PDGA Payouts

[Jon Brakel]

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

   

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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?

[Jon Brakel]

I'm getting the feeling that no one really cares about the payouts...  

[Bruce Brakel]

The thread has almost 30 looks and no posts.  Maybe they are afraid to say anything!    

[mirth]

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...

[Clonefan94]

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.

[Mike Clark]

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

[Brian]

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.  

[Dan Michler]

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.

[Bruce Brakel]

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.

[Dan Michler]

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...

i think if there was a poll of all players, most would prefer top heavy payouts.

[CEValkyrie]

The 2005 pay tables are on that page for anyone interested.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2005tourinfo.php

[Dan Michler]

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.

[Chainmeister]

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.

[damonshort]

I 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  

[Jon Brakel]

I 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.

[Jon Brakel]

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.

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.

[Chainmeister]

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.

[Dan Michler]

the PDGA payout charts are only suggestions

[Dan Michler]

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.