I'd like to offer trophy only pricing for INT ams playing up to pro but allow them to take cash. IF by some fluke they do actually place in the cash, by accepting it they would become pro and have to move up anyway which would result in increased pro field size and competition. also it would result in increased pdga membership fees. probably they would decline the cash anyway though. In the event ams over 935 would be playing pro anyway but can accept merchandise in lieu of cash as provided for by the new PDGA guidelines.

Look at Bruce's Half-in idea (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Ratings%20&%20Skill-based%20Competition&Number=740621&Searchpage=0&Mai n=740621&Search=true&#Post740621) . It allows for reduced entry fees (with reduced payouts for those players).

What % of the pro fee is "trophy only pricing"?

I've heard a lot of good ideas in this area, and am glad to see TDs being innovative. Last time I talked about trophy only pricing, my recollection is that it still might be too high. I've really warmed up to Gangloff's general philosophy of handicapped pricing (as I remember it at least). I would like to see players rated say 950ish and below be allowed to enter for say $20 to a tourney where the open payed $70. I see it as close to a win/win. The am guys get a very affordable experience and the pros get both bigger fields and an increased purse. I don't think this idea would necessarily help the top guys out much. In fact, it might hurt some, but it would get more people playing together, and that would be a good step, imo. Anyways, I hope you try it and meet with success.

The PDGA counts Trophy players toward payout at 3:1.
For every three trophy only players, the number of entries used to calculate payout increases by one. By that standard, the entry fees need to be at least 1/3 of the pro entry fee or the payout gets watered down.

If you price trophy-only pro at $15 when the pro entry fee is $45 almost no one will play trophy-only pro other than Kelsey and her friends. Trophy-only has not worked well to draw players into our Open field. That's why we're trying Half In in 2008.

Bruce- I thought that the T.O. was seeing some success. How many Pro played T.O. at Aurora this year?

I thought that there were a number of players who used the T.O. option this past year. If there was no TO option, I can think of a number of advanced players that were waiting for Am Worlds that would have kept playing ADV instead of TO..(myself and Jeremy Bogan off the top of my head)

i might have to use craiger's old standby, the superpro pot which would be outside the event and just reduce the pro entry fee to equal the am fee so that people can play up for the same amount.

after considering it for some time i am also warming up to craigs idea of ratings based fees. but after talking to gentry i wouldn't count on the pdga, meaning gentry, giving it any real consideration. i get the feeling he , and therefore the pdga, is not open to any ideas along these lines. unfortunately the tour manager is not an elected position so no real accountability exists. if we don't like what is going on there is nothing we can do about it.

The "accountability" is the Competition Committee which is overseen by BOD member, Chris Bellinger, even though Dave is Chair. I would think staged fees in a ratings format would be approved for an X-tier. I didn't look at the tour guide but does it explicitly state that everyone must be charged the same fee in a division? We already know that different fees can be charged for T.O. in a division.

I did look at the competition manual and no where does it state that the same fee must be charged. It explicitly states that trophy only can play for a reduced fee. Note that it is also common to have reduced fees for early pre-registrants. An enterprising TD could have a graduated entry fee based on pre-registration date and at the same time, limit pre-registration based on another criteria (ala invites). It really depends on how difficult the TD wants to make the calculations.

after considering it for some time i am also warming up to craigs idea of ratings based fees.



If you meant ratings based "entry" fees, I am not in favor of this idea. If I understand the concept correctly, competitors would pay an entry fee relative to their player rating; thus, higher rated players would pay a larger entry fee than lower rated players. If the payout structure is "traditional", meaning a division pays out the top 30% or 40% with no concession or discounted payout for the lesser-paid-entry players, I do not think the system is fair. It could easily be argued that the 1000-rated player is being "penalized" for their skill set. I realize the concept could potentially increase the pro purse and the odds will always be in favor of the highest rated players in the field. Nonetheless, I consider the concept unfair....even though it would plausibly result in more money paid to the highest rated players in the field.

Now, if the payout is somehow adjusted relative to the discount fees, that's a different spin on the idea (i.e. "Half-In" or something similar).

If entry fess in a single division are ratings based, then PDGA tournaments will even more look like gambling with a bookie (i.e. our rating gurus) setting the odds.

Considering that players would not be forced to enter an event with this proposed format, wouldn't 'fairness' be determined by the marketplace?

Considering that players would not be forced to enter an event with this proposed format, wouldn't 'fairness' be determined by the marketplace?



You are 100% correct.

Not saying I would be willing to pay a reduced fee to compete in Open. I'd be too busy calculating my 'percentage' take per Krupicka's comment... :eek:

Responding to Dana, we had a huge trophy-only Open field at Aurora. It was something like ten of the 21 players were trophy-only. That was the only time we've ever had more than one or two trophy-only players in Open.

Aurora was right after Worlds, so maybe that had something to do with it. Also, it looked like some of the home course lower ams played trophy-only Open on the upper day.

I think cashing pros will like 1/2-In a little better than Trophy-Only. We'll still have a reduced entry fee option, but for the reduced entry fee player, if he finishes above the cash line, he cashes. For the full entry fee player, if a 1/2-In player cashes, his other half gets paid up, so the players at the top won't feel like the reduced entry fee players are reducing their payout. Just the opposite. With the new rule for ams taking prizes instead of cash, 1/2-In might work better for the Advanced players who want to play both days than trophy-only would have.

Trophy-only has worked well in the lower divisions. It has brought a lot of intermediates out on the upper day. It encouraged the Am 4s to play before we had an Am 4 division, and it helped me figure out how to create an Am 4 division before the PDGA created it.

But other than for the am women who wanted to play with Barrett, trophy-only has not gotten much traction on the pro side.

This is a GREAT idea for pro only tournaments.

However, I think the stipulation of the player must deny cash / merch is needed to make it fair.

This is a GREAT idea for pro only tournaments.

However, I think the stipulation of the player must deny cash / merch is needed to make it fair.




:confused: Then half-in is no different than trophy only.

true.

its just not fair or someone to be able to able to accept prizes without paying full price.

Lotteries pay out the same prizes whether you buy 20 tickets or just 1 even though the person buying 20 has 20 times the chance of winning.

I don't even know how to respond to that b/c it is such a terrible analogy.

Bruce- you may want to check the numbers for IOS#4 in Rockford. There were at least 4 TO MPO's

I don't even know how to respond to that b/c it is such a terrible analogy.


It's perfectly valid. If your chances are less likely to win the same prize, you pay less. If you're going to win less for a lower entry fee, you might as well have your own division which is the way we have it now. If you're doing staged entry fees based on the chances of cashing, then the payouts should remain the same regardless what you paid in.

holycow, i just found myself agreeing with chuck! :confused:

just do trophy only- the ams will play up and you can ignore all the hocus pocus. reduced fees for pros based on rating are silly.

yes but every person has the option of how many lottery tickets to buy. Golfers don't buy more than one entry fee.

I got my first pro cash when paying this way, '04. Oak Hollow Open in High Point, NC offered a reduced entry fee to the pro weekend for all ams who wanted to play. It boosted the field size and made for a good payout. I think it is a great idea. :) A reduced payout for reduced entry fee doesn't make sense; either accept and move up or take nada and stay am. KISS ;)

just do trophy only- the ams will play up and you can ignore all the hocus pocus. reduced fees for pros based on rating are silly.



That was my first reaction as well. I used to advocate what Bruce describes, based on a parimutuel model from horseracing. When I first heard of handicapped based entry, I thought "wow, it penalizes good people. That's not fair." I still philosophically agree with that value judgement, but after considering those two options, along with trophy only, I've warmed to the handicapping idea.

Separate pools is inherently fair, and understandable enough to me, but I've concluded that it is difficult to communicate to the average TD and player. Trophy only suffers from the fact that it doesn't offer a financial reward for deserving play and is difficult for TDs to plan for, and thus it is not usually offered.

The handicapped system is easier to explain AND allows the lower level guys, who only have a slim hope, actual cash should they play well. This is what makes it superior to trophy only, imo. Handicapped entry fee scales can take a variety of forms. It can range from the a model like this:
Rating.......entry
1020.........$120
1000 - 1019..$100
980-999......$80
so on and so on

OR, the scale be simpler, such as

rating...........entry fee
950 and above.....$60
< 950.............$20

My main goal is to increase participation at the highest levels, get players looking forwards instead of sideways. While I think the separate pools concept is more fair, I'm not sure it will increase participation as much. In sum, I will sacrifice fairness and purity for a more successful carny system.

Well, just to be clear, we are not offering a reduced entry fee to players with low ratings. We're offering a reduced entry fee to any players who want a reduced payout in the pro divisions.

This is no different from what other tournaments do when they have a bonus payout for the players who pay extra. It is just a different way of talking about it.

It is also the same as trophy-only but with different percentages. Instead of offering a 66% discounted entry entry fee with a 0% payout, were offering a 50% entry fee with a 50% percent payout. Mathematically, this is a far better value than trophy-only for the player who wants to play the tournament but doesn't want to burn the $45 or $50 entry fee we'd normally charge.

I didn't mean to imply any differently. I understand your model, as it is like the horseracing model. Fundamentally, I think it is the fairest and most innovative scheme, I just think it is terribly hard to communicate, and that limits it. Kudos to you for trying it. I hope it is successful and people begin to understand it, and how simple it really is.

Right now TADGA offers Open entry fees at $43.00
Our trophy only entry fee is $20.00

Out of both full and trophy only come 2 for PDGA, 2 for Point Series. So essentially 16 versus 39 into the pot.

Out of both full and trophy only come 2 for PDGA, 2 for Point Series. So essentially 16 versus 39 into the pot.

Like Yoda this young one speaks! Hmmm?

http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/01/23-2151198072T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/user_imageredirect.php?iid=1149167)
If Half-In works better for us than Trophy-Only, I'll let you know.

Does anyone know of an example of a sport where the entry fees are higher for better players? If anything for the really good players the entry fee is waived to get the player to the event.


My other question is has anyone ran the numbers to see how often a 1000 rated player beats a 1020 player? Or how often a 980 player beats beats them both? I would think you would need this info to set you prices? I don't think pricing should should be blocked, because then a 1000 rated player pays $100 and a 999 rated player pays $80, which is too much of a difference.

While it might make sense to stage entry fees based on probabilities, consumers (players) typically don't make decisions to enter or not with that level of precision. If you set the table with stepped entry fees and enough players enter the event, the entry fees were set correctly. If not enough enter then you tweak them. It may take a little bit to figure out what steps are acceptable to players.

Does anyone know of an example of a sport where the entry fees are higher for better players? If anything for the really good players the entry fee is waived to get the player to the event.



none that I can think of but also can't think of another sport that is expected to 'pay out' 1/3rd (or whatever %age an event uses) to the field.

Can anyone else think of a sport that is expected to 'pay out' or give prizes proportionately to disc golf PDGA events?

do amatuer ball golf tournaments pay out except to the winner? or even to the winner?

Ball golf Ams are "limited" to receiving $750 value per event but I believe this is mostly obtained via player packs vs competition prizes.

Ball golf Ams are "limited" to receiving $750 value per event but I believe this is mostly obtained via player packs vs competition prizes.



Not necessarily. Prize vouchers are often given in competitions such as the Missouri Amateur Championship in relation to place of finish in the tournament. The winner receives a more valuable prize voucher than the tenth place finisher. The $750 limit is correct, of course, according to USGA Rules of Amateur Status 3-2a. Three-person scrambles in Columbia, MO (at the course I used to work at) used to give away gift cards to the local grocery stores as prizes. Almost as good as cash, really, since everyone buys groceries, but they complied with the USGA rule. And these sorts of scrambles often don't have a player's pack at all, but sometimes they do.

An exception to this rule would be hole-in-prizes (ace funds perhaps). These could exceed the $750 and an amateur could still accept it and retain amateur status.

Chap