For the 2005 IOS #1 we used the PDGA deep payout chart, which is PDGA1, below. The PDGA also has a shallow payout chart which is PDGA2, below. Neither of these puts much of a bonus on the top.
We were curious whether our players prefered deeper payouts in intermediate and rec or shallower, and bonus on top or not. The total amount coming back is the same. It is just a question of who gets it.
Suppose we have 20 players paying $20 to play. They got a $15 player pack (B-tier requires a minimum $10 player pack. We do a $15 player pack but then only take $10 out of the payout for it) and then $10 each is going into the payout. [In all three examples below we paid your $3 PDGA fee per player, did not deduct for trophies and ponied up for some CTPs. What a deal!]
PDGA1-PDGA2-Bonus
1---30----34----37
2---28----30----32
3---26----28----29
4---24----24----24
5---22----22----22
6---18----20----17
7---16----16----15
8---14----14----13
9---12----12----11
10-10------0-----0
Tot-200--200--200
Looking at these side by side you can see that the PDGA2 eliminates 10th place and gives it to 1, 2, 3 and 6, which is a little weird. Why 6 and not 4? The Bonus system eliminates 10th, and trims the bottom half by a buck, and gives all that to 1, 2, and 3.
Comments, opinions and suggestions? I'd like to especially hear from some of our Rec and Intermediate players. As an intermediate player with a Rec rating I'll share my opinions later so that I don't skew the results.
******************************************
Just for kicks, this is the PDGA 110% B-tier payout under the same scenario: $23 entry fee. $15 player pack, $3 to Parkside, $3 to PDGA and $1 per player for our trophy costs leaves a net entry fee of $1. $1 X 20 X 110% = $22
1---4
2---3
3---3
4---3
5---2
6---2
7---2
8---1
9---1
10--1
:huh: :blink: :angry:
The above is why you'll never see by the book 110% PDGA payouts at the IOS events. I've also never heard of anyone running something that bad.
I was playing Intermediate only three years ago. Then I prefered the bonus payout formula which is what the PDGA was using. They went flatter and deeper since then.
For our tournaments, I just want to be popular. I'll wear a dress if it will make our tournaments more popular. Lipstick, too. I'll even be nice to people if I have to.
At our C-tier there will be no player packs so the payouts will be doubled. Thought I'd do a side-by-side of that:
PDGA1-PDGA2-Bonus-CBonus
1---30-----34-----37-----74
2---28-----30-----32-----64
3---26-----28-----29-----58
4---24-----24-----24-----48
5---22-----22-----22-----44
6---18-----20-----17-----34
7---16-----16-----15-----30
8---14-----14-----13-----26
9---12-----12-----11-----22
10-10-------0------0------0
Tot-200--200----200---400
We run the B-tiers to get a zone of exclusion. We rarely ever actually get the zone of exclusion. Do our players prefer player packs or would they prefer 2X payouts over what we already do?
I'm getting the feeling that no one really cares about the payouts... <_<
The thread has almost 30 looks and no posts. Maybe they are afraid to say anything! :lol:
I could go either way.... As a player I'd like to see fatter payouts to the top third-ish, but as a TD I'd keep the 50% payout. Everybody likes winning something... ;)
When and if I ever get a chance to play in a tournament. I know I'm not really looking for a payout of any kind. I'm playing first for a little more competition than your normal every-day round. Since I don't really expect to walk away with any kind of payout, personally, I'd like to see a shallower fatter payout. There really should be a bonus for finishing in the top 3. After that being said, I'm with Bruce on what makes the tourneys more popular. It only means something to finish in the top 10 if you have more than 10 players in your division.
I prefer the bonus payout based on what I have seen. I think paying down too far is a bad idea. But I would defer to what makes the tournaments more popular.
PDGA1-PDGA2-Bonus
1---30----34----37
2---28----30----32
3---26----28----29
4---24----24----24
5---22----22----22
6---18----20----17
7---16----16----15
8---14----14----13
9---12----12----11
10-10------0-----0
Tot-200--200--200
I think that payouts should go to the top third, with larger payouts towards the top. I thought that the difference between first and second should not be one dollar, as it was at Parkside.
i would definitely agree with what Brian said. although i think the idea for the lower AM divisions is to get as many people a prize as possible, which I don't personally feel is the best strategy for getting players to come back. in advanced the prizes weren't so extremely spread out as they were in Am and Rec. i think most of the TD's simply go by the PDGA charts as was done at Parkside.
We did just go with the PDGA payout which is why we had those lame differentials between first, second and third. Neither of the PDGA payout tables give a bonus to the very top the way they do with the pro payout tables.
QuoteI could go either way.... As a player I'd like to see fatter payouts to the top third-ish, but as a TD I'd keep the 50% payout. Everybody likes winning something... ;)
i think if there was a poll of all players, most would prefer top heavy payouts.
The 2005 pay tables are on that page for anyone interested.
http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2005tourinfo.php (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2005tourinfo.php)
I think perhaps the philosophy of the PDGA payout chart is that throwing a very small prize at a player who didn't play well will make them come back again. I don't think payouts have nearly as much to do with players coming back as the PDGA might think. Even if I get ripped off at a tourney at a great course, I'm still coming back to get ripped off again most likely. The game itself and great courses and great competition are what make players play tournaments. Keep payouts heavy at the top to help intensify the competitive portion of the tournament experience.
I really wonder if PDGA has studied this (surveys, focus groups etc) or whether they made assumptions and just ran with them without ever looking back. I agree with the posts looking to fatter payouts for top players. I obviously do not play for the scratch whether it be green or brass. Dan hit it when he said he would come back for the course. I play because its fun, because the course is cool, because its better than working. Now I just try to avoid coming in last. I aspire to the middle of the pack. I will get there and when I arrive a few brass sheckels will not be the reward I sought. The winners should get the lion's share of the payout. Otherwise its about fun and maybe improving your rating.
QuoteI agree with the posts looking to fatter payouts for top players.
Me too. As long as there's a reasonable players pack relative to the entry fee, which has always been the case with the IOS
QuoteQuoteI agree with the posts looking to fatter payouts for top players.
Me too. As long as there's a reasonable players pack relative to the entry fee, which has always been the case with the IOS
At the IOS C-tiers we won't have player packs. We'll have larger payouts instead.
QuoteI think that payouts should go to the top third, with larger payouts towards the top. I thought that the difference between first and second should not be one dollar, as it was at Parkside.
None of the 2004 PDGA payout charts pays out only to the top third. Pro payouts range from 40 to 50 percent payout depending on the total players. Advanced tables payout 45 to 50 percent. The Am payout chart pays 50 - 55 percent. The 2005 charts are even flatter.
I would never go to a top third payout for any am divisions. I think it is too steep and puts too much emphasis on the payout. I could consider a top third payout for pros.
The biggest reason for the payout compression at IOS #1 is that we reduced the entry fees. The lower the fee, the more compressed the payout is.
I think the payout differences in the lower am divisions is an incentive to move up. However, we will consider using the winner bonus chart that I outlined above.
Thanks for your comments and feedback.
Edited for clarity.
Jon
Not that you aren't doing enough work <_< , but it might be interesting to see what the participants in the IOS think. It might be interesting to see how they respond to a brief and simple survey on the payouts. I just wonder whether we are all going on our personal intuition or whether there is more behind everybody's opinion. With six more IOS tournaments and with the good turnout we get, there would be a pretty good sample. Next fall you might have more information from which to make decisions for next year. Also, I do not know whether you are obligated to use PDGA payout charts or whether you can do whatever you want. Obviously, if you have to follow their chart, it really doesn't matter what we think if we want the events to remain sanctioned.
the PDGA payout charts are only suggestions
How are the payout differences incentive to move up?
Say I'm a player who doesn't like the payout in Intermediate, how does moving up to advanced help me? Now I have to pay a higher entry fee and since I'm an intermediate player, I have little chance of even getting a prize. So players should ignore their skill level I guess and just go with the division that has the most logical payout table. This doesn't make sense. You choose your division based on what level you think you can compete at.
QuoteHow are the payout differences incentive to move up?
Say I'm a player who doesn't like the payout in Intermediate, how does moving up to advanced help me? Now I have to pay a higher entry fee and since I'm an intermediate player, I have little chance of even getting a prize. So players should ignore their skill level I guess and just go with the division that has the most logical payout table. This doesn't make sense. You choose your division based on what level you think you can compete at.
People who do not have ratings or whose rating does not reflect their current skill level do not have an incentive to play at the level where they are most competitive if the payout is the same at the lower division. Trust me Dan, I would never post anything that doesn't make sense! ;)
Quotethe PDGA payout charts are only suggestions
The PDGA chart is the standard but no where in the rules or sanctioning agreement does it state that I have to follow the standard payout chart. Of course the PDGA has forced me to not do other things that are not against the rules or sanctioning agreement, so everything is relative until someone at the PDGA office finds out we're doing it.
QuoteHow are the payout differences incentive to move up?
I'm not an advocate of switching am payouts to Daisey Girl payouts where everyone WINS! just for trying. However, I think it makes sense that there is a natural progression in entry fees, payouts and competition in the PDGA divisional ladder. Recreational should have a low entry and a flat but deep payout. This progresses to Advanced where the payout is less deep and steeper. Then the pro division ups the ante even more by paying out in ca$h, shallower and steeper still.
I think that the intermediate payout should fall some where in between the recreational and advanced payouts. That is what makes sense to me. Using the bonus table for the intermediate division would raise the payout for the winner to match the increase of competition over the recreational division.
QuoteQuoteHow are the payout differences incentive to move up?
Say I'm a player who doesn't like the payout in Intermediate, how does moving up to advanced help me? Now I have to pay a higher entry fee and since I'm an intermediate player, I have little chance of even getting a prize. So players should ignore their skill level I guess and just go with the division that has the most logical payout table. This doesn't make sense. You choose your division based on what level you think you can compete at.
People who do not have ratings or whose rating does not reflect their current skill level do not have an incentive to play at the level where they are most competitive if the payout is the same at the lower division. Trust me Dan, I would never post anything that doesn't make sense! ;)
i'll agree that for these people who are capable of playing at a higher division and placing well, the flat payout can be an incentive to move up.
I think I might try to concoct some sort of neutral fair survey.
The bottom line is that we will continue to run the kinds of tournaments that we would rather play. But if tweaking the payouts a little will attract more players, we'd probably rather play those tournaments.
For me, what would keep me coming back to a tournament is good competition. Knowing if I register for whatever division, I can count on being in the running if I play well. Knowing that each place was seperated by a couple of strokes would give me a lot of incentive to come back and play better next time. Rather than knowing that player (X) is coming back, sined up for the same division, and has one the last 3 years by 7 strokes or more over 2nd place when the rest of the field was pretty close in score. As I said before, whatever payout I would get is really secondary to the reason I would play a tournament. Contrary to what I said before, maybe the lowers should have a more even payout, keeping them smaller. If you join a "Recreational" division you should be playing for recreation and fun and because you don't have a ton of time to dedicate the the sport. You shouldn't be playing "Rec" because you know you'll get a huge payout when you win.
It's a tough call though, some people are into payouts. If you plan on getting a big payout though, are you really a recreational player?
I would agree that people shouldn't be playing any Am division for the reason of collecting big payouts, although in reality its not like there are advanced players that are just making loads of money off of playing advanced. Its all just for fun.
But there is going to be a payout, however large or small it is isn't the issue. I just feel that most players find it more fun to have the payout differentials be relatively significant. I can see the logic in increasing these differentials as you progress through the divisions. However, I think it would be a good idea to have these differentials be alot more significant than 1 dollar between 1st and 2nd for all divisions if at all possible. I believe this would satisfy more players. If this means going against the PDGA suggested payout chart, then so be it.
I agree with that Dan. I was hoping to get some more opinions from our Intermediate players. I think it's odd to have 1 brass difference between places also. I think it's odd even when it is the difference between 8th and 9th place. I'm willing to try the bonus payout at the next IOS but I'd like to get some idea from our Intermediate players that they agree that fewer players should get prizes but the winners should get more.
QuoteEven if I get ripped off at a tourney at a great course, I'm still coming back to get ripped off again most likely
Tower Ridge is an example of this, the payouts aren't the best compaired to other events I've been to. However, the course is awesome and kicks you in the face if you mess up. It's because of the course and the people who play in it that will keep me returning.