I have a question. This was announced at a 5 rd Swiss 1st place = $100 clear winner. 2nd Place = $75 Under 1500 =$50.00. Two Players finished with 3.5 One players rating= 1755, the players rating =1306. WinTD Distributed it as each received $62.50.
Is this a correct distribution?
Which Rule would be used to justify the results?
There was no clear winner. The two prizes are: a) 2nd place and b) under 1500. Total = $125. Split in 2 = $62.50 each.
It’s an unusual prize fund, but clearly stated.
This is one of those situations that makes me say, “Can I see the exact wording in the original TLA, please?”
Some recent tournaments have announced prizes for, say, 1st-2nd-3rd, with an extra “bonus” prize if there is a clear winner (i.e. one player with a higher score than any other). Maybe that was intended here, but the message got garbled in the translation. Or maybe the organizer did it on purpose, hoping that’s what players would think, and then bingo – the organizer profits from the deception.
Bill Smythe
i always get confused on these. what if there is a clear winner at 4-0 and the 3.5’s share second place prize and u/1500 prize? even though one is rated above 1500? or does the 1306 get 87.50 and the other person tied for second just get 37.50? thanks.
…scot…
In that case, they split the $75 + $50. You need to look at this as a group winning/splitting prizes. They jointly qualify for the two prizes, so they will (somehow) split $125. Neither does better by letting the other “pick first”, so they split evenly. Change 2nd prize to $40, then the U1500 would be better off letting the higher rated player take 2nd solo, and then she would take the U1500 money solo.
WinTD has nothing to indicate a prize only for a clear winner so the only way WinTD comes up with that is if the $100 is deleted or in some other way made unavailable to everyone.
What was in question by the under 1500 player was his tie breaks were better due to the 1755 player taking 2 requested bye’s 1rd and 4th rd. and players 1755 played. Again the rule 34c tiebreaks are not used for cash prizes. If a trophy was involved for 2nd Place then tiebreaks would have come into the picture.
The event was posted on a state website but not in the TLA. The prize distribution was posted at the tournament site.
but my premise is, they both don’t jointly qualify for the U/1500 prize as one is rated over 1500. so, it seems to me the 1306 should get the U/1500 prize AND a share of joint second.
…scot…
That is correct : $62.50 each… trophy goes to the better tiebreak.
What share of joint second? Half? He would then get $50 plus $37.50 which is $87.50, more than if he had just won second on his own.
Nope. The overriding principle is: one player, one prize. Except for certain “promotional” prizes" (Best Hairstyle), each player in a tied group can contribute one, and only one, prize to the shared pool. The players do not all have to be eligible for all the shared prizes. The only consideration is: would a player come out ahead if he took only the prize that only he qualified for (as opposed to contributing it to the pool and sharing it with everyone.
In this case, 3 players bring in 2 prizes: 2nd, and under-1500. They all qualify for 2nd, so there is no choice there. The player who is u1500 gets to decide: do I take the U1500 prize, or do I contribute it to the shared prizes. Since he does better by contributing the $50 prize to the pool (and sharing the 2nd place prize), that’s what you do. He does NOT get to take the U1500 prize AND THEN ask for a share of 2nd. That’s eating your cake and then asking “what’s for dessert?”
i realise that’s how it’s done but why should the other players that tied get MORE money than they would normally expect? i’ve never noticed but are there disclaimers in TLAs that show players can only win one prize? i guess that isn’t correct though becasue players can win a mixed doubles prize as well as any other. okay, i’ll let it go, for now…
…scot…
In this case - the other 2 players get LESS than they would if the u1500 takes only his prize. So, it is working out the way you
like. The U1500 gets the U1500 prize plus a little more. The two over 1500 get less than they would by splitting the 2nd place money 2 ways, but more than they would by splitting 2nd place 3 ways.
The details depend greatly on the relative sizes of the prizes - which is why experienced organizers learn to structure prize funds correctly. The cardinal sin is to have an Under prize that is more than a place prize. This can lead to VERY unintuitive prize distributions.
But, again - the main rule is “one player, one prize”. As this example indicates, a player can WIN more than the amount of a single prize (in this case, ⅓ of second, or all of u1500), but he only brings one prize into the shared pool. Once the money is in the shared pool, it doesn’t matter how it got there - everyone shares equally. The only exception is that a player who is the only one to qualify for a prize can “choose” (not really - the TD does that) to NOT enter the pool.
One can also work at it from precedent. Historically and currently place prizes are more important than class prizes. Class prizes were added to increase participation.
The 1300 gets 100% of the C prize. But it would be absurd to give the 1300 50% of the place prize because then the 1300 would EXCEED what the place prize had offered. So the 1300 get’s a share of the place prize to bring him to EQUALITY with the other place prize winners.
There’s multiple ways to consider this philosophically that make sense. The preponderance of these approaches is another indicator that this is the correct and best way mathematically, because, in the end, mathematically they all reduce to creating a pool out of the prizes (no more than one prize per player in the pool) and then dividing the pool equally.
IIRC, another principle that this generates that makes philosophical sense is that tournaments are best designed such that no single class prize exceeds a single place prize. Just as Ken mentions above. And again re-affirming that this is a good approach because its reaffirmed by multiple philosophical approaches.
Take a look at the TLAs for the largest CCA events, such as the World Open. There are typically 10 or more place prizes and 10 or more “under” prizes, particularly the highest ones like U2300 or U2200, where the lowest place prizes are lower than the highest “under” prizes.
Bill Smythe
Yep. I believe these are the exception, not the rule, and not necessarily the best design - but whether we agree or disagree I think all would agree that these events are different and sometimes break standard “rules”.
OK. Shake on it, and not secretly? 
Bill Smythe
I agree this result is what the rules require, but I can’t see how it’s fair, or even rational.
The problem is that two rules that both seem pretty reasonable on their face combine to make something silly. 32B1 (one cash prize per player); and 32B2 (ties share equally) somehow combine in 32B3 (ties for more than one prize) in a way that makes no sense.
What’s the purpose of the U1500 prize? To send some of the prize money down to the lower-rated players, who otherwise would expect to win little of it! But what happens here is that one of the U1500s does particularly well, qualifying also for some of the top money. Good for her! But wait. That means that some of that U1500 money gets diverted to a higher-rated player, who can only thank his lucky stars that the other 3.5 player happened to be an U1500.
The real culprit here is rule 32B1, one prize per player. That sounds sensible, and even generous–let’s spread the wealth a little. But the way it’s applied, the same number of players cash, it’s just that some of the money intended to reward lower-rated players gets siphoned off to provide a windfall for the higher-rated ones. Look at it from the point of view of a donor who contributed the U1500 prize to encourage the participation of U1500s–her contribution was hijacked, and she’s not happy.
A TD using this rule in some other games or sports would be tarred and feathered (figuratively, I hope). The only result that would wash in, say, a backgammon tournament is to let each player win as many prizes as they qualify for.
“Philosophizing” your way to such an absurd result is what gives philosophy a bad name.
You’re overthinking this. Yes, it is possible to have prizes which are distributed outside the divide and share method, such as a bonus for solo first, for biggest upset, for mixed doubles teams. Some things like top junior or top woman can be handled either way, though I believe that you have to make clear in announcements if those are over-and-above the prizes otherwise distributed. Maybe someone, somewhere has had something like U1500 as a “promotional” prize, but that would be really, really, really non-standard.
Suppose the organizer decides upon $100 first, with further prizes of $75, $50 and $40. To make sure the U1500’s get something, the $40 is a U1500 prize rather than 4th. If there is a 3 way tie for 2nd, with one of the three under 1500, the divide and share method gives each 1/3 of $165, i.e. $55, which is exactly what they would get if the $40 had been designated as an unrestricted 4th. Note that it is more than the $40 U1500 prize, since the U1500 is entitled to (and receives) a share of the higher 2nd and 3rd prizes. If the point was to make sure that the U1500’s get at least $40, this has succeeded; the U1500’s in fact got $55.
If there is a four way tie (with one U1500), then divide and share gives each player $165/4=$41.25, and again, as designed, the U1500 gets at least $40. If there is a five way tie, then $165/5=$33; now the U1500 does better by taking the U1500 money solo; so the other four get a four way split of $125/4=$31.25 and the U1500 gets $40.