I recently saw a tournament with a based on prize fudn which also had a based on for class. I know that the purpose behind the x/class based on is to prevent the reduction of a class prize if the x number in a class is achieved even if the total based on number is not.
Theoretical Question:
If you have a tournament with a prize fund as follows:
$400, b/40, 4/class: 140-100, A 40, B 40, C 40 D/E/U 40
The tournament gets 40 players, but only 2 Class B players. Does that mean that the B class prize can be reduced to 20, with the additional 20 added to some other prize?
-Larry S. Cohen
ps: yes I know the answer, but I want to make people think about prize funds and prize fund structure.
I have never seen a tournament where, say, class A was say paid at 50%, and say, B, was paid at 75%.
generally the percentages paid are across the board, applying equally to each class, which I do believe is
appropriate.
I have seen different based on numbers used per section. I have not seen it by class within a section. One time I did a tournament that exceeded the based on and I increased the overall prizes (from 100-40 to 100-60-40) and also increased the class prizes depending on the turnout by class (from 40 to either 45, 50 or 55). Seeing as it was an increase to the prize fund there were questions but not complaints (everybody accepted the logic of the LTD doing the event). The total prize fund went from 300 to about 400 (I don’t remember exactly). main.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.ph … 0-10336015
We are not talking about sections, but about an open tournament. Said tournament uses the old based on prize fund with the added old based on class number.
If you look in the TLAs under WI you will find such a tournament. The WCA Veteran’s Tournament. It lists in bold print $$b/40 and 3 per class. The USCF accepted this TLA, so I would assume that it is still a valid way to list the prize reduction options if the minimums are not met. Remember that the “3 per class” is meant to prevent class prizes from being reduced if that minimum number [i.e. 3] is met by the entries, even if the overall minimum number is not met.
no prize is reduced by more than the percentage reduction in overall turnout, and
no class prize is reduced at all if there are at least 3 in that class.
This is almost certain to mean that the total prize fund will be reduced by less than it could have been with a simple based-on-total-entries announcement.
For example:
$$100-80-60, class A $50, class B $40, based on 30 total players and 3 per class.
24 players show up, including three A players and three B players.
No prize may be reduced to more than 80% of projected (24 is 80% of 30), and the class prizes may not be reduced at all (they are based on 3 per class).
So the organizer would still have to pay out $80-$64-$48, class A $50, class B $40. That totals $282, or about 85.5%.
And if there were zero B players instead of three then would it be $89.17-$71.33-$53.50, Class A $50, Class B $0 ? 80% pay-out
Or would it be $80-$64-$48, Class A $50, Class B $32 (pocketed by the organizer with no player eligible)?
83.03% pay-out that is actually 73.33%
Before answering, decide what the prizes would be if there were 30 players with no B players.
As far as I know, an organizer is never required to pay (nor redistribute) a prize for which no players are eligible. This is true even when the actual turnout is 100% (or more) of the projected. As long as each prize (for which there exists an eligible player) is paid at the required percentage, no violation of the percentage rule has occurred.
I would prefer, however, that the description “$80-$64-$48, Class A $50, Class B $32 (pocketed by the organizer with no player eligible)” be stated instead as “$80-$64-$48, Class A $50, Class B $0 (since no player is eligible for this prize)”.
That’s easy. $100-$80-$60, class A $50, class B $0. 100% of each prize is being paid.
Why would you prefer that? Aren’t there already enough people with the misconception that organizers are greedy? Why would we purposefully word things so that it sounds like there is an organizer profit, when in fact we don’t know if there is or is not?
All that is necessary is to state what is true with respect to the players. $0 for B since no B were eligible. It’s a true statement, and the organizer’s finances are none of the business of the players.
Without question, there are too many who share the misconception that organizers, for the most part, are “greedy”. For the most part, merely staying in the black is the goal. Stating that which is for the most part current practice anyhow, would only add
to this misconception. And as Kevin states, “the organizer’s finances are none of the business of the players”.
Methinks there was some facetion in Kevin’s post. Either way, he was (I think) trying to make the same point I was – which is that an organizer should not be ridiculed, nor made to look stingy, because he fails to redistribute a prize for which no player is eligible.
I’ve seen a Michelin star chef complain about one of his competitors (located a few blocks away in NYC) being able to charge $10 more for a burger than he can, too.