Dick
Apr 02 2008, 12:44 PM
The 2 things i didn't like about the ratings based event i tried were:

1. Forcing some ams to play up to open. - i think this should be a choice each person should make, though i want to make it as easy as possible by trying to keep the price for the top am division the same or clos eot the price for the pro division.

2. Only giving the lower rated pros, mostly masters and grandmasters the option of playing am or getting thrown to the wolves. - this is a bit stickier of a wicket. without using age based divisions in pro, it makes it difficult to allow people who are rated under 955 or so to play for cash. Really, some masters and even grandmasters can compete with the top players. But in my opinion, they are the exception to the rule. Also there is a large group of players who will likely never be able to progress above a 955 rating fo rvarious reasons, but who don't really want to play for plastic. NOt sure how to solve this in a ratings based format. if i could pay cash to the silver division maybe? I tihnk maybe the ideal solution was the old pro2 division, which died out since nobody used it. I could assign people in silver as pro2, and then if you are an am, according to the new rules you could take plastic if you wished and retain your status for worlds or whatever.


I'm curious what other people think. Maybe there is a solution out there i'm not thinking of.

MCOP
Apr 02 2008, 12:51 PM
There is no rule that forces AM's to play pro.

krupicka
Apr 02 2008, 12:59 PM
It's called not offering MA1. Leaving gender and age divisions aside, if you run a tournament with only the following divisions: MPO, MA2, MA3, MA4; some AMs will have to play pro to be eligible play in that tournament.

Dick
Apr 02 2008, 01:30 PM
which is what i did. i think the 935 cutoff was a little low. i'd have been much happier with pro, pro2 ,rec. that would give me 50 point breaks and allow the silver guys the choice of cash or plastic. assuming pro2 was <955.

Dick
Apr 02 2008, 01:32 PM
the closest thing i can do currently, which i guess i may try, would be to offer pro, advanced and int (or rec) as my gold silver and bronze. but that doesn't give those lower rated pros a place to compete and not be forced to take plastic.

Dick
Apr 02 2008, 01:34 PM
FYI - here are the results from RB Experiment 1 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7755)

cgkdisc
Apr 02 2008, 01:45 PM
If you look at your tournament results, it's apparent that the current 970 break between Advanced and Pro would have been almost perfect had you included Advanced instead of having all players over 934 play Open.
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7755#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=7755#Open)
Two guys under 970 cashed with only one accepting and that was last cash. Only two players at 970 or higher were not in the cash in the bottom half of that Open division. Looks like Keith is an "old guy" with a bad day. The clear split in skill levels is about as clear as it could be and only after two rounds at a C-tier. Usually more likely to see this split with more rounds and higher tiers but there are many top level players floating around in MADC compared with some areas hosting C-tiers.

For the Mid-Nats ratings event, we got an exemption so that "pros" who cashed could get cash at half the value of their merch prize (or any portion of it) if they wish. Dave isn't against that as a future policy for ratings based events but didn't want to add that this year in addition to the other changes introduced. Ask Dave to approve it for your next experiment. Thanks for pursuing this.

Dick
Apr 02 2008, 05:06 PM
For the Mid-Nats ratings event, we got an exemption so that "pros" who cashed could get cash at half the value of their merch prize (or any portion of it) if they wish. Dave isn't against that as a future policy for ratings based events but didn't want to add that this year in addition to the other changes introduced.



So we could set a percentage of retail other than 50%, which might be a little low? typically i think for my events 75-80% would be fine since that is what i would pay the plastic man for the funny money. that 20% goes a long way towards paying the expenses!

cgkdisc
Apr 02 2008, 05:23 PM
The idea is to keep it simple, not precisely hit the perfect conversion. Plus, doing the conversion at all is a convenience for those players who truly aren't pros but normally play for cash. Everyone needs some merch once in a while each year and players below 970 are unlikely to be sponsored so they get free stuff. I enjoyed winning scrip in Advanced earlier this year at the IDGC monthly and got a new bag in the shop there.

bruce_brakel
Apr 02 2008, 10:18 PM
This is how you can run a PDGA sanctioned tournament and use any ratings breaks you want to use and pay cash or prizes to whomever you want to:

Set your entry fee at a number equal to your PDGA fee plus your prorated overhead. For a simple tournament this might be $5.

Then offer ratings based sidebets instead of divisions. So if you want "Open" to be open and Pro 2 or whatever to be <950 or whatever, those are the parameters for getting in the sidebet.

On the TD report you'll show everyone as having played open, or open and advanced if that works better.

I have actually done this without a problem, more than once. Here's one: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6634 The "advanced division" was really two or three ratings based sidebets.

When I do this, I do not bother to explain it to my players very much. I just tell them, "We're doing an experimental format that won't show up on pdga.com exactly the way it looked on the leaderboard. Because of this amateurs will get MORE pdga points than they would otherwise have received. Sorry about that."

gang4010
Apr 03 2008, 08:47 AM
If you look at your tournament results, it's apparent that the current 970 break between Advanced and Pro would have been almost perfect had you included Advanced instead of having all players over 934 play Open.



Don't believe any of this bunk Dick - the event you ran was perfect the way it was. You paid deep (1/2 the field), had a very reasonable entry fee ($35), players rated 960 cashed, MPM players cashed - and GOT PAID EQUITABLY. All this shows that these players were right where they were supposed to be (amongst the MEN). The notion that the divisional cut line should be at 970 would have just driven the cash cut line up to 980+.

The notion that upper rated players (let's remember that players rated over 970 are less than 15% of the total pDGA membership) should be segregated into smaller and smaller divisions is insulting to the whole concept of COMPETITION.

Congratulations on a well run event Dick. It's disheartening to hear you lament your own set up. Don't tear it down - build it up!!!

hawkgammon
Apr 03 2008, 12:13 PM
2. Only giving the lower rated pros, mostly masters and grandmasters the option of playing am or getting thrown to the wolves.



Newsflash: The 935 rated Masters and Grandmasters aren't pros ...they are coddled older Am's . They need to be honest with themselves and accept their am-ness. You and I ca$hed as Masters but that didn't mean we were highly skilled. We simply benefited from disc golf socialism which is contrary to the spirit of competition.

dtwo
Apr 03 2008, 03:00 PM
If you look at your tournament results, it's apparent that the current 970 break between Advanced and Pro would have been almost perfect had you included Advanced instead of having all players over 934 play Open.

Don't believe any of this bunk Dick


Agreed ... the goal was to limit the field to 3 groups so that with a field size of 72 you would have reasonably sized groups. That mission was accomplished!!! Perhaps at Rockburn with a field size of 90, 4 groups makes sense?

Dick was also considering dropping the Disc that each Pro gets so the purse in Pro will be bigger. In that scenario, the question is: "Will the Donating Players continue to attend given the entry fee and free lunch?" Honestly ... It was the Punisher!! You could fill it with two groups!

Personally, I think the breaks at ~50 points like the Seneca non-sanctioned tournaments are the best. It think that a ~75 point spread is a little large



Congratulations on a well run event Dick.

Agreed!!! I was out at Patapsco during lunch today, and the sight of the flag sticks that the tournament donations helped pay for brought a smile to my face. #11 putted out real nice too!

Dick
Apr 16 2008, 12:37 PM
For the Mid-Nats ratings event, we got an exemption so that "pros" who cashed could get cash at half the value of their merch prize (or any portion of it) if they wish. Dave isn't against that as a future policy for ratings based events but didn't want to add that this year in addition to the other changes introduced. Ask Dave to approve it for your next experiment. Thanks for pursuing this.





Yeah, request denied. Gentry's response was "won�t be possible this year due to the additional work that will be required in order to import the results into our system" Considering they aren't even capable of sanctioning my event in a timely manner or getting the pre-reg page up, maybe we should consider if Dave is in over his head and consider hiring someone else.

bruce_brakel
Apr 16 2008, 03:39 PM
For the Mid-Nats ratings event, we got an exemption so that "pros" who cashed could get cash at half the value of their merch prize (or any portion of it) if they wish. Dave isn't against that as a future policy for ratings based events but didn't want to add that this year in addition to the other changes introduced. Ask Dave to approve it for your next experiment. Thanks for pursuing this.





Yeah, request denied. Gentry's response was "won�t be possible this year due to the additional work that will be required in order to import the results into our system" Considering they aren't even capable of sanctioning my event in a timely manner or getting the pre-reg page up, maybe we should consider if Dave is in over his head and consider hiring someone else.

You don't need any permission to do this either. Just pay them out in prizes and buy the prizes back at 50 cents on the dollar. That asdsumes that you handle the merch "in house." When you handle the merch in house, you have a lot of options for running things the way the PDGA wants you to while simultaneously doing what you want to do.