
IMHO: Organizers look at the great turnouts at other large events. They get stars in theirs eyes and believe they can duplicate that success; i.e., lots of pirzes and a big EF–“build it and they will come.” It does not always turn out that way.
I assume whoever came up with that 57% figure did so by simply adding up the numbers on the wallchart, but that’s clearly not correct. About 15 of those were obviously cross-section duplicates. There were also half a dozen at the bottom who never showed up, but if they paid and didn’t get a refund they ought to be counted. There were also a few re-entries, who counted as 1/2 a player. There is no mention in the advance PR of pro-rating the U1100-section players, who paid only $30, which doesn’t show good planning. Assuming the U1100 players count as full, the minimum payout would have been around 54%.
The Liberty Bell Open advertises a $20,000 prize fund, with the required minimum of half the prizes guaranteed (some years more than the minimum is guaranteed). The tournament is easily accessible to a large number of players, it's held at a convenient time (Martin Luther King Weekend) and the playing conditions, the hotel, etc., are usually pretty good. Nevertheless, it would be almost foolhardy to guarantee the whole $20,000, as the tournament is held in the middle of January in the Northeast. Through no fault of the organizer, the tournament could easily get clobbered by a Noreaster, causing attendance to take a big hit. Even though the $10,000 guaranteed would be bad, the $20,000 guaranteed would be [i]really[/i] bad.
As a way of protection against such a calamity, the tournament's prizes are based on entries, but it still probably attracts virtually the same group as it would have if the prizes were all guaranteed. But look at the other side of the coin. The Liberty Bell Open's prize fund is based on 320 entries. The last two years, there were [i]more[/i] than 320 entries, and the prize fund was actually[i] raised[/i]-- by 4 per cent in 2006 and by 7 per cent this year.
In my opinion, [i]this certainly is the players' way of telling you [/i]that [b]"it's time to guarantee the prizes!"[/b]-- but it's always best to defer to Mother Nature nevertheless.
The Liberty Bell is a tournament of long standing (my all-time favorite trophy is from the Liberty Bell). For such tournaments, I believe that a good guideline is that the “based on” number should be no higher than 125% of the previous year’s turnout (or, if the previous year had an easily identified REASON for a low turnout, then use the average of the last 5 years).
My problems are with:
a) tournaments of long standing that habitually advertise “based on” numbers that are 175% (or even 200%) of the previous year’s turnout. When I am feeling charitable, I chalk this up to a “misunderstanding” by the Organizer. The AUG prevents me from saying what I think when I am less understanding.
b) brand new tournaments, with no experience, advertising “based on” numbers that are “optimistic” compared to other tournaments held in or near the same location. In my opinion, it’s a very bad idea to use “based-on” numbers for such an event.
As Steve notes, when you run a “based on event” and get a record turnout, the right thing to do is to INCREASE the prize fund. I prefer to have absolutely guaranteed prize funds, and use the profit from THIS year’s event to bolster the guarantee on NEXT year’s event. If you run a string of winners, you can self-insure against a loser. And…nothing improves an Organizer’s reputation more than when he pays out 125% of the entry fees as prizes because of the snowstorm. Of course, the downside is that the profitable events are obviously profitable. I would not INCREASE prize funds in an “Absolutely Guaranteed Prize Fund” event; neither would I DECREASE them. I would design events so that I don’t personally go broke because of a snowstorm. That means that I can’t advertise wildly, outrageously, FALSE prize funds - hiding behind the letter of the law that says "only 50% is guaranteed.
Just me or is the Miami Open not rated yet?
I can’t find it in the MSA. Maybe I’m searching wrong.
You are correct, the Miami Open does not appear to have been rated yet.
Which is kind of annoying. My rating hit rock bottom recently (down 116 points from my peak), and I’m expecting to gain around 20 points back from the Miami Open, to begin my recovery.
–Fromper
The results are rated now. This is good for me - my rating hit rock bottom recently, so the 26 points I gained in this tournament are the first step towards bouncing back. 
The page says there were 336 players, but I don’t know if that counts people who played in more than one section once or twice. (ie players who had a bye and played in the next higher section against the person who had the bye in that higher section). Either way, it’s a far cry from the 650 predicted before the tourney - just barely enough to cover the 50% guaranteed prizes.
–Fromper
336 is the number of unique USCF IDs in the event. 24 players either were moved from one section to another (which could be for a variety of reasons, I suppose) or re-entered a section.