In an open section, a ‘trophy only’ entry fee is advertised where you pay less and if you would otherwise win a cash prize, you don’t get it but are eligible for Trophies.
1st, 2nd Trophies
1st - 3rd Cash prizes.
A player paying the Trophy only fee wins clear first place.
He gets the 1st place trophy.
Since he can’t get the Cash prize, does it have to be awarded to the 2nd place player?
Personally, my first gut reaction was the top player, playing trophy only, gets the 1st place Trophy.
2nd place gets the 2nd place trophy but the first place prize,
3rd gets the second place prize,
4th gets the 3rd place prize.
I was discussng this with another Senior TD and an NTD and we looked through the prize distribution scenarios and it wasn’t technically answered.
I feel by the spirit of fairness it should probably still be awarded.
However, others argued that the 1st place player was in trophy only contention so was ineligible for 1st place cash prize. The 2nd place player got 2nd, so he did not earn the 1st place prize and gets the 2nd place. They argued this situation would favor the organizer and that cash prize would not be paid.
On the flip side. The players, not talking with each other, would not be aware, cuz 2nd place would know he got 2nd and expect the 2nd place prize, etc…
Your example points out the pitfalls of a “trophy-only” option. Things could get even more complicated if place winners are tied with class winners, with some of them opting for trophies only and others not.
From an organizer standpoint, there is less entry fee money (because some players have opted trophy-only) to cover the prizes, so the organizer should be allowed to withhold some of the prizes.
Try telling this to the players, though. You’ll have arguments from one end of the tournament hall to the other. And eventually, ingenious new forms of collusion will develop.
Let’s end this horrible idea before some organizer actually tries it.
Luckily in the tournament in question, the trophy only contenders did not place. However, under the rules are the organizers allowed to withhold the prize if a ‘trophy only’ player wins it?
I agree with you that the trophy only option will only cause trouble and should be avoided.
I would think so, but I’m pretty sure it’s not in the rulebook one way or the other.
Look at it this way – if the organizer were required to pay out the full prize fund despite the presence of a significant percentage of trophy-only players, the organizer would have to anticipate this when concocting his prize fund, i.e. he would have to offer a smaller prize fund to begin with.
Well Ben I haven’t seen the other threads so I do not know what you are disagreeing with. Since I respect your point of view so much could you point me in the right direction so that I can understand your point of view. I was a part of this discussion over the weekend so I have an interest in the answer.
Although I would strongly discourage organizers from running this type of event, it seems to me that the logical way to handle the prize distributions is to divide the final results into two groups, those who were eligible for the cash prizes and those who were eligible for the trophy prizes, and award prizes from each list independent of the other list.
Some people could be eligible for both, some eligible for just one or the other. If that madness is carried to extremes this means that someone could receive the 1st place prize money but the 3rd place trophy, or vice versa.
Thus as long as there is someone eligible for a particular cash prize, it has to be awarded.
One area where the rules are probably unclear is whether ‘trophy only’ entries count towards the based on numbers for cash prizes. I would say they do not.
Assume a tournament has a based on of 50.
If 100 players show up, 30 of whom are ‘trophy only’, then 100% of the cash prizes are paid out.
If 60 players show up, 30 of whom are ‘trophy only’, then the cash prizes are paid out based on 30.
if 50 players show up, 30 of whom are ‘trophy only’, then the cash prizes are paid out using half of the based on number, or 25.
From some of the tournaments that I have seen, the “trophy only” participants count as 1/2 or 1/3 entries depending on the ratio of the entry fee. Typical would be a $20 entry fee and a $10 trophy only fee.
This type of tournament sounds good in theory, but a headache to organize. You need to have around 100 players with at least 50 full entry players to make sure to cover all of the costs. It is too risky unless the organizer has some sponsors to back him while the event builds a following.
I don’t really understand the hostility to this idea. We’ve run a couple of such tournaments each year in L.A. for almost a decade. It’s a way to try and mainstream kids out of the scholastic ghetto without making them pay a large EF the first time. Of course the organizer has to run the numbers in advance to make sure he’ll be able to pay the prize fund, but that’s true for any tournament.
As to the question that started this thread: a guaranteed prize has to be paid as long as there is anyone eligible. If the highest-scoring player is ineligible, for whatever reason, the prize goes to the next player in line. It’s true that this comes up more often with class prizes, but the principle is the same. Consider the very similar case in which players are allowed to enter at a reduced EF, but are not eligible for any prizes. If one of these players finished first, would you really argue that the organizer is allowed to keep the first-place prize?
Thanks Ben. I understand where you are coming from now.
The tournament in question had a $20 trophy only option, but the regular entry fee was just $35 and the late entry fee $45. Only had 3 trophy only entries and one of them upgraded at the door. Probably the spread was too small to have a big impact.
But we had some players show up who would have given you a game!
And the event lost money that was made up by a sponsor - we expected some loss but hoped for a lower loss than we got.
I don’t like events where some of the players are not eligible for the cash prizes or not eligible for prizes at all. They don’t necessarily have the same motivation to play well.
That said, I agree with those who award all the prizes based on the total players entered regardless of what they paid and make the organizer responsible for proper planning. Proper planning includes a TLA which makes clear how free or reduced EF players will affect the based-on count and award the prizes normally using that figure. Nothing in the TLA, everyone counts regardless of EF paid.
In a related topic, there was a question about free entries. I feel that the same standard applies. Unless the TLA states otherwise, when you give a titled player - or a friend or wife - a free entry, in effect you are paying the EF for those players and if it is a based on event, you count them as a paid entry. A house player who is not eligible for cash prizes is the exception.
A problem I am not sure how to handle so avoid running events with this is where a player is restricted to how much they can win. This could apply to an event where those paying a reduced EF are only elegible for X% of the normal prize. My uncertainty lies in where to award the left over money. Consider a U1600 section where unrated can only win $x or 50% of the prize. An unrated wins clear first which is more than the limitation. Where does the extra go. I have seen it go to 2nd, divided across the place prizes in the ratio and even put into an unannounced prize such as top upset. If someone believes that there is a standard way to handle this situation, please quote the source. What is really a problem for me, consider a player wins clear first and the money restricted player is in a 2 way tie for 2nd. If you give the balance to the other tied player, they might win more than the 1st place player. Doesn’t seem fair. Perhaps this should be a separate topic.
I don’t know of any official standard way, but the approach that we always used locally was to cascade left over money down the list with each position maxed at the amount for the place if the unrateds had not played. I’m not sure that explanations is totally understandable, so two examples:
Five Place Prizes: $500-$400-$300-$200-$100
Unrated limited to $50.
a. Unrated comes in 1st:
The extra $450 is distributed, $100 each to the next 4 places and an additional $50 prize is added:
$50-$500-$400-$300-$200-$50
b. Unrateds come in 1st and 3rd:
The extra $700 is distributed, $100 to 2nd, $200 to 4th and 5th and an additional $200 prize is added:
$50-$500-$50-$400-$300-$200
