doot
Jul 02 2007, 10:32 AM
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournamen...eRatings=1#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6272&year=2007&incl udeRatings=1#Open)

All results posted now + the payout including $600 in MPM side $ won by Hammock Sullivan and Hughes Cdn $15600 payout = ~ US$14,600 or more than 200% of entry fees. We're having a little trouble getting the on-line scoring to cooperate in terms of par for the top 4, Nate should read as -34 for the event including a final 9 of -8 on a par 34 layout.

BDH over and out



Is this standard procedure? Are all side bets (Masters side bets, acepots, etc.) included on the PDGA's results page for tournaments? Are they included in the player's year end earnings? I'm going to sift thru the TDs instructions and see if I can get a definitive answer.

Also, it looks like the Canadian Open payout is listed as Canadian dollars. Will this be converted to USD when the results become official? If so, what exchange rate did the TD use?

If any powers that be within the PDGA could provide me with an official answer, it would be much appreciated..thx.

- doot

bruce_brakel
Jul 02 2007, 10:57 AM
Ace pool pay-out is not included as part of the tournament pay-out unless the pay-in was included in the entry fee. Side bet pay-outs should not be included as part of the pay-out unless the pay-in was reported as part of the entry fees. To do otherwise is to artificially boost the apparent payout.

bruce_brakel
Jul 02 2007, 11:09 AM
If you look at the TD report financial section, you see that ace pool collected and ace pool paid are treated separately from entry fees collected and pro pay out.

As to the Pro Master sidebet, a TD could go either way with that. He could list it as a side game and exclude it from the pay out, of he could include it as entry fees and include it in the pay out. The TD report does not indicate how to account for that money.

Jul 02 2007, 11:17 AM

doot
Jul 02 2007, 11:20 AM
Great, thanks for the quick response.

DSproAVIAR
Jul 02 2007, 01:40 PM
Just an opinion, I think all ADDED (By a sponsor, TD, club, or otherwise) cash that was paid out in sidegames, final 9's, acepools, CTP's etc. should be included in the TD Report and noted in the tournament results. TD's and volunteers either worked for this money or donated it themselves, and it should be noted.

Sharky
Jul 02 2007, 02:47 PM
But not noted in an individual's player cash earnings.

bruce_brakel
Jul 02 2007, 03:46 PM
Sidebets are an interesting slippery slope to ams playing for cash and retaining their am status, eh? If Canadian open or Japan Open side bet cash is not payout cash, what would prevent a TD from offering say a $25 sidebet to players rated less than 955, regardless of division, and ams cashing and staying am?

rhett
Jul 02 2007, 04:07 PM
If Canadian open or Japan Open side bet cash is not payout cash, what would prevent a TD from offering say a $25 sidebet to players rated less than 955, regardless of division, and ams cashing and staying am?


Nothing.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 02 2007, 05:38 PM
This issue is being brought up because Brad Hammock apparently won $300 in a Masters side bet at the Canadian Open. It causes confusion when these auxillary winnings are included as part of "Prize" in the Tournament Results for an event on the PDGA Tour page. It is desired that the PDGA Tour page ONLY show the divisional payout under "Prize." As I understand it, that is the only request here - that side bets, ace pots, etc. are not included as part of "Prize" in the Tournament Results for an event on the PDGA Tour page.

For the tournament in question, $1500 should be listed for Brad Hammock, not $1800.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6272#Open

rhett
Jul 02 2007, 05:53 PM
But if he legitimately won that money playing a PDGA tournament, his year-to-date winnings should reflect it. I mean it does sound like it was legitimate entry fee money he won. Why not show the entry fee for those six guys as X+$100 and put the payout in there? That would actually make the percent-payout go down since there was no added cash going with the auxiliary entry fees.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 02 2007, 06:22 PM
Nobody is looking to debate that this is not legitimate money won or shouldn't be reflected in year-to-date winnings. That will all continue to be recorded in PDGA Tour spreadsheets and records as they currently are.

Again, it causes confusion when these auxillary winnings are included as part of "Prize" in the Tournament Results for an event on the PDGA Tour page. It causes confusion because, for example, it makes it appear that Alex Hughes won $350 for 13th place while Bard Soleng won only $275 for finishing a spot better in 12th place. What was Alex Hughes' actual payout for the tournament? People shouldn't have to play detective and e-mail tournament organizers to find this information out.

This question was especially relevant for the Fantasy Disc Golf League, as we needed to know what Brad Hammock's actual divisional winnings were. Again, all that is desired is that the PDGA Tour page ONLY show the divisional payout under "Prize."

gnduke
Jul 03 2007, 03:35 AM
Only moneys that were available to all participants based on finish in the tournament should be included in the payout totals.

If there is series bonus money that is not available to everyone, it should not be listed as part of the payout.

If there is optional betting pools, they should not be included as payout.

There should be a location in the event reporting for non-event prizes and payout.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 09:07 AM
Why does 3rd place get a cash bonus anyway?

Jeff_LaG
Jul 03 2007, 11:05 AM
Why does 3rd place get a cash bonus anyway?



It wasn't a cash bonus for third place. There was a Masters side bet for competitors over 40 years of age which Hammock won, and presumably, Alex Hughes took second place in.


There should be a location in the event reporting for non-event prizes and payout.



Agreed. :cool:

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 11:44 AM
That doesn't seem right. There was only an Open division. So you're saying that there was extra money available to some competitors in the same division as long as they were a certain age? That's the definition of age discrimination.
"Ageism is bias against a person or group on the grounds of age. When that bias is the primary motivation behind acts of discrimination against that person or group, then those acts constitute age discrimination."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_discrimination

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 11:49 AM
Where did this "side-bet" money come from?

bruce_brakel
Jul 03 2007, 11:50 AM
They paid extra for it. It was a sidebet. If you want to have a sidebet open only to youngsters, you can run it.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 11:55 AM
OK, then that wasn't added cash or payout. Confusing.....

chappyfade
Jul 03 2007, 05:54 PM
When I was Comp Director, Dave Gentry and I had pretty much decided to count sidebets and skins winnings as part of "other prizes" and not part of the official payout. I always had a hard time explaining why a player won more money for finishing fourth than the winner won.

The problem I have with the sidebets for Masters/GM players at the Japan, European, and Canadian Opens are that players under 40 do not have an opportunity for a sidebet. therefore, a 44-year player like Brad Hammock who can still excel in the Open division has more of an opportunity to win more money than Ken Climo, or Steve Brinster, or any other Open player under 40.

If those tournaments would also have a sidebet that is restricted to those NOT of masters/grandmasters age, then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with the sidebet, even though I still don't think it should really be part of the official payout necessarily.

Chap

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 05:59 PM
I don't understand this "sidebet" thing. So, from what people have said, the Master's all put up money to compete against only other Master's players and the PDGA counts this as winnings? What does the PDGA have to do with sidebets? Something just doesn't fly with that. If I bet my buddy at a tournament, should I report this to the TD so he can make it part of the official payout? This all sounds really shady to me.

Jul 03 2007, 06:18 PM

rhett
Jul 03 2007, 06:20 PM
It sounds like some of the Masters aged players paid another $100 to simultaneously compete in two divisions at one event.

Under the 1997 Rules Of Play, this was not allowed under section 804.08.C: "A player may only compete in a single division of a tournament at one time."

Under the current Rules Of Play, that section has been eliminated.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 06:24 PM
It sounds like some of the Masters aged players paid another $100 to simultaneously compete in two divisions at one event.

Under the 1997 Rules Of Play, this was not allowed under section 804.08.C: "A player may only compete in a single division of a tournament at one time."

Under the current Rules Of Play, that section has been eliminated.


WOW, so you're saying that Hammock could pay 2 entry fee's, Master's and Open, and compete against and cash in both? That's pretty [censored] up!

accidentalROLLER
Jul 03 2007, 06:31 PM
...and here I was thinking that if they put all the added cash in Open, the Masters-age players would have to choose between the 2 divisions. I WAS WRONG, THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE! THEY CAN PLAY BOTH!

Jeff_LaG
Jul 03 2007, 06:49 PM
Again, the intent here is not to debate the legality of side bets or multi-divsional play. The one and only request here is to show ONLY the divisional payout under "Prize" on the PDGA Tour page and display these other winnings somewhere else. Again, it causes confusion when these auxillary winnings are included as part of "Prize" in the Tournament Results for an event on the PDGA Tour page, especially, when due to these side bets, a competitor wins more money than golfers who finish better than him in that division.

There was this exact same confusion after last year's European Open which resulted in skewed payouts for Christer K�hler, Hans Tegeback, and Brian Hoeniger. These sidebet winnings need to be captured somewhere else on the Official Results page. Perhaps another division can be added at the bottom of the results page with the sidebet prize money for the competitors displayed there.

bruce_brakel
Jul 03 2007, 09:12 PM
It sounds like that but does not look like that. It looks like a Masters age player pays the Open entry fee and plays Open. Then, if he wants to pay more, he and the other Masters age players paying more can compete for that money too. He does not compete in two divisions. He gets in on two bets, the Open bet and the Masters bet.

chappyfade
Jul 04 2007, 12:33 AM
I'm not saying it's against the current rules...I'm just saying players of ALL ages should have such a chance. Currently, the Japan Open sidebet, entry fee, whatever you want to call it, is unfair, since if you're under 40, you do not have the opportunity to pay an extra "entry fee" or sidebet to win extra $$$.

Chap

chappyfade
Jul 04 2007, 12:35 AM
And yes, count me as being against people playing in two different divisions in the same tournament on the same day.

Chap

doot
Jul 04 2007, 02:44 AM
What we seem to be lacking though is consistency..how often are Ace Pots (which are veery similar to the "side bets") included in the payout results?

As Jeff said, although more time consuming, we do need to separate the traditional payout structure from any other "side bets." I'm not just saying this because it causes me delays and additional research in updating my DG Fantasy League - but because it's simply confusing to the public who's viewing the results and sees a lower-placed player earning more than a higher placed player with no explanation or breakdown as to why..

- doot

Jul 04 2007, 05:57 AM

gnduke
Jul 04 2007, 09:21 AM
Then what of series bonus cash that is paid out only to qualifying players at the tour finals ?

doot
Jul 04 2007, 12:07 PM
- the extra MPM entries and payout are all noted in the TD Report to HQ



That's true, but that breakdown is not included in the posted results page on the website. This certainly could lead to confusion to novice viewers who do not see a sloped payout, which is my concern. My other concern is that this method of posting results is not done consistantly (at every tournament, to include every "sidebet.") Again I ask what the difference is between a Masters sidebet and an Ace Pot (which is sometimes included with ones' entry fee - which both Pros and Ams participate in.) If Masters sidebets become official payouts, wouldnt an Am collecting money for an Ace fall under the same scenario? If so, would you post an Am's winning on the results page as well?



- this same info was posted immediately upon request, but should of course be posted without prompting


And I completely appreciate your prompt reply. The PDGA community however cannot expect the same level of promptness from all TDs, which is what basically we're asking for.



- it should be relatively easy for some one with math related talents and knowledge of leading "ag-ed" players to discern the extra $ paid in and out from the results, if not maybe a code could be added to the tier or similar that indicates this particular event format



Lets say Gangloff participated in a Masters side bet - unless I knew him personally and knew he's of Masters age and always plays Open, I'd have no way of knowing how he earned any additional monies (if the extra payout is small, it may go unnoticed.) Again, all I'm asking (I'll speak for myself only, but I'm sure others would agree), I'm just looking for consistancy amongst the tournament results, and for the sidebets to be broken our or at least agknowledged on the website results page.



- a fantasy pool while cool should not have any pull re how PDGA events are run and reported



It's very cool and and I completely agree it should have no pull whatsoever with regards to this issue (and I've stated as such above.)



- maybe the players in question should be surveyed as to how they feel about how this format and how it is handled in their PDGA Tour stats



I dont think the Masters would care..all winnings are reported as income anyway, so why would they not want the world to see any extra winnings they've won?



- for some players such sidebets can equal the difference in whether they choose to play an event or not, and at least in terms of the Canadian Open, the event needed every player it could get



You're completely right and I have no problem with sidebets to entice players. It's optional to the Masters players, and it increases attendance. It's a win-win situation (until the results come out and online sparrings ensue - j/k)



- beyond that what is the harm ? For those who say ahhh but MPO does not have same opportunity ...:
- they will ... if and when they turn 40
- CK and others have proven the extent to which players scores increase with age of 40+ and this simply gives such players the opportunity that they have at '00s of other PDGA events. If it adds players to an event, and increases the tour stats, it can only be a good thing.




No harm. It is a good thing.

Brian, I wanted to PM you this but - please do not take this personally. In no way am I doing this to waste your time. I have nothing but respect and admiration for all that you've done and continue to do for the PDGA. Please understand that as we discuss our differences of opinion.

Regards,

F Doot

accidentalROLLER
Jul 04 2007, 12:45 PM
- a fantasy pool while cool should not have any pull re how PDGA events are run and reported


Well I think it's great that you can easily choose which minority to cater to. Considering there are more people participating in the DG Fantasy League than there are player's involved in "side-bets", I'd say your catering to the wrong crowd. But you don't care anyway. You think you're right and you're not going to change to please a different minority.

Jul 04 2007, 06:30 PM

ck34
Jul 04 2007, 08:42 PM
Tournament financial results in essence indicate the "performance" of the TD or host club, or they should do so. In an ideal world, if the sidebets are administered by the TD, which includes ace pools and skins, I believe they should be included in the financial report and posted by the players' names who won what dollars. Why not increase the size of the dollars won and encourage others of all ages to attend the following year based on what they see paid out and who won it? We already have some events where sponsors have specifically targeted money toward a specific division such as when Pete May or Pete Shive boost the cash going to their "Senior Tour" division at their targeted events.

The only issue I see with this change to current procedures that do not include skins or ace pools is that Ams might be "winning" cash in an ace pool and the PDGA data files would need to be adjusted to either handle this properly or just discard that information in terms of adding it to Am players' records. However, the TD would still get credit for the ace pool dollars when counting the total cash paid at the event even if some ams got part of it.

If the sidebets are administered by the players such as a GM sidebet on the final round score let's say, that's off the event books and should stay off the books.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 05 2007, 12:06 AM
Once again we're straying from the central issue which is (in the name of consistency) the simple request for Tournament Directors to show ONLY the divisional payout under "Prize" on the PDGA Tour page and display these sidepot winnings somewhere else. As former Competition Director John Chapman indicated, he and Dave Gentry decided to count sidebets and skins winnings as part of "other prizes" and not part of the official payout. It causes great confusion and yields a hard time explaining why a player won more money for finishing fourth than the winner won. 99.9% of events reported on the PDGA Tour page are displaying their results properly.

There's a very easy solution for this - just add another division at the bottom of the results page with the sidebet prize money for the competitors displayed there. The divisional payout then remains intact and no confusion is caused and no explanations are needed.

ck34
Jul 05 2007, 12:27 AM
Not including the total financial results in a single column will eventually squeeze events into a cookie cutter format and eliminate popular side events like skins from being held because the money "doesn't count." Bad move considering the small amounts of money in the sport at this time. Who's forced to explain anything outside providing the more detailed TD report to the PDGA which does break those numbers out? Are you saying that the Ace and Birdie Skins aren't a significant factor in drawing the top players to MSDGC? They don't have to answer to the PDGA but certainly players and the Marshall Street gang consider all of that money part of their total event financial package.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 05 2007, 09:41 AM
Good grief! The simplest thing in the world is being so unnecessarily complicated.

Of course ace skins, birdie skins, masters side bets, ace pots, etc. are a significant factor in drawing players to events and of course the money counts. However these results should not be displayed in the divisional payouts when reporting PDGA tournament results. There's a very easy solution for this - just add another division at the bottom of the results page with the sidebet prize money for the competitors displayed there. Each divisional payout then remains intact and no confusion is caused and no explanations are needed.

chris_lasonde
Jul 05 2007, 09:44 AM
I agree with Chuck and semi agree with Jeff.

Any additional cash administered by the TD (whether it be sidebets or acepots or skins) should be reflected in the payout. In general, money either comes from sponsors or players.

If a player pays $100 entry fee and then reaches back into their billfold and puts another $10 into a Master's pool side pot and another $5 into the ace pot that is cash added to the tournament. One or more of the players at that tournament is going to be getting that added money at the awards ceremony.

If the data displayed on the tournament results page simply broke that money out as an additional database field listed immediately to the right of the prize column, you could see this "Bonus Cash." Another summary column adding the two would be nice but perhaps, in the interest of space not entirely neccessary.

Added cash (sponsors) + Entry Fees + Optional Cash = Money In
(Added cash [sponsors] + Entry Fees + Bonus Cash) - *Tournament Overhead = Payout

*Tournament overhead, of course, lumps all the various and sundry expenses including everything from pencils to PDGA fees.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 05 2007, 12:13 PM
If the data displayed on the tournament results page simply broke that money out as an additional database field listed immediately to the right of the prize column, you could see this "Bonus Cash." Another summary column adding the two would be nice but perhaps, in the interest of space not entirely neccessary.



That's a great idea, Chris, which would be an effective solution. We would have to check with the PDGA programmers to see how easy a change to the database that would be. In the meantime, addding another division at the bottom of the results page with the sidebet prize money for the competitors displayed would be an adequate temporary solution and one that doesn't require any change to the existing database.

chappyfade
Jul 05 2007, 02:48 PM
Side Bets and skins games are essentially different competitions than the actual tournament, so they should reported separately. While you may need to finish in the top 4 to qualify in a particular skins game, you also need to finish in the top 5 of non-qualified/exempt players of certain events to qualify for USDGC, yet we don't count the USDGC winnings in those events' final purse, either. The fact that USDGC is potentially several months after the qualifying event, and the skins game is several minutes after the tournament is over, is immaterial. They are still separate competitions, and should be treated as such.


Chap

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 03:02 PM
john seems right on this, to me anyway. these "sidebets" and other games are fun, interesting and exciting. but they are a)not open to all; b) have nothing to do with the actual event.

if people want to do sidebets, fine. go for it. have as many as you want. but that money should not be considered event money.

adding that money to the event "purse" just makes the purses seem bigger than they really are, which is not a good thing. if we want that money in the purse, then raise the signup fees.

oh, i had a side bet with my cardmates at last weekend's Lewisville Open. please add $20 to the overall purse. that sounds pretty silly doesnt it.

ck34
Jul 05 2007, 03:22 PM
Tell the Marshall Street folks that their skins money isn't important enough to be considered part of their financial incentives. If the money is coming from the host or is managed by the host, then it's part of the overall event. I would be fine with separating the monies won for the main singles or doubles competition for all won in ancillary events by posting it in a second column.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 05 2007, 03:31 PM
Pat, you are dead wrong! That's the way they've always done it so that means its the right way to do! Don't expect them to pump hours of volunteer time into changing an excel sheet just because a few people are confused! Padding purse and tour stats is more important to the future of this organization than legitimate event representation. In fact, you should report yourself and the Lewisville Open to the proper authorities for misrepresenting the event's purse with your unauthorized side-bet.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 05 2007, 03:33 PM
On a more serious note, if an NT needs to offer these BS sidebets to attract like 8 Master's players, then it doesn't deserve to be an NT.

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 03:40 PM
Tell the Marshall Street folks that their skins money isn't important enough to be considered part of their financial incentives. If the money is coming from the host or is managed by the host, then it's part of the overall event. I would be fine with separating the monies won for the main singles or doubles competition for all won in ancillary events by posting it in a second column.

being part of "financial incentives" and being part of the event purse are two different things. almost all of this sidebet stuff is not even available to 90% or more of the competitors.

chris_lasonde
Jul 05 2007, 04:05 PM
Is an ace pot administered by the TD "available" to all the competitors?

Is skins money set aside for the top four <font color="red"><u>OPEN</u> </font> available to all the competitors?

Of course, in both cases. (The Open division is, after all, open).

More involved ...

Is a Masters division side bet paid for out of the pockets of Masters division players and/or sponsorships specifically earmarked (by the sponsors) for the Masters division available to all the masters? And is it equitable to other divisions? This question goes back to Chuck's distinction of additional monies administered by the TD.

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 04:51 PM
why does it matter who administers the extra cash? TDs are independant people, not indentured servants. if they choose to run a side game, groovy for them and the players who play. like i said before... go for it.

just dont represent that money as event "payout" cuz it isnt event payout. its a sidebet that has nothing to do with the purse.

as far as acepot goes, i would hope that acepot money is NOT being included as payout! by your definition payout would include TDs sales of shirts, towels, discs, carts, golfbags, stickers, and any other items or merchandise sold at the event. by mine is is how much was won based on pure finish position in my single division.

chris_lasonde
Jul 05 2007, 05:13 PM
How does my definition include TD merchandise sales in any way, shape or form? In my original post, I specifically defined the terms I was using. Please don't cloud the issue.

I think both Chuck and I were attempting to find a way to differentiate between the prize payout (i.e. "... how much was won based on pure finish position in my single division.") and additional payout (i.e. ace pots, skins, side bets, etc.)

It should be pretty easy to say:

Column A = prize payout ("the purse")
Column B = additional payout
Column A + Column B = Overall Tournament Value

Why would a player looking at Marshall Street results with an eye to attending next year not want to know about the thousands of dollars in skins available to (at least) the open and women. Why also would the PDGA, as disc golf "promoters, not want to hype the additional monies?

The money, after all comes from one of two places: sponsors or players. If the players pay $5,000 in entry fees and an additional $1,000 into various ace pots and pools and sidebets that all go straight back into some player(s) pocket at the awards ceremony, why not keep track, albeit separately?

As long as it accounted for separately it does no harm to the purity of your sacrosanct purse concept and potentially does quite a bit of good by giving us a new (larger) number to tout to sponsors.

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 05:28 PM
here's how it includes those sales:

" If the money is coming from the host or is managed by the host, then it's part of the overall event."

interesting that we're looking at MSDGC for examples of how to do things, isnt it :)

ck34
Jul 05 2007, 05:44 PM
Mace has adjusted his events in your own state to reduce skins for the very reason that he wasn't getting credit for the added cash going into skins. Putting money into skins competitions which are usually more interesting to spectators than Final 9s is a losing propostion for TDs trying to boost their purse since singles payouts are all that's reported for event rankings.

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 05:46 PM
what do events get out of their "event ranking"?

ck34
Jul 05 2007, 05:48 PM
Players look at that among other things to determine which events to attend the following year.

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 05:51 PM
if i see 10,000 as the purse and show up to find that it is 5000 in purse and 5000 in skins money, i will have been misled.

Jul 05 2007, 05:56 PM

ck34
Jul 05 2007, 05:59 PM
if i see 10,000 as the purse and show up to find that it is 5000 in purse and 5000 in skins money, i will have been misled.




I agree. I have no problem separating the numbers for promotion just like TDs will say that the Sr GM division has an extra $500 added when either Pete adds sponsorship to that division. Usually, event flyers are relatively specific about added cash and the amount added to a skins game. This will be even more so next year if the proposed tier standards get approved to change to specific added cash minimums vs total pro payout.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 05 2007, 06:01 PM
- for some players such sidebets can equal the difference in whether they choose to play an event or not, and at least in terms of the Canadian Open, the event needed every player it could get



but on that basis the 47 player 14.6K Cdn Open would be the #1 or 2 NT event.


So you needed every player you could get at the "#1 or 2 NT event"? If what you say is true, then why do you have to offer "side-bet" incentives to Master's-aged players if this is the best event of all time?
So, if I understand this.....
-The CO was the #1 or 2 NT
-You needed every player you could get to the point of offer addition incentives on top of all the things you listed?

That doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain?

chappyfade
Jul 05 2007, 06:06 PM
Tell the Marshall Street folks that their skins money isn't important enough to be considered part of their financial incentives. If the money is coming from the host or is managed by the host, then it's part of the overall event. I would be fine with separating the monies won for the main singles or doubles competition for all won in ancillary events by posting it in a second column.



Nobody's saying that skins games aren't an important way of drawing players to certain events (at least I'm not saying that). The fact that the Kansas City Wide Open was a USDGC qualifier drew a lot of people to our event that may not have come otherwise...there are lots of reasons why players go to events. I'm just saying a skins game isn't part of the regular tournament; it's a separate competition, and should be treated as such statistically.

Chap

chappyfade
Jul 05 2007, 06:09 PM
And what if the event promotes 5K + 5K skins for top 4 MPO? Should the 2.5K in skins that say Feldberg wins not be part of his tour stats? If you say it should not be then Id say hmmm you might ask the top players about this because the answer will likely be different and if so all youll be doing for them is an unnecessary disservice.



Part of his tour stats? Yes.

Part of his stats for the actual tournament? No.

I shouldn't look at a tournament box score and read:

Frank Black 190 $1,200
Bob Yellow 191 $700
Jerry Brown 193 $500
Jack Lowe 196 $1,700

unless the TD just decided to pay fourth place more than first. If the extra $$$ are because of an after tournament skins game, then that should reported separately, not as if it were part of the medal play tournament.

Chap

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 06:12 PM
"Should the 2.5K in skins that say Feldberg wins not be part of his tour stats? If you say it should not be then Id say hmmm you might ask the top players about this because the answer will likely be different and if so all youll be doing for them is an unnecessary disservice"

honest question: waht is this "disservice" of which you speak? what benefit does a touring player get that is based on how much cash s/he "officially" won. feldberg gets to spend his skin money regardless of how it is reported, doesnt he?

gnduke
Jul 05 2007, 09:54 PM
I think the disservice would be in the rating of most cash won, and even that is questionable. So he won $1200 in the event, and $2500 in the skins, and what about the $200 from the poker game after the player's party ? The game was organized by the TD ?

I remember the same hassle every year with the TX10 finals and the fact that we could not report bonus payouts because they were not available to all competitors. I agree that it would be misleading to jack up the payout of your event by $20K that a visiting player has no shot at, but it was part of the draw of the event and series for local players.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 05 2007, 09:56 PM
I shouldn't look at a tournament box score and read:

Frank Black 190 $1,200
Bob Yellow 191 $700
Jerry Brown 193 $500
Jack Lowe 196 $1,700

unless the TD just decided to pay fourth place more than first. If the extra $$$ are because of an after tournament skins game, then that should reported separately, not as if it were part of the medal play tournament.

Chap



What Chappy said.

Here's an example of how the Candian Open tournament results for the cashing (top 20) golfers could have been displayed, followed by the Masters sidebets. This maintains the Open divisional payout, and avoids confusion.

<table border="2"><tr><th colspan=1> Open </th></tr>
<tr><td> Place </th><th> Points </th><th> Name </th><th> PDGA# </th><th> Rating </th><th> Rd1 </th><th> Rd2 </th><th> Rd3 </th><th> Finals </th><th> To Par </th><th> Total </th><th> Prize </th></tr>
<tr><td> 1 </td><td> </td><td> Nathan Doss </td><td> 11794 </td><td> 1031 </td><td> 53 </td><td> 56 </td><td> 54 </td><td> 26 </td><td> -34 </td><td> 189 </td><td> $3,000 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 2 </td><td> </td><td> Steve Brinster </td><td> 10628 </td><td> 1018 </td><td> 55 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 52 </td><td> 27 </td><td> -32 </td><td> 191 </td><td> $2,000 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 3 </td><td> </td><td> Brad Hammock </td><td> 5912 </td><td> 1019 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 53 </td><td> 54 </td><td> 31 </td><td> -28 </td><td> 195 </td><td> $1,500 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 4 </td><td> </td><td> David Feldberg </td><td> 12626 </td><td> 1030 </td><td> 53 </td><td> 58 </td><td> 54 </td><td> 31 </td><td> -27 </td><td> 196 </td><td> $1,000 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 5 </td><td> </td><td> Kyle Crabtree </td><td> 25596 </td><td> 1018 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 56 </td><td> 52 </td><td> </td><td> -24 </td><td> 165 </td><td> $750 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 6 </td><td> </td><td> Brad Schick </td><td> 7992 </td><td> 1012 </td><td> 59 </td><td> 52 </td><td> 56 </td><td> </td><td> -22 </td><td> 167 </td><td> $550 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 6 </td><td> </td><td> Markus Kallstrom </td><td> 13150 </td><td> 1017 </td><td> 56 </td><td> 55 </td><td> 56 </td><td> </td><td> -22 </td><td> 167 </td><td> $550 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 6 </td><td> </td><td> Avery Jenkins </td><td> 7495 </td><td> 1029 </td><td> 51 </td><td> 58 </td><td> 58 </td><td> </td><td> -22 </td><td> 167 </td><td> $550 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 9 </td><td> </td><td> William Themm </td><td> 18967 </td><td> 1002 </td><td> 56 </td><td> 56 </td><td> 56 </td><td> </td><td> -21 </td><td> 168 </td><td> $375 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 9 </td><td> </td><td> Kim Scott-Wood </td><td> 19777 </td><td> 1012 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 53 </td><td> 58 </td><td> </td><td> -21 </td><td> 168 </td><td> $375 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 11 </td><td> </td><td> Michael Sullivan </td><td> 3028 </td><td> 992 </td><td> 53 </td><td> 61 </td><td> 57 </td><td> </td><td> -18 </td><td> 171 </td><td> $300 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 12 </td><td> </td><td> Bard Soleng </td><td> 19410 </td><td> 1008 </td><td> 54 </td><td> 60 </td><td> 59 </td><td> </td><td> -16 </td><td> 173 </td><td> $275 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 13 </td><td> </td><td> Alex Hughes </td><td> 5923 </td><td> 978 </td><td> 58 </td><td> 59 </td><td> 57 </td><td> </td><td> -15 </td><td> 174 </td><td> $250 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 14 </td><td> </td><td> Jay Reading </td><td> 15864 </td><td> 1007 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 63 </td><td> 55 </td><td> </td><td> -14 </td><td> 175 </td><td> $215 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 14 </td><td> </td><td> Nick Cassidy </td><td> 13800 </td><td> 986 </td><td> 59 </td><td> 58 </td><td> 58 </td><td> </td><td> -14 </td><td> 175 </td><td> $215 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 16 </td><td> </td><td> Tony Gerling </td><td> 17737 </td><td> 987 </td><td> 54 </td><td> 64 </td><td> 58 </td><td> </td><td> -13 </td><td> 176 </td><td> $190 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 17 </td><td> </td><td> Adam Hazel </td><td> 13933 </td><td> 994 </td><td> 57 </td><td> 61 </td><td> 59 </td><td> </td><td> -12 </td><td> 177 </td><td> $180 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 18 </td><td> </td><td> Greg Bilous </td><td> 15696 </td><td> 952 </td><td> 60 </td><td> 62 </td><td> 57 </td><td> </td><td> -10 </td><td> 179 </td><td> $170 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 19 </td><td> </td><td> James Hagen </td><td> 6943 </td><td> 983 </td><td> 59 </td><td> 62 </td><td> 60 </td><td> </td><td> -8 </td><td> 181 </td><td> $160 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 20 </td><td> </td><td> Rob Laurie </td><td> 3827 </td><td> 963 </td><td> 63 </td><td> 60 </td><td> 59 </td><td> </td><td> -7 </td><td> 182 </td><td> $150 </td></tr>
<tr><td> Master </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td><td> </td></tr>
<tr><td> Place </th><th> Points </th><th> Name </th><th> PDGA# </th><th> Rating </th><th> Rd1 </th><th> Rd2 </th><th> Rd3 </th><th> Finals </th><th> To Par </th><th> Total </th><th> Prize </th></tr>
<tr><td> 1 </th><th> </th><th> Brad Hammock </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> 1 </th><th> $300 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 2 </th><th> </th><th> Michael Sullivan </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> 2 </th><th> $200 </td></tr>
<tr><td> 3 </th><th> </th><th> Alex Hughes </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> </th><th> 3 </th><th> $100 </td></tr>
</table>

sandalman
Jul 05 2007, 11:07 PM
props to the CO for being open only! that is good to see. keep the sidebets to the side though!

chappyfade
Jul 06 2007, 12:52 AM
props to the CO for being open only! that is good to see. keep the sidebets to the side though!



But if you have a Masters only sidebet, you're not truly an Open only event, are you? As a matter of fact, you're worse off than if you had a Masters division, because the players over 40 didn't have to make a choice which division to play in. They could play in both.

By the way, I'm not casting aspersion otherwise on this event. By all accounts, Sully and the rest of the Toronto crew did a fantastic job pulling this off, and they are to be commended for running a fine event.

Chap

sandalman
Jul 06 2007, 01:11 AM
well, its Open-only on paper, even if they are tweaking the numbers. we cant really stop true sidebets from happening between players. it just needs to stay on the side.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 10:25 AM
- for some players such sidebets can equal the difference in whether they choose to play an event or not, and at least in terms of the Canadian Open, the event needed every player it could get



but on that basis the 47 player 14.6K Cdn Open would be the #1 or 2 NT event.


So you needed every player you could get at the "#1 or 2 NT event"? If what you say is true, then why do you have to offer "side-bet" incentives to Master's-aged players if this is the best event of all time?
So, if I understand this.....
-The CO was the #1 or 2 NT
-You needed every player you could get to the point of offer addition incentives on top of all the things you listed?

That doesn't make sense to me. Could you please explain?


BDH4022,
Does this question not warrant a response?
BTW, thanks for going out of your way to let us know you were a HOFer for something other than your disc golf ability. I will change my tone in so as not to sound ungrateful.

28��3

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 10:29 AM
P.S. If you want to circumvent whatever rules are in place about membership numbers, I'd be fine with you assigning me membership #128��3. That would be an even better way to pad our stats. Then you could say that we have had over 128,000 members! That works out to 135,416 Canadian members!
My logic is flawless!

ck34
Jul 06 2007, 10:33 AM
There is no direct correlation between a good event and the number who enter. If Dubai hosted an event with a $50,000 purse, loads of amenities and only 40 players came including 20 of the top 30 players, could it not be the best event ever because 100 didn't play? Providing incentives for players to attend is part of the process and Open purse alone is only one element.

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 10:36 AM
So
1st or 2nd largest paydays of the year, and excellent lunches + salmon for dinner, and was played on an outstanding course, not to mention players packages

is not enough to entice them? Yet, an extra Master's sidebet is the deal-breaker?
I'm all for incentives, but why not make them "across the board" and not age-specific?

chris_lasonde
Jul 06 2007, 11:10 AM
here's how it includes those sales:

" If the money is coming from the host or is managed by the host, then it's part of the overall event."

interesting that we're looking at MSDGC for examples of how to do things, isnt it :)



Sandalman, If you are a TD AND you are selling discs and other merchandise AND you are putting the revenue from those sales in the same cash box as the entry fees, the side bet money, the ace pot and the sponsor money, you not only need your head examined, but, at least in this neck of the woods, your tournament finances would be scrutinized pretty darned closely for inproprieties.

I have never been fond of the tournament model featuring the TD being a for-profit vendor at the tournament site as well.

I distinguish "for-profit vendor" from the TD (or host club) supplying the prizes for the amateur divisions, but unless you are equating the giving the prizes to am divisions as "sales," you are talking apples and oranges.

Jul 06 2007, 01:19 PM

chappyfade
Jul 06 2007, 01:28 PM
So
1st or 2nd largest paydays of the year, and excellent lunches + salmon for dinner, and was played on an outstanding course, not to mention players packages

is not enough to entice them? Yet, an extra Master's sidebet is the deal-breaker?
I'm all for incentives, but why not make them "across the board" and not age-specific?



Definitely not a deal breaker. I dunno what to say on this. The format is offered by some of the biggest and best events out there. The players like it. Having been to the JO and the EO in 06 and the CO in 07, I can confirm that players with names like Voakes, Dunipace, Hammock etc enjoy this format, and that at those 3 events I never heard a single MPO aged player express any concern about it. In Japan there were also trophies for the side divisions ... So why not give these players what they appreciate? I wish we could just see this issue in terms of PDGA customer satisfaction.



Of course, Hammock, Voakes, Dunipace like it....they all have an opportunity to benefit from it. I HAVE heard some grumblings from under 40 players about it. As far as I'm concerned, if those events would offer an additional sidebet for all players that are not Masters eligible, I'm all good with it. I'm all for what's fair, and players who are not Masters eligible simply do not have the same opportunities as those over 40 in these events.

Chap

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 01:33 PM
Its odd how "circumventing the competitive structure" can be positively spun as "customer service". The PDGA should have NOTHING TO DO with sidebets and shouldn't be reported as winnings. I wish the players with ratings over 1030 would have a $1000 per player sidebet only for players rated over 1030 and put it in the TD report as "winnings". You could really pad your stats that way!

sandalman
Jul 06 2007, 02:20 PM
what we're gonna do in texas is ask all registered players for an extra $150 in sidebet money. then we'll pay out every spot $150 in sidebet winnings. i figure this way we can generate up to $13,500 in event purse, moving us way up the purse ladder.

think about it... the pdga wins with an increased purse to brag about. the players win with their fatter winnings to brag about. they both win because it is consistant with the apparent pdga policies that everyone should be a winner. america wins because we'll all feel so much better about ourselves.

not

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 02:24 PM
Pat, you should do that at every event in texas. Call it a participation side bet. I mean, since everyone wins, why not just say $1,000,000 per player with a bunch of I.O.U.s. You could have $90,013,500 purse for the event! We'll be a legit sport in no time with that kinda purse!

Jul 06 2007, 02:31 PM

accidentalROLLER
Jul 06 2007, 02:36 PM
Why not include the Discraft, Innova, and Gateway bonus that the companies pay for winning tournaments into their stats? That should be just as valid as the sidebets. Its available to all the sponsored players at the tournament? Now that's some "added cash"!
The format of counting side-bets that aren't available to everyone as payout and winnings is unacceptable. If it is supported by the Competition Committee, then the committee members need to be kicked out.

sandalman
Jul 06 2007, 02:38 PM
no one is saying dont do the sidebets. have as many as you want. gamble as much as you wish. just keep that stuff out of the event purse and player winnings numbers. there is no gain - other than Ego - to be derived by including it. the loss is that is skews the numbers and makes it near impossible to understand what is going on.

chris_lasonde
Jul 06 2007, 03:35 PM
I understand the need to keep it separate. I agree completely. But why not keep track of it in A SEPARATE COLUMN if it contributes to the value of the tournament.

A tournament pays out $20,000 in purses and another $5,000 in skins. Matt-O (sorry, I'm a homer) takes home $2,000 for first place but only $500 in the skins.

Was the tournament value $20K or $25K? Did Matt-O win $2,000 or $2,500?

And what is lost by showing it SEPARATELY ... $2,000 in the purse column and $500 in the other prizes column?

sandalman
Jul 06 2007, 03:45 PM
well, honestly i am not sure what, if anything, is lost if it is in a separate column. i am not sure if anything is lost if it is simply not reported either though. there is a part of me that likes the puffery we get from saying 25K instead of 20K. but there is a bigger part of me that strongly resists lumping it together as purse. one number for actual purse and another for assorted sidebets, etc? maybe... maybe not. if you include the stuff that the TD operates then you will begin to pressure TDs to run more stuff, potentially detracting from the event. i am not real big on legislating against possibilities though, so i am not gonna suggest anything for he sole purpose of stopping a problem that is not happening. is the only requirement for including a sidebet the fact that the TD organized it?

sorry for the ramble... just throwing some stuff out there

chris_lasonde
Jul 06 2007, 04:38 PM
I agree at this point it is just food for thought ... several good points have been made about what would be permissable and what wouldn't.

I think side bets and skins and such would be permissable. I know the Southern National treasurer John Kittrell annually runs and match play tournament on the side within the Southern National Championships. It is chump change compared with the total payout, but someone who doesn't even cash can theoretically walk away with gas or supper money for the week.

I agree that ace pots and CTPs probably fall into the "forever unreported" category (at least for PDGA tournaments).

As a side note, can the TD report handle X-Tier events like skins, match play? What would the results look like for a 64-player match play event?

Jul 08 2007, 02:12 AM

ck34
Jul 08 2007, 09:08 AM
say see *professional* in the dictionary - a primary definition of a *pro* is someone who competes for cash, regardless of how big or small the cash may be..




It's also in the definition of a gambler. And like DG, a gambler doesn't rely on spectators and sponsors to produce their income to make a living as those we call professionals in most high profile sports. We just have ams like our pros who gamble using their DG skill to win merch instead of cash.

Just like there's no restriction on having sidebets for MPM and older divisions, there's likewise no restriction on having sidebets among those under age 40, 30, 20 or whatever age range wants to have it. Blame the TD for discriminating by not offering to manage sidebet action for whatever age group might want it. I suspect if the youngsters asked the TD to include them in the action, I believe they would. But I suspect they haven't been asked.

(Congrats on the ace and your good play as you head towards Worlds)

accidentalROLLER
Jul 08 2007, 09:32 AM
I agree with you that "ppa" and "app" are unequal opportunities and should be abolished. "Sidebets" should have nothing to do with the PDGA. If a few players want side action, fine. But it should not be counted as part of the purse and should not be counted as winnings unless everyone is eligible for the side action.
I am in favor of a more rigid Professional Division structure, and a less rigid Amateur Division structure.
Our division amateur divisions seem fine for the moment, maybe more attention should be paid to satisfying the lower, newer Ams. I think too much catering to the Adv. divisions goes on. My perception is that the PDGA is so worried about losing Master's and Adv players that the truly competitive division (Open) has suffered the consequences.
Creativity/Imagination/Flexibility all that is great. I am not against side-action, I am against side-action being counted as purse and payout, ESPECIALLY if it's not available to everyone. Side-bets, CTPs, Ace-Pots, Ring-of-Fire, Distance Comps, etc are all great and help attract people to events and are fun for all. However, you wouldn't count ace-pot winnings, or ring-of-fire winnings, as someone's payout; and thus, side-bets should not be counted as winnings.
BDH, what I, and hopefully many others, want is consistency and true competition. When I turn pro, (ifandwhen), I will be proud to compete in the Open division and would consider myself a professional....not a Masters Pro, not a GM Pro, but a Pro (I couldn't play Masters for 14 years anyway! though I never will). Like I have said, many times, if you want to have fun, play Am. If you want to compete for cash, act like a professional, and compete against the best, play Open.

keithjohnson
Jul 09 2007, 02:58 AM
Just like there's no restriction on having sidebets for MPM and older divisions, there's likewise no restriction on having sidebets among those under age 40, 30, 20 or whatever age range wants to have it. Blame the TD for discriminating by not offering to manage sidebet action for whatever age group might want it. I suspect if the youngsters asked the TD to include them in the action, I believe they would. But I suspect they haven't been asked.




speaking of "unequal opportunities"
ok....
so mr. PRO worlds td and rating genious.... :D
i'm asking to have a under 950 rated side pool for the masters players(there are only 5 or so at this time)so that i have a chance at winning SOMETHING in wisconsin....

almost half of the masters field is rated over 980 with over a 1/3 of the field over 1000.....

i'll even let you NOT REPORT it on the td report ;)

how about it...
i am asking nicely :D

keith

ck34
Jul 09 2007, 08:18 AM
I'm fine with any group having sidebets but they'll have to administer the pool and payouts themselves. :)

chappyfade
Jul 10 2007, 03:24 PM
Okey dokey, time for a little devil's advocate. Some folks have decried the MPM/MPG *side* bucks at select leading events as *unequal opportunity.*

I put to y'all that this is no more *u.e.* than *pros playing am* or *ams playing pro.* In the former players who have declared themselves pro or who won pro cash can play am: Name another sport that does this, yet alone allows Pros to win Am prizes. In the latter Ams are allowed to play Pro for a fraction of the entry fee for *trophy only*, or where a full entry is paid and starting again in 08 they will be able once again to take any value won for place of finish in merch and retain Am status. Personally I find this last scenario particularly bogus. Pros who want to play Am should apply for reclassification. Ams who play Pro should play under the same set of guidelines as the Pros themselves. Again, name another sport that allows this. Both *ppa* and *app* are in essence declarations that the PDGA pro/am system is f***ed (ummm .... flawed). To those who say well when you make 1200 bucks a year playing *pro* disc golf you're not a pro b/c its not your living, I say see *professional* in the dictionary - a primary definition of a *pro* is someone who competes for cash, regardless of how big or small the cash may be..

So let's hear from y'all how these 2 setups are any more or less *equal opp* than MPM/MPG *side* action. Heck this may be something that 28003 and I agree on ... or not.

If they are viewed as *u.e.'s* and they all need to go, and everyone is to henceforth play a more rigid format, the cost will be a fair slice of the event creativity/imagination/flexibility that our current system allows and that - at least some of us would say - is one of the fundamental and cool things about dg that has set it apart from other sports ...

BDH



First of all, I agree with you on the Am paying a lesser entry fee to play Pro. I'm not in favor of it.

"Pros Playing Am" is no different than a 1000 rated Masters-aged player choosing to play Masters. In "Pro playing Am", the lower-rated pro has a chance to play either in the appropriate pro division or the Advanced division. Same with the highly rated Masters-aged player....he can play Open or Masters. They have more choices....I accept that, and that's a good thing. However, players should have to make a choice.

Brian, your scenario is not analogous to the European, Canadian, and Japan Open scenarios. Masters-aged players in those tournaments don't have to make a choice....they can play both ways. In most other tournaments, those players have to choose a division and stick with it. Actually, I assume someone like Steve Wisecup could play in Open, and both the Masters and GM sidebets, meaning he has THREE chances to win money in a single tournament, whereas the top players under 40 only get one shot. That's inequitable. Steve should have to pick one sidebet or the other (and maybe that's the way it is, I'm not sure). Offer an under-40 sidebet, and we have no issues...equal opportunity for all.

I'm not against the sidebet idea, especially for those events that are Open-only. Just offer a sidebet for all competitiors. That's fair.

Chap

bruce_brakel
Jul 10 2007, 03:44 PM
I'm fine with any group having sidebets but they'll have to administer the pool and payouts themselves. :)

We frequently have an Am Master - Adv Women sidebet at tournaments Kelsey and I play. We administer it ourselves! :D

gang4010
Jul 10 2007, 04:33 PM
But if you have a Masters only sidebet, you're not truly an Open only event, are you? As a matter of fact, you're worse off than if you had a Masters division, because the players over 40 didn't have to make a choice which division to play in. They could play in both.





As it should be!! This thread is AWESOME - and highlights a point I have been trying to make elsewhere. The CO did the best thing possible for all involved. They made a SINGLE MENS division - and gave an extra incentive for older players (whom so many people think deserve protection from youger players) to participate. In this case - a 1000+ rated guy (who needs no protection - anywhere, anytime) was basically given NO CHOICE of who to play against - but WAS offered a choice of being rewarded based on age WITHIN / AND BASED UPON HIS FINISH IN THE LARGER GROUP. AND he had had to pay AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BONUS PRIZE.

So the possible reward grows if in fact a +40 player plays at the highest competitive level.

To me - this is infinitely more fair than separating those players into a completely separate division, and giving them the big $$ reward for a lesser score (which is the predominant scenario in most PDGA events). More often than not, MPM gets a lower entry fee, and the winners get paid more than their MPO counterparts shooting the same score - that is not fair.

marshief
Jul 10 2007, 05:47 PM
sooo... why not make the women play in the open division and extend a side bet to them as well?

tkieffer
Jul 10 2007, 06:21 PM
As it should be!! This thread is AWESOME - and highlights a point I have been trying to make elsewhere. The CO did the best thing possible for all involved. They made a SINGLE MENS division - and gave an extra incentive for older players (whom so many people think deserve protection from youger players) to participate. In this case - a 1000+ rated guy (who needs no protection - anywhere, anytime) was basically given NO CHOICE of who to play against - but WAS offered a choice of being rewarded based on age WITHIN / AND BASED UPON HIS FINISH IN THE LARGER GROUP. AND he had had to pay AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BONUS PRIZE.

So the possible reward grows if in fact a +40 player plays at the highest competitive level.

To me - this is infinitely more fair than separating those players into a completely separate division, and giving them the big $$ reward for a lesser score (which is the predominant scenario in most PDGA events). More often than not, MPM gets a lower entry fee, and the winners get paid more than their MPO counterparts shooting the same score - that is not fair.



For the 1000 rated Masters player perhaps this is fair as they have a chance to compete. For the 925, no its not. Its just a poorly disguised attempt to prop up the purse for the Open players.

sandalman
Jul 10 2007, 07:54 PM
the only thing i have against it is reporting the numbers as part of the purse. lots of subgroups have sidebets.

well, one more thing. i'm wondering if all this "sidebet" stuff could reopen the discussion about the legality of event formats. derivative action always looks more fishy than direct competition. i would not want to tip the scales towards closer scrutiny in jurisdictions where our events are technically illegal but within the accepted tolerances.

chappyfade
Jul 11 2007, 12:49 AM
The CO did the best thing possible for all involved. They made a SINGLE MENS division - and gave an extra incentive for older players (whom so many people think deserve protection from youger players) to participate. In this case - a 1000+ rated guy (who needs no protection - anywhere, anytime) was basically given NO CHOICE of who to play against - but WAS offered a choice of being rewarded based on age WITHIN / AND BASED UPON HIS FINISH IN THE LARGER GROUP. AND he had had to pay AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE BONUS PRIZE.

So the possible reward grows if in fact a +40 player plays at the highest competitive level.

To me - this is infinitely more fair than separating those players into a completely separate division, and giving them the big $$ reward for a lesser score (which is the predominant scenario in most PDGA events). More often than not, MPM gets a lower entry fee, and the winners get paid more than their MPO counterparts shooting the same score - that is not fair.



Actually, players choosing to play in the safer division (Masters) should get rewarded less than their counterparts in the tougher division (Open), even if they shot the same score. If they can shoot that well, play in the Open division for a bigger reward! Actually, probably the Masters division should go away entirely, and be replaced by an all-ages pro division with much lower entry fess and almost no added cash. Players will go where they can reap the biggest reward. But I digress, and I don't really want the thread to drift. That's not the point here.

It's pure and simple. If you offer a sidebet to one age group, you should offer a parallel sidebet to the other age groups. Otherwise, Brad Hammock has more of an opportunity to win more $$$ than Avery Jenkins, even if Avery beats the field by 30 shots. That's extremely unfair to Avery.

Chap

gang4010
Jul 11 2007, 07:27 AM
Perhaps you missed the point John, the existing Masters division has the rewards system all messed up by not forcing the best players to play in Open.
At the CO - they WERE forced to play in Open and were rewarded commensurately to their actual performance. Now was the sidebet appropriate? Eh - who cares??!!

This scenario echoes a suggestion I have made elsewhere, where in a single mens division there would be a base entry fee for all men, and then various add-ons, side bets, purse enhancers (what ever you wish to call them) for what we currently consider divisional classifications.
Base fee $40, Add $20 for MPM, Add $10 for M10, Add $30 for "Super Pro" - All the add-ons would be optional - making base entry affordable for all. And making the reward system reflect true performance in the overall field. This way would reduce the inequity made possible by the big sidebet at the CO. BUT - it would still make it possible for a top MPM player to get a bigger reward - but to do so they would have to be the best in multiple categories - which isn't unfair to anybody, because the choice being made has changed from choosing WHO you play against to HOW MUCH you are willing to pay to play. Two very different animals IMO.

Jeff_LaG
Jul 11 2007, 12:19 PM
This scenario echoes a suggestion I have made elsewhere, where in a single mens division there would be a base entry fee for all men, and then various add-ons, side bets, purse enhancers (what ever you wish to call them) for what we currently consider divisional classifications.
Base fee $40, Add $20 for MPM, Add $10 for M10, Add $30 for "Super Pro" - All the add-ons would be optional - making base entry affordable for all. And making the reward system reflect true performance in the overall field. This way would reduce the inequity made possible by the big sidebet at the CO. BUT - it would still make it possible for a top MPM player to get a bigger reward - but to do so they would have to be the best in multiple categories - which isn't unfair to anybody, because the choice being made has changed from choosing WHO you play against to HOW MUCH you are willing to pay to play. Two very different animals IMO.



That's one of the best ideas I've heard yet. A system like that could be the savior of our tournament structure.

ck34
Jul 11 2007, 12:31 PM
If it becomes a required format, the older pros are essentially like Ams who contribute "added cash" to the Open purse with their main entry fee and get payout from the sidebets. It won't take long for many of the older players to ask why they should play in this type of event and donate the main entry fee rather than just play the sidebets. And, we are back to our current system.

sandalman
Jul 11 2007, 12:50 PM
separate the two systems. running a Competition Track (Pro Tour) and a Players track (Players Tour) would reduce the increasing tension between the two set of needs... Competition Track is Open, Women, and Masters age 50. Players Track is our current structure (including the 2008 recommendations if you want them).

Jeff_LaG
Jul 11 2007, 01:47 PM
The base fee would cover tournament costs such as player's packs, ace pot, local club fees, PDGA player fees, free lunch, exclusive use of the course for the day, etc. It should be low enough and of such value that older pros would get their money's worth simply by participating in the tournament. They would never feel like they are "donating."

exczar
Jul 11 2007, 02:40 PM
I think what Craiger floated out there is very interesting. In fact, something quite similar to that was tossed about a long time ago. For simplicity's sake, I just going to use 3 divisions - Open, Master and GM.

- All pay the $100 entry fee, but an amount of the age-protected divisions go into another pot, say, $50 of the Master's entry and $75 of the GM's entry. An option here is to keep the 2 pots separate, but for this case, they are mixed together.

- All players play as one division, and are grouped by score.

- At the conclusion of the tournament, the payout finish is determined by score, but points (and trophies) are determined by finish in division.

- Payout: Here's the interesting part. For example, if the 3rd place player is a Master, this player gets to choose between the third place Open prize or the first place age-protected prize (or Master's prize, if the purses are kept separate). If he opts to take Open 3rd, then the Masters first slides down to the next age-protected player (or Masters, if the purses are separated) and the next Open division player would get Open 3rd.

So, let's say the finish was:

Open, Open, Master, Open, GM

and the Master opted to take the first place Master cash. Then the payout would be:

Open-1, Open-2, Master-1, Open-3

and the GM would have 3 options:

Open-4
Master-2
GM-1

This is a headache for a TD, believe me, I know that, but it's not that bad if you have the payout ready, and have players make their declarations ASAP after the cards have been turned in, so any applicable ties can be broken.

This approach solves some problems, but also creates some. We did not have X-tier option in my day, so I couldn't implement it even as a test, but I would love to see someone try it.

The amount that goes into a non-Open purse could depend not only on the divison, but also on the number of players in the age-protected division, or possibly based on each players rating, but figuring out that purse would _really_ be a nightmare for the TD!

Whaddya all think?

marshief
Jul 11 2007, 02:52 PM
what if a master and open player tie for 3, and the master wants 1st place master's cash? do they split the total 1st place M + 3rd place O?

interesting concept, but I see way too many kinks.

Jul 11 2007, 07:20 PM

Jeff_LaG
Jul 11 2007, 09:11 PM
How do rec players (read dg and PDGA growth) fit in here and feel they didnt get slaughtered/want to come back for more week after week ?

BDH



I'm pretty sure that Craigger's proposed system was intended to only replace the divisions with the greatest overlap in player ratings and scores - Open, Advanced, Masters, and possibly Grandmasters. The other divisions such as Intermediate and Recreational would still be preserved.

gang4010
Jul 12 2007, 08:46 PM
This scenario echoes a suggestion I have made elsewhere, where in a single mens division there would be a base entry fee for all men, and then various add-ons, side bets, purse enhancers (what ever you wish to call them) for what we currently consider divisional classifications.
Base fee $40, Add $20 for MPM, Add $10 for M10, Add $30 for "Super Pro" - All the add-ons would be optional - making base entry affordable for all. And making the reward system reflect true performance in the overall field. This way would reduce the inequity made possible by the big sidebet at the CO. BUT - it would still make it possible for a top MPM player to get a bigger reward - but to do so they would have to be the best in multiple categories - which isn't unfair to anybody, because the choice being made has changed from choosing WHO you play against to HOW MUCH you are willing to pay to play. Two very different animals IMO.



That's one of the best ideas I've heard yet. A system like that could be the savior of our tournament structure.



Very nicely done Craiger. I cant go (yet) for combining ams into what has primarily been a pro divisions issue but put me down for advocating that the Comp Committee take a serious look at this and its permutations for the Tour, albeit not for Worlds which should retain its flavor and tradition.

How do rec players (read dg and PDGA growth) fit in here and feel they didnt get slaughtered/want to come back for more week after week ?

BDH



OK - I'm back - I appreciate the folks who see the merits - or at least the potential in some system other than what we have now.

I'd like to address - at least a couple questions that have come up - at least in regard to how I have used this system at some of my non sanctioned events.

Someone posed the question or notion of a player having to choose from a prize pool (i.e. 1st place MPM vs 3rd place "Super pro"). In my concept - the player has the potential to win prizes in multiple categories - and only need choose to pay for those categories to be eligible. So let's say an MPM player enters for the $40 base entry fee, and pays the $20 add on for MPM, but not the "super pro" add-on. His score places him 3rd overall/1st in MPM - which makes him eligible for 3rd place out of everybody's base $40, and 1st place out of the people who entered the MPM sidepot of $20. So BDH had it right that there is basically a three column payout. If that same player had entered all three categories - he'd be eligible for 3rd place out of the base $40, 1st place "MPM", and whatever place "super" he actually placed in. If the 2 guys who scored better than him didn't enter the "super" - but he did - he'd get 3rd place "base" + 1st place "super" + 1st place MPM. What you are eligible for - is totally up to you. Who you are eligible to play against is only partially up to you - and IMO should be driven by a larger range of a "ratings style" group.

The events I have run in the past have been a little more limitied than what I am suggesting here - basically a single pro division - with an optional "super pro" fee. The base fee was $25-$30, with an optional $10-$15. Invariably, every time there was one guy who 4whatever reason - chose not to enter the optional entry fee pot - and placed in the cash - leaving a different player to collect a portion of the optional prize pool.

BDH asked how to reconcile the beginning /rec players into such a system. In events I have run in the past - the men were split basically into an am and a pro group - with all ams paying a basic base fee of $15-$25 with no add ons available. It would be easy enough to make the split by ratings - above/below any number between 900 and 940 would work - the break could even fluctuate based on event tier (as alluded to by Mr. Geibel) and would still leave room for fluctuations in entry fees based on rating (the sliding scale I suggested elsewhere), or variations based on event tier.

Pat's ideas for recreational vs competition driven events is a good example of one way to divide up the KINDS of events being offered. And reflects the basic divisional structure I have used in the past. The PDGA's role could be helping to manage and balance the number of each kind of event from one region to the next.

Brian, while I hear your hesitation to include the M10 division in the mix of this discussion, an inherent part of these types of considerations must be to shed our current nomenclature and loose and prejudicial "definitions" of what we currently understand as "am" vs "pro". They neither serve us very well, nor do they reflect accurately the differences (or lack thereof) in the skill level of the competitors in our various "player classifications".

I encourage ANYONE with a few extra minutes, to grab a set of tournament results, put all the men into a single category by score (take the divisional labels away), and see where the most significant breaks are in score (basically, the exercise is to make your own divisional breaks by obvious/objective scoring breaks). In almost every case I've looked at - the current divisions don't even come close to separating into groups by skill. But me saying so won't make a believer out of you - so do it yourself - the numbers don't lie!!

lafsaledog
Jul 12 2007, 09:59 PM
Boy , I am liking alot of what I am hearing .
Thanks for including my idea into your proposal
I know my ideas are based upon what we have now
but this idea sounds good too .
The idea of combining player rating caps based upon PDGA tier and a sliding entry fee scale to futher protect players with an extra gambling incentive for those in a certain " arbitrary " divisions is BRILLIANT .
NOW IS ANYONE REALLY LISTENING ????

ck34
Jul 12 2007, 10:09 PM
While the system sounds interesting from a gambling standpoint, doesn't it make tournaments look more like a gambling event with disc golf as the way to determine winners. We could use ratings as a starting point for placing bets on other players and have pari-mutuel betting operations if we could get that legalized. In fact, that might be a way to draw spectators/gamblers to the sport which could result in some bigger money flowing into the sport. Interesting angle for boosting visibility and scrutiny of how our sport is run. It's likely a two-edged sword.

With all of this personal cash flowing around, does the entry fee just include a flat admin fee for event hosts so TDs want to run events with this more complicated payout scheme? Sliding all of those Advanced players over to cash divisions undermines the current economics with the wholesale/retail differential helping finance events and sometimes provide some added cash. I'm thinking that either the sidebets or the main entry money has to be paid out in merch to keep our financial system operating well and only have cash payouts for Open?

bruce_brakel
Jul 12 2007, 11:02 PM
I have actually run that one-division-with-sidebets format sanctioned. Because it was sanctioned I had to do it trophy-only-with-sidebets. Every ratings bracket had the same sized sidebet to keep it simple. Most of the players were oblivious that all that was going on. They just said, "How much?" and I said "$30 PDGA, $35 non-PDGA."

gang4010
Jul 13 2007, 09:14 AM
With all of this personal cash flowing around, does the entry fee just include a flat admin fee for event hosts so TDs want to run events with this more complicated payout scheme? Sliding all of those Advanced players over to cash divisions undermines the current economics with the wholesale/retail differential helping finance events and sometimes provide some added cash. I'm thinking that either the sidebets or the main entry money has to be paid out in merch to keep our financial system operating well and only have cash payouts for Open?




I think this system offers the possibility of merging w/our past practices of cash vs merch. We would just have to reconcile the rules dictating who can accept what. I see no real issue w/a player who would rather accept merchandise in lieu of cash.
The base entry fee could be used in mutiple ways. It could combine as an admin fee, provide players packs, tournament amenities, etc. And could also still play a significant part of base purse prizes.