kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 07:40 PM
Here's something I have submitted to the PDGA office, without much response, wanted to know what you players thought. In a typical tournament, score determines place and top places get paid based from purse %'s. My idea is for strokes to determine the payout. Take a field of 40 golfers, the top 10 will get paid. To figure payout start with the winner and give them one point for their score, say it was 200, they would continue to get points for every stroke down the line to the last place cash. If the person who got 2nd shot 205, the winner would have 5 more points than 2nd place. Continue doing this till last place cash has their 1 point. Then add up all the points and divide the purse into them. This will determine a $/point value. Then multiply that value by the # of points a player has for their payout. Obviously if their is a tie for the win, the playoff winner should get a little bonus, but why have a dramaticly different payout for the same golf skills being paid. Also, final 9's would have to include all cashing players, or let the finals be for skins or some other added incentive. If ratings and places are based off of score why not payout? This system pays how you play, if the feild is flat, so is the payout. If a player shoots the lights out and runs away from the field, the payout will reflect that. Apply this to past tourneys, see the difference?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 08:29 PM
Sound good...or is it too confusing...I was worried about the math skills of the DG demographics. :eek: :o:D

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 08:35 PM
One major problem is that it prevents posting the payout before the last round starts according to the tour guide. This payout procedure would generate unacceptable "crunch time" work at the end of the scoring for the TD who can't prepare any of the pay envelopes during lunch or the last round. It's all they can do to sort out finish positions, adjust payouts for ties and get playoffs settled under the current process.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 08:48 PM
The formula can be posted before the tournament, for the tournament guide. Crunch time...it'd take 7 min.s to determine payout for an unexperienced person. The same time it'd take for players to put their bag away and say goodbye's if they were in that much of a hurry to get a check. With this system you don't hafta adjust for ties, their # of points would be the same. They played the same, they're paid the same. And lastly playoffs get settled, regardless of the payout format.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 08:58 PM
You'll have to persuade the Rules Committee and Competition Committee to change rules. But I think your biggest challenge will be to persuade the TDs that it's worth their effort to do last minute calculations. That's a much tougher crowd to persuade. And contrary to what some think, the PDGA does listen to this important group regarding policy changes.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 09:06 PM
BTW, I'm not blowing a hole in your proposal on its technical merits. I think it's an interesting way to do payouts and can certainly see it being used at non-sanctioned events. In fact, there are TDs who deviate from the proposed PDGA tables as it is, but most announce it in advance so players know what to expect. I just can't see it becoming some default format for PDGA sanctioned events. That's all.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 09:11 PM
Do the Rules or Competition Directors read the board? I believe all players would like to see the payout reflect strokes, why wouldn't they? The purpose of the different format is to get the current payout to reflect score. If score matters so much to determine placing, why is it suddenly discarded for payout weight?

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 09:22 PM
Look at any sport and there's a big difference between winning versus all other places. Very few remember who finished after first or first three in sports with gold/silver/bronze. Big rewards hinge on a putt, foul shot, home run or goal, whether right or wrong. Rewards in our society are rarely proportional to the effort. I believe players accept and support that, at least at the top.

From a practical standpoint, the current payout tables have reflected that with bigger steps at the top and relatively flat changes below that, very similar to what I expect your score approach would emulate below the top positions.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 09:46 PM
The difference between the top places/scores will be much different than other players. You might not remember who finished after 1st, but many fans have, do, and will. You honestly believe that players support, "that rewards in our society are rarely proportional to the effort." Why in gods name would anyone support that? Maybe if you bought a lottery ticket!...that was within walking distance. What you expect out of my "Score approach" is different from the current approach and likewise has different results. The origins of the post.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 09:59 PM
I say do it. Players will tell you what they think. TDs can see your posts and will contact you for how to do it if they're interested. I truly wish you luck.

I'm giving you experienced feedback. It just doesn't work as a standard practice the way PDGA tournaments are currently run.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 10:06 PM
I cherrish your interest, time, thought, and reply's. Truly. I am a Taurus and wouldn't have posted unless I was willing to go headstrong. Hopefully others will have the willingness to try it and be open to change. Busineses hafta adapt to clientelles needs...huh.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 10:09 PM
I thought you old boys were in bed by now?? :o:D

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 10:19 PM
Some of us have to stay up and watch what the youngsters are doing on here. :D

If you're in NC, test your ideas with some of the TDs around there. They will tell you how well they think it might work.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 10:27 PM
I've already tested it, it's what belonged all along. I want a big hitter to get off the bench.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 10:35 PM
So far, no one else has joined this discussion in support or not, but it's still early.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 10:38 PM
True, this format would help everyone they just don't know it yet.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 10:43 PM
If you were really rewarding based on performance (other than first place), shouldn't the payout be based on how well each player shoots relative to their rating?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 10:51 PM
That could be an interesting point, but it would once again fall lopsided in the case of a local with a low rating playing great on their home course. Ratings are based off of (almost) all tournament performances rather than just home course ratings, or the tourney at hand. Anyway aren't ratings based off of score as an after-effect. Payout would be based off of scores as a direct-effect. Shouldn't the player rating and the score shot be fairly close anyway :o:o:eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :DGo to bed Chuck you're tired.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 11:05 PM
Chucky from St.Elm St.

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 11:11 PM
Except one throw is worth a different amount of rating points depending on the course difficulty.

I can see where this system becomes a disincentive for people to make an extra effort to win. It's so tough living on the road that it doesn't make sense for a player to risk chasing down the leader because they can do just fine based on cashing via score, even if it's just one back of the winner. That's only one point back in this system, likely just a few bucks.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 11:17 PM
Handicaps do not belong in open tournaments. Maybe on the Amatuer swing though. Somewhere the proposed format wouldn't reside...due to baggers blowing "The Field" away and scooping up Xtra goodies.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 11:29 PM
Living on the road is what this system promotes. Playing conservative may be a strategy worth employing at any point in a tournament. As soon as golfers realize that a "point" or "stroke" is worth $50-$70, let them play how they see fit. If it's a duece hole, duece. Three hole, three. They aren't chasing down a leader, they're playing a course. How do they chase down the leader, follow him real close to the next tee box? Why wouldn't you want your score to represent your paychex?

ck34
Jan 12 2006, 11:43 PM
I'm not sure you understand the mindset of elite players and incentives which I discussed earlier in all sports. I believe they would say winning by one shot should be rewarded just as much as winning by 10. I'm not at their level but I've been around them enough to learn some of how they think. Those who live on the road work out their own arrangements to split the money when they can.

gnduke
Jan 12 2006, 11:44 PM
Could you post a few examples of how it would differ from traditional payout from a few previous tournaments for our viewing pleasure ?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 11:59 PM
You're right, you're not sure. The mindset of a top player will be, play great, get paid great. Play poorly get paid poorly. How elite...how novel. How great or how poor will be defined by strokes, not strictly place. Chuck I'm starting to sense you are just looking for a good challenge...or arguement. Can you tell me why you personally wouldn't want a format like this? Leaving the Elite Players, TD's, and Administrators to tell us themselves.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 12 2006, 11:59 PM
Give me a tournament, without a final 9.

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 12:13 AM
My objections are the inability to post payouts in advance (which outweighs everything else), less incentive to try harder to win, and I've won often enough that my mindset is that first should win significantly more than second regardless of the margin of victory. In addition, let's say I'm the favorite in a division based on rating. Assuming I shoot the best score, my reward for winning will be based on the mix of lower rated players who show up.

For example, say 15 players show up in my division which I win. If it's a strong field and I barely beat the four players who would cash (let's use top third for example) by just one or two throws, I will earn less than if it's a weaker field and I finish eight throws ahead of the next four players who cash. That seems to be the opposite of what you would expect based on the challenge. Beating the stronger field should be worth at least as much as beating the weaker field and a case could be made that it should get a higher reward not lower, if I correctly understand your math.

denny1210
Jan 13 2006, 12:21 AM
Looking over your suggestion, I see it's actually two suggestions.
1) Pay the top 1/4 of the field instead of the top 1/3 or top 1/2.
2) Distribute the purse differently according to score instead of place.

As to #1, I think that would create a disincentive for people to play pro. Here in Florida, as well as other places in the country the pro fields are often a bit thin. Convincing Pro 2 types to play open instead of Advanced will be tougher if their chances of cashing go from slim to none. Having said that, I decided to plug some #'s to look at how the purse distribution would change assuming that the # of cashing spots remains the same.

These are from the 2005 Fabulous Florida Tour:

<table border="1"><tr><td> 2005 Moccasin Lake Open</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score</td><td>Payout</td><td>"Points" </td><td>New Payout</td><td>Difference</td><td>Stroke $ Value
</td></tr><tr><td>181</td><td>950</td><td>19</td><td>666</td><td>-284</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>184</td><td>599</td><td>16</td><td>561</td><td>-38</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>187</td><td>416</td><td>13</td><td>456</td><td>40</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>188</td><td>320</td><td>12</td><td>420</td><td>100</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>190</td><td>260</td><td>10</td><td>350</td><td>90</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>191</td><td>208</td><td>9</td><td>315</td><td>107</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>193</td><td>170</td><td>7</td><td>245</td><td>75</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>195</td><td>148</td><td>5</td><td>175</td><td>27</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>195</td><td>148</td><td>5</td><td>175</td><td>27</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>198</td><td>130</td><td>2</td><td>70</td><td>-60</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>199</td><td>120</td><td>1</td><td>35</td><td>-85</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>3469</td><td>99</td><td>3013</td><td>0</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 Orlando Open</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score</td><td>Payout</td><td>"Points" </td><td>New Payout</td><td>Difference</td><td>Stroke $ Value
</td></tr><tr><td>188</td><td>320</td><td>30</td><td>387</td><td>67</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>199</td><td>185</td><td>19</td><td>245</td><td>60</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>208</td><td>130</td><td>10</td><td>129</td><td>-1</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>214</td><td>100</td><td>4</td><td>52</td><td>-48</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>217</td><td>90</td><td>1</td><td>13</td><td>-77</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>825</td><td>64</td><td>825</td><td>0</td><td>13
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 Capital City Disc Golf Tournament</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score</td><td>Payout</td><td>"Points" </td><td>New Payout</td><td>Difference</td><td>Stroke $ Value
</td></tr><tr><td>205</td><td>423</td><td>348</td><td>595</td><td>172</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>208</td><td>238</td><td>163</td><td>279</td><td>41</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>213</td><td>152</td><td>77</td><td>132</td><td>-20</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>215</td><td>108</td><td>33</td><td>56</td><td>-52</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>216</td><td>87</td><td>12</td><td>21</td><td>-66</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>217</td><td>76</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>-74</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1084</td><td>634</td><td>1084</td><td>0</td><td>105
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>2005 Daytona Open</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Score</td><td>Payout</td><td>"Points" </td><td>New Payout</td><td>Difference</td><td>Stroke $ Value
</td></tr><tr><td>220</td><td>500</td><td>18</td><td>464</td><td>-36</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>226</td><td>300</td><td>12</td><td>309</td><td>9</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>230</td><td>240</td><td>8</td><td>206</td><td>-34</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>231</td><td>155</td><td>7</td><td>180</td><td>25</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>231</td><td>155</td><td>7</td><td>180</td><td>25</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>233</td><td>100</td><td>5</td><td>129</td><td>29</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>233</td><td>100</td><td>5</td><td>129</td><td>29</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>237</td><td>74</td><td>1</td><td>26</td><td>-48</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>1624</td><td>63</td><td>1624</td><td>0</td><td>26
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Observations: I do concur that it wouldn't be a huge burden on TD's to adjust the payouts on the fly. Having a bit of experience behind the scenes, however I would say that the system would have to be significantly better to justify the extra last-second pressures. (I'm not saying it is or it isn't)

From looking at these examples I can't say I can conclude anything for certain, but I'd guess that payouts for large fields would tend to be flatter and there would be an opportunity for the winner to walk away big in a smaller field.

As a bottom feeder I think it'd be interesting to have an idea of what each stroke was worth in dollars. TD's could make a pretty good estimate of that after 3 rounds.

I don't think, however, that a stroke difference between second-to-last and last should have the same $ value as a stroke difference between first and second.

I'd suggest that "points" be determined by (last cash score -score + 1)/place. (possibly adjusted by some constant)

Bottom line:
I asked Ron Russell several years back why he was sticking with the Cyclone, instead of throwing the XS or Wildcat. His reply, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

gnduke
Jan 13 2006, 12:22 AM
Poison Ivy Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5586#Open)
VPO (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4721#Open)
Moccasin Lake Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4723#Open)

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 12:28 AM
You've won often enough...your track record has more 2nd places than 1st. :o(its embarassing for me too) If the purse is posted and the formula is posted, what more incentive does a golfer need to try and play well for their last rnd? If it is a strong field, you and the other 4 players will run away from the pack and earn more points...more $. If you don't run away, you weren't that strong. This really isn't that obscure or difficult chuck.

Alacrity
Jan 13 2006, 12:35 AM
I can see how to quickly calculate the payout in a spreadsheet form, but the earlier point about the crunch is absolutely correct. It will not just take 7 minutes, if you include the amateur tiers, it could take an hour.

Here is what happens, the instant scores start coming in, people start to ask when payouts will happen. You make your best guess, knowing that you have already calcualted payouts and have everything set up. If you add the payouts at the final minutes, you are bombarded with questions by anxious players. If you cannot payout quickly, the non-cashing players will say they have had enough and not stay. to see the final payout. You will receive another set of questions. If you do not have the luxury of allowing Pick Your Own, then you have to reorganize all the Am payouts. More questions and now you find you have entered someone's score incorrectly. If you already have the PDGA approved payouts then it is just a matter of bumping a few players down a position. If it is score based, you have to recalculate the payout and redo it. Did I mention more questions about time?

Pizza God
Jan 13 2006, 12:37 AM
It could be done for an X-tier event right now.

But it would be a pain in the neck after the round is over getting it calculated.

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 12:37 AM
If it is a strong field, you and the other 4 players will run away from the pack and earn more points...more $. If you don't run away, you weren't that strong. This really isn't that obscure or difficult chuck.




There's a fixed number of prize dollars available in a 15 person field. Correct? If all five cashers finish close (strong field at the top), then the winner wins less than if the winner is several shots ahead of the other four cashers because (s)he earns more points. That appears to be a major, perhaps fatal, flaw in the system.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 12:40 AM
PoisonIvyopen
plyr old$ new$
DS 270 203
JR 160 182
EM 105 121
JM 55 60
CH 55 60
MH 25 20
DO 25 20

the_kid
Jan 13 2006, 12:42 AM
PoisonIvyopen
plyr old$ new$
DS 270 203
JR 160 182
EM 105 121
JM 55 60
CH 55 60
MH 25 20
DO 25 20



Ok I would've made less so I don't like it. :DActually it sounds like a good idea but it would create inconsistancies in the payouts from event to event. Most pros want to have the payout as a sure thing. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 12:47 AM
If you do well against the field you will be paid out accordingly...just like ratings. How is that a major or perhaps fatal flaw in the system? I'll talk more tomorrow, goodnight

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 12:58 AM
OK, BigSky. A field of 15 pros pays $50 entry and there's $250 added cash. Purse is $1000. The 5 top places get paid. In example A, the top five scores are 100, 101, 101, 102 & 103. In example B, the top five scores are 100, 106, 108, 108 and 110. How much is paid to first place in each example? If first place earns more in example B, then the system is flawed because, I suspect, that most would feel the victory was more satisfying and probably more of a challenge in example A.

denny1210
Jan 13 2006, 01:19 AM
The biggest flaw is that the one stroke 2nd to last beat last by has the same value as the 50 footer with the crowd watching on the 72nd hole that the winner made.

bruce_brakel
Jan 13 2006, 01:56 AM
I think the biggest flaw is that this is simply someone else's ugly crying baby at the grocery check out line. It does not do anything for me, the TD, and it doesn't really do anything for any of the players in any regular predictable way. I would not have a problem with letting TDs do this if it somehow works for them. I don't see it.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 09:22 AM
the % of field to be paid out can vary, I just used 40% for pdga's sake. Ron doesn't even play anymore, how broke is that? How many players can afford to "Tour" with the given structure? It can't use even a little tune up?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 09:24 AM
This payout structure would be for pro div. only. And yes calculations usually do take undivided attention...regardless of the formula

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 09:30 AM
The payout table for pros has been flattened at the top compared with last year based on the urging of some top pros such as Dave Feldberg on PDGA Radio. In addition, the 2006 TD report provides the option for TDs to select 40%, 45% or 50% for each division as they see fit. The hope among top pros is that flatter and deeper payouts will encourage more lower rated players and ams to enter.

For TDs who want to see the new report, Dave should have it posted for downlaod within the next few days.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 09:40 AM
example A example B
100-307 100-478
101-231 106-217
101-231 108-130
102-154 108-130
103-77 110-43

I think you love the drama of a close race, many of us do. That is a big stretch to say that winning by a smaller margin is more satisfying and probably more of a challenge than winning by a large margin. You think someone should be paid more if the scores are closer???

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 09:44 AM
Just like the choked 10fter on the first rnd is the same stroke as a 500ft park job on the last hole. Strokes are strokes, regardless of round, or who's watching. This won't steal the drama, golfers will still be playing their best.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 09:52 AM
Hey Bruce, this was simply a suggestion to have a players score be reflected in their payout. How offensive is that? The next time your in a grocery store, remember that you were once the ugly crying child!

Alacrity
Jan 13 2006, 09:57 AM
I can write a quick little Excel routine to calc payouts with differing %, but as I stated earlier, it adds another thing to do prior to payout and that is the last thing that most TD's want to deal with.


the % of field to be paid out can vary, I just used 40% for pdga's sake. Ron doesn't even play anymore, how broke is that? How many players can afford to "Tour" with the given structure? It can't use even a little tune up?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 10:09 AM
Yeah it would be close to the end of the world

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 10:18 AM
I shouldn't be so sarcastic. I guess I am tired of trying of sharing/explaining to some of you who are just dying to be against something. And deathly afraid of change, even if it is for the better. I'm gonna go put my positive energy into something worthwhile. If you don't get it by now, you probably won't.

gnduke
Jan 13 2006, 10:33 AM
You shouldn't be so skeptical. Most of the prople who have responded are people that have made changes, not those afraid of change. The fact they gave your idea enough interest to post their opinions shows that it or something similar may have merit in some circumstances. Some mey even be thinking about using something similar based largely on your idea.

Now if you are going to abandon this and put your energy into something worthwhile (meaning that this is not), why should anyone else bother.

BTW, being afraid of change works both ways. Don't be afraid to change your idea and offer modifications based on feedback received from others that have been doing and thinking about these things for a long time.

dave_marchant
Jan 13 2006, 10:35 AM
I personally like it a lot! Good, creative thinking here towards a fair way to pay out based on performance. A couple of thoughts:

I have run a lot of events and done scoring for lots more. This is NOT difficult or burdensome to compute after the rounds. It would take a very quick and simple Excel spreadsheet where you punch in the scores and purse and out pops the payout. This WOULD be a hard system to explain to a lot of the demographic and it makes it impossible to post the payout before the end of the tournament. I do not see this as a big deal though if there is an open accounting for how the purse was generated and divvied up.

Your proposed payout method makes good sense and you make a valid argument that ratings and points are awarded via a similar distribution curve. The big hurdle to get this payout method accepted is that it goes against how payouts are done everywhere else. Take racing: if a car, runner, or horse wins by 1/100th of a second they get double (or something close to that) what the 2nd place finisher gets. That method of reward adds drama and excitement. This is a deeply engrained system and will be a tough mentality to convert.

I run a weekly event where scores are paid out similarly: You get $1 for every stroke under par that you shoot. If there is remaining money, it gets divided up into 3 CTP�s (this part gives everyone a chance at cashing). It is fun for the casual tournament, but is fair since it rewards performance. People seem to really like it. They certainly like it a lot better than handicapping (too erratic and rewards inconsistency) or paying out traditionally (the same people always take their money). I say this to encourage you to run a series of events and try it out. It takes a while for people to understand and accept the merits of a new payout system. Heck, I am thinking of proposing your system as the method we use in our weekly club singles events.

Alacrity
Jan 13 2006, 10:48 AM
I was not meaning to naysay your idea. I could easilty implement it in a scoring routine. It would be easier to calculate than the current PDGA tables. The difference, though is the PDGA tables are a constant, once the Tier is defined. Since you are talking about doing Open only I will retract most of my concerns. The biggest pain about payouts is figuring the Am division. Assuming only the Open divisions, I can see it taking around 10 additional minutes to complete payout envelopes. The calculation would be instantaneous with an excel scoring routine. If anyone is interested, I can tailer fit my scoring routine to perform this calc.


I shouldn't be so sarcastic. I guess I am tired of trying of sharing/explaining to some of you who are just dying to be against something. And deathly afraid of change, even if it is for the better. I'm gonna go put my positive energy into something worthwhile. If you don't get it by now, you probably won't.

denny1210
Jan 13 2006, 11:28 AM
the % of field to be paid out can vary, I just used 40% for pdga's sake. Ron doesn't even play anymore, how broke is that? How many players can afford to "Tour" with the given structure? It can't use even a little tune up?


Your proposed structure would do nothing to help more players afford to "tour". The pie stays the same size (unless donators are offended and don't play, in which case the pie shrinks). All that changes is sometimes you get a little bigger slice and sometimes you get a little smaller slice than you would have previously.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 11:36 AM
I guess what I meant was, I've shared the idea and tried to defended it's principals. That is all I wanted to do. I don't want to bicker with those who oppose. Constructive criticism is valuable. Thanks for having an open mind.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 11:37 AM
Why not have payout be more accurately reflected by score then?

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 11:52 AM
Why not have payout be more accurately reflected by score then?




Your system doesn't do that though. In example A & B where you did the calculations above, the player shot the same score of 100 and won $478 or $307, not based on well he shot but how well the other players shot. With your system, top players would eventually be calling each other up to avoid playing at the same events, and instead, poach on regional events where they can blow players away and likely win more than they could if they play each other and end up with similar scores.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 12:45 PM
Scores of the field, Chuck. Under the current payout top players have more of an incentive to avoid each other, one stroke off the leader after a couple hundred strokes and a $1000 paycut??

discette
Jan 13 2006, 12:58 PM
This is a great payout format for leagues or small events.

Please do not be upset that people have pointed out why this payout idea is not good enough to replace the current PDGA payout structure. It has a place in this sport, just not at the top level events.

Thanks again for the great idea.

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 01:13 PM
Once an event has started, it's known that X number of players will get paid from the total purse for each division which is fixed. With your system, how much the winner makes depends on how well the other players play, not on how well he/she plays. It makes no sense that the winner takes home less and less the stronger the competition he/she beats. With the current practice, the winner takes home a preset amount based on beating the other players regardless how well they play.

Pizza God
Jan 13 2006, 04:11 PM
Scores of the field, Chuck. Under the current payout top players have more of an incentive to avoid each other, one stroke off the leader after a couple hundred strokes and a $1000 paycut??



Did you read what was posted about the PDGA pay table this year.

It is now even flatter than before (something I don't belive in either)

The TOP pros ASKED for this. They DON"T like not winning as much for 2nd or 3rd as 1st.

But your idea is a good one, it has a place and I even see a tournament or two using it someday.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 13 2006, 10:22 PM
Chuck, if you tie with someone, you should get the same pay. If you beat a player by one stroke after 4 rounds of golf, why should you get that much more pay? I underatand the horse racing theory...really. This is a unique sport, quite different. Untill players are betted on in a crowd, keep the Distinction. How well a player plays is determined by the field. Chuck says, "With the current practice, the winner takes home a preset amount based on beating the other players regardless how well they play." Their score determines their place doesn't it? Why stop there?

gnduke
Jan 13 2006, 10:32 PM
Where is the pressure to go for a dangerous birdie to win or force a playoff when it's no big difference in the payout for winning or losing by one stroke ?

ck34
Jan 13 2006, 10:46 PM
I'll give a personal example. About 10 years ago, I show up at a tournament in another part of the state. The usual suspects in the Master Pro division didn't show up. The locals who entered the division were really Am Masters but wanted to play M Pro. This was before ratings, but we knew I was at least 5-8 shots better per round than these fellows.

I decided to play a roller shot off the tee on all 18 holes, even though I had to clear or avoid creeks on several holes. This was to add some challenge and give these guys a chance. With the BigSky payout method, I would have the incentive to crush them rather than make it a sporting proposition where everyone had more fun.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 04:52 PM
Gnduke, maybe 5% of the purse could be set aside before any calculations and awarded to the winner on top of their stroke winnings.

Well Chuck maybe this format only suits divisions which aren't protected. The Open division and it's "No Holds Barred" attitude is the only division without "baggers", who would have a tendency to exploit the system. I don't think it would work well for the Womens div either...the few women who do show up at tournaments typically make comprimises or sacrifices just to play with the other women. They don't need to be scared off by getting whooped by one of the few Pro Ladies, often by 20-30-or 40 strokes.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 05:36 PM
VPO
player 0ldpayout Newpayout

BS $1,140 $818
EM $685 $709
JR $480 $600
CH $375 $545
KM $315 $436
DO $255 $272
AB $255 $272
DE $215 $218
CB $172 $163
DS $172 $163
NG $172 $163
MS $172 $163
MO $140 $109
JR $83 $54
CF $83 $54
DR $83 $54

ck34
Jan 14 2006, 05:42 PM
Here's an example of the new flatter PDGA payout table for 2006:

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>2005 Pro</td><td>2006 Pro
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Table (37-40%)</td><td>Flatter (40%)
</td></tr><tr><td>Place</td><td>16 paid</td><td>16 paid
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>$821</td><td>$756
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>$493</td><td>$504
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>$346</td><td>$360
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>$274</td><td>$299
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>$234</td><td>$245
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>$202</td><td>$205
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>$180</td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>$162</td><td>$162
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>$148</td><td>$148
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>$133</td><td>$133
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>$122</td><td>$122
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>$112</td><td>$112
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>$104</td><td>$104
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>$97</td><td>$97
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>$90</td><td>$90
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>$83</td><td>$83
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 06:55 PM
USDGC (this is without giving the winner an added bonus)
Plyr $OLD $NEW
DF$11,000 $2,683
SM$6,000$2,525
BS$2,500$2,446
KM$2,500$2,446
BS$1,900$2,288
ND$1,700$2,209
CS$1,700$2,209
KC$1,700$2,209
MJ$1,500$1,973
JL$1,390$1,894
JM$1,390$1,894
SB$1,340$1,815
SR$1,340$1,815
MO$1,340$1,815
MK$1,300$1,736
JA$1,280$1,657
TG$1,250$1,578
MM$1,250$1,578
JL$1,210$1,499
DT$1,210$1,499
MH$1,180$1,420
BS$1,140$1,341
TO$1,140$1,341
JJ$1,140$1,341
BS$1,040$1,262
CL$1,040$1,262
CL$1,040$1,262
AJ$1,040$1,262
MY$1,040$1,262
BH$1,040$1,262
AB$1,040$1,262
BS$930$1,184
AK$930$1,184
NS$930$1,184
JM$930$1,184
SW$880$1,105
JB$850$1,026
CG$850$1,026
MS$810$947
PW$810$947
JM$730$868
KB$730$868
PA$730$868
AS$730$868
GS$730$868
MB$730$868
WH$640$789
MR$640$789
JR$640$789
RV$580$710
JG$580$710
MA$580$710
CH$510$631
BM$510$631
TD$510$631
DS$510$631
CK$460$552
DG$430$473
TV$430$473
ET$400$395
SS$375$316
TK$375$316
TG$345$237
DR$345$237
LL$345$237
MO$345$237
CK$310$158
AH$310$158
YJ$270$79
JM$270$79
TL$270$79

williethekid
Jan 14 2006, 08:39 PM
Thats great except who wants to spend all week playing your heart out for $25 more than the guy behind you, you're ability to edge him out, even if its only by one stroke shows ur that much better, thus justifying the big difference in cashing.

ck34
Jan 14 2006, 08:44 PM
I can see the ad now:

"Win $10,000 at the USDGC!*"



*as long as you beat the field by 40 :eek:

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 09:14 PM
The point spread for the current format was often around $30/stroke. The new format was $78.90/stroke. Case&Point.

Chuck, one person wins, how about the other 70 cashing players? They could get chicken feed for all you care. They are the backbone of the tournament along with the other non-cashers. Giving a higher, more stable, incentive to the 183 "other" players might equal a higher feedback...I do see your advertising point, the purse could have a small % pulled out of it before the calculations to go to the top 3 places...as stated above for the added incentive. I wonder if all the players would have shown up anyway if the $10,000 for first was never mentioned?? Spectators as well??

ck34
Jan 14 2006, 09:29 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with how your payout curve comes out sometimes. We've already flattened the PDGA payout curve for 2006 and also provided the tools for TDs to select 40%, 45% or 50% payouts. All of these at the request of some touring players, some who will take a slight economic hit, who feel it just might boost the number of players entering pro. We'll see what happens.

My primary objections remain the inability to lock down the payouts before the last round and the disincentive for just barely beating tough opponents. It's a non-starter for me as a player, TD and member of the Competition Committee. But as you've seen, others are willing to try it and that's fine. It's probably easier to do than events where there are bounties for most number of birdies.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 09:54 PM
You are completely entitled to your respected opinions. The payout could be "Locked in" before the tournament even begins. For every stroke you get on the paid field, you will be compensated.. If you get hot and blow away the field, you will be paid that much more. If you play the same as most you will be paid the same as most. If you let too many strokes get by, relative to your field, you might not get paid at all. If I know that 100% of the purse is going to get paid, that would be all the info. I needed to know. In a skins game, there is no telling what the winner will be paid...that part doesn't stop any players from entering?? Or for trying their best!

kadiddlhopper
Jan 14 2006, 10:14 PM
You just flattened the pdga structure to try and make it more suitable for the players...all I am suggesting is to make it based off of something practical like scores, rather than places.

denny1210
Jan 14 2006, 10:42 PM
You just flattened the pdga structure to try and make it more suitable for the players...all I am suggesting is to make it based off of something practical like scores, rather than places.


more equitable, more motivating? maybe
more practical? no

kadiddlhopper
Jan 15 2006, 08:28 PM
If you got $30 less for being a stroke off of the person ahead of you, and the person after you was 7 stroke worse and they got $30 less than you...how is that more practical Denny?

denny1210
Jan 15 2006, 08:38 PM
Practicality has to do with the added burden on TD's. As I stated earlier, I don't think it's a huge deal, but your system is definitely less practical than what currently exists.

tanner
Jan 15 2006, 09:04 PM
Busineses hafta adapt to clientelles needs...huh.



Not if they have a monopoly.

tanner
Jan 15 2006, 09:17 PM
Feldberg deserved $11,000 for besting that field. Not a dime less. Keep the system in place, add more money.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 24 2006, 10:46 PM
Denny...how is the current payout system more practical than basing payout off of strokes?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 24 2006, 10:47 PM
Aren't entries into an excel format the same?

kadiddlhopper
Jan 24 2006, 10:57 PM
Thread Killer, Dave Feldbergs' "Deserved Winnings" isn't what this thread was presented for. IMHO He deserved $50,000 for besting that field...that's another thread. More money should be added to purses, I agree, regardless of the payout format, however, this also belongs on another thread. This thread is about the existing payout format, and a possibility to make it more representitive of the actual stoke play when paying out players.

wander
Jan 25 2006, 09:41 AM
How is the current payout system more practical than basing payout off of strokes?



This question says volumes.

Spend some time behind the tables, under the tent, or in the scoring hut. A tourney team knows the payouts ahead of time in order to make out checks, money packets, funny money piles, etc. Sure these can change b/c of ties etc, but to know them and act on that info while play is still underway is critical to a smooth event. Even knowing payouts, the end of a tourney is usually frantic and rushed even among the best tourney teams., and folks are unlikely to add an additional burden for no tangible benefit.

Your system would be a pain in the tuckus, to put it bluntly.

But let the market speak. Put on a few events of this sort yourself and see if the crowds flock.

Besides the pragmatic, its likely the flavor of the competition would change dramatically. I'd not follow a final group to see who could eek out a victory purely for bragging rights and the additonal bucks a one stroke difference would bring. Make that one stroke victory worth a few hundred bucks or more, and you've got some drama.

At least that's how I see it.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 25 2006, 09:14 PM
Your worry about the TD being too overburdened to evolve to a new procedure seems somewhat magnified. After a couple of experimental payout crunches longhand, it is not that difficult, I would tutor you if you were interested. With the presence of a laptop, it only gets easier.
Back to the real topic.
The flavor of the competition wouldn't change dramatically, spectators...maybe. If the payout we are using is based off of the PGA's percentages,(or the updated version). Ball Golf is a sport that dwarfs the PDGA, just because we borrowed some of the basics from the sport, doesn't dead lock us into the exact same payout proceedures. We barely get free spectators at tournaments. I want to know how golfers feel about playing in a tournament where they will paid out based off of strokes, rather than places. Given it is the same % of field being paid out. All of the peripheral worrying can be dealt with when the times comes.

ck34
Jan 25 2006, 09:45 PM
Since you're only playing the course, you could just show up any time and play with anyone who entered. Maybe you could even get all four of your rounds in during one day in a 2-day event and save the lodging expense. Just have the TD send you the check if you cashed once everyone had completed their rounds before dark on Sunday. You might never see the players who shot scores near yours. The TD wouldn't have to shuffle cards, make groups, have 2-minute warnings. Just sit back until all of the cards come in. Think how much easier that would be for TDs who could go home and use their desktop to do the calculations and it would potentially be much more cost effective for the players :)

kadiddlhopper
Jan 25 2006, 10:21 PM
That is kind of a bizarre reply, are you suggesting that the different payout formula would promote the bahavior and schedule you are presenting?? Nothing would change, other than the payout. Once again this thread is an opportunity for tournament players to experess their thoughts/feelings about potentially being paid out based off of stroke play, rather than places. Places would still be given, but they would no longer bear the weight of payout, strokes would, as they did for place differentiating. Scare tactics Chuck, what are you afraid of?

ck34
Jan 25 2006, 10:52 PM
My point is that it's not competition when you can run an event like I just described, essentially mailing it in. Of course the standard phrase is, "You're just playing the course." But true competition involves playing against others who are shooting at your level striving to win. And having something worthwhile at stake that's makes enough difference that you sweat the tiny details that can make the difference between success and just finishing second, even if it's just one shot. If that's not the tournament environment, you're just out there playing a rec round with the same little carrot for each shot, kind of like getting paid for each widget you make on a production line. Nice job, but don't confuse it with competition.

gnduke
Jan 25 2006, 11:02 PM
Chuck, It's still competition, just the nature of the competition is different. You can't sit on a big lead and play it safe if you want a bigger paycheck. If you are second place by a stroke, it doesn't really matter if you catch and pass the player in front, you just have to match his score to the end, and hope he drops a shot to you along the way. If not, it's no big deal, just a single slice of the pot difference between you anyway.

I can see it both ways, and right now I like it the way it is. If you earn a big lead, you get to play it safe and see if anyone can play well enough to catch you. If you're behind, you have to take the risky shots in an attempt to pass the player in front of you. If you fail to win, even by a single stroke, you don't deserve nearly the same payout.

Similarly, if you are ahead of the pack by 10 strokes going into the last round and win by 15, you don't deserve a bigger share of the pot just becaus eyou didn't have any real competition at that event.

ck34
Jan 25 2006, 11:09 PM
Suzette liked it for leagues and I can see it used there where it's not about competition as much as gathering to play your best or even just practice or exercise in a social environment. Makes more sense in that case. Still more of a pain to do the calcs at the last minute than is really necessary.

AviarX
Jan 25 2006, 11:20 PM
Probably the top 50 players in the world and the top 20 TD's should have the greatest say, but i like the present payout system tweaked to be flatter for the top 3 to 5 finishers so that when you take 2nd or 3rd you still get considerable cash. (1st would still of course reap the biggest cash award).

Has Ball golf ever tried payouts based on margin of victory? How about Tennis? i don't consider it a sport -- but how about racing?

Side bets on margins of victory with those interested sounds good.

bruce_brakel
Jan 25 2006, 11:24 PM
I think BigSky's idea would discourage good sportsmanship, which is not a commodity we have plenty to squander. Good sports don't run up the score when the game is won, they don't call ticky-tack fouls, etc. If every throw costs $50 or whatever, you'd see a lot more of that. It would also deprive the top pro his well earned "victory lap" which can be just as entertaining as watching him try to stretch his lead by one or two more throws when he is already up by ten. The most entertaining Final Nine I ever saw was one where the four pros had a profit sharing agreement so they were trying all kinds of risky shots and different routes. Since the money didn't weigh in the equation they could relax and put on an exhibition, aim for the camera man 350 feet away, etc.

But if you like the idea, by all means try it out at your next tournament. I'm all for experimenting with different formats. This is not an experiment that interests me so I'd never push it on my brother who runs the show for the Pro and Advanced players at our tournaments.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 26 2006, 09:03 PM
Thanks for the replys, I see the new format benefitting more of the"Whole" of cashing players vs. the top couple of spots. It would benefit all players by letting the payout reflect tight play or big gaps in the scores. Winners wouldn't be paid out as steeply, unless they really earned it. If nobody blew your doors off, why should their paycheck. I guess all I really know is that if I am in a tourney and I get $15 dollars less than the guy in front of me, that got me by a stroke, and the guy behind me, that I beat by 5 strokes gets $7 less than I do. Inside somewhere I am gonna feel like that is inaccurate and lacking consistancy. If I knew that there was an accurate and consistant payout based off of strokes, I would be more apt to attend tournaments, and thought others might feel the same way.

AviarX
Jan 26 2006, 09:25 PM
Thanks for the replys, I see the new format benefitting more of the"Whole" of cashing players vs. the top couple of spots. It would benefit all players by letting the payout reflect tight play or big gaps in the scores. Winners wouldn't be paid out as steeply, unless they really earned it. If nobody blew your doors off, why should their paycheck. I guess all I really know is that if I am in a tourney and I get $15 dollars less than the guy in front of me, that got me by a stroke, and the guy behind me, that I beat by 5 strokes gets $7 less than I do. Inside somewhere I am gonna feel like that is inaccurate and lacking consistancy. If I knew that there was an accurate and consistant payout based off of strokes, I would be more apt to attend tournaments, and thought others might feel the same way.



At the Australian Open (tennis) they aren't doing it that way. Ball golf doesn't. racing (not really a sport, but it fits my argument) doesn't do it. Why do you suppose they don't? TD a few big events and it may become clearer...

kadiddlhopper
Jan 26 2006, 09:29 PM
As far as the appreciation of top players, and keeping the drama of having the few top spots getting more $. Earlier on this thread I thought it would be a good idea to scrape equivalantly 10% from the purse, before the $/point value was calculated and give 5% of it to the winner, 3.5% of it to 2nd, and 1.5% of it to 3rd on top of their stroke earnings. All of those figures could be adjusted for the size of tournament, # of players...

kadiddlhopper
Jan 26 2006, 09:45 PM
A little over 10,000 people watch Tennis in the arena, and millions on tv. At Ball Golf tournaments there are high premiums to keep the spectators to a few thousand on the course, and millions on tv. At big tracks, 70,000 fans go to see Nascar, and millions watch on tv. In disc golf there might be 100 people spectating (for free), around 6,000 reading about it in a magazine, and I'm not sure how many people watch DG on tv, I do know it is on quite a different level than Tennis, Golf, and Nascar as far as sport development. So why does our payout hafta be on their level, or... format?

AviarX
Jan 27 2006, 12:46 AM
While Tennis and Ball Golf already have big bucks to work with -- how does that figure into your logic for appyling your payout approach to disc golf? If it makes sense here, why not there -- especially if they have plenty of cash to payout?
if you are trying to get the top finisher a nice payout, they already do. it is the drop-off for second and third which seemed too steep (under last year's formula).

although i still say the top 25 Open players and the TD's who put on the big events should have the most say...

for Open players trying to recoup their traveling expenses and make enough money to pay bills, it's nice for them to know that finishing near the top is likely to earn them a decent reward regardless of how many strokes are involved. it seems to me that it should be relative placement in the overall field rather than distance in strokes between oneself and some other competitor which decides the payout dollar amounts.
TD's have enough plates to keep in the air without the extra hassle of last minute payout calculations. Run a few tournaments and if you still like the idea, i'll be more open to it.

kadiddlhopper
Jan 27 2006, 07:36 PM
As far as Tennis and Golf are concerned, they both have probably 100 players for every DGer. Fans are mostly made up of people that play the sport they are fanatical about. With that in mind, the more people that play DG, the number of fans will correlate. The possibility of a different payout would be to get a system that acutely reflected play. Using strokes to determine places and ratings and then discarding them for payout determination? Why discard them? They were the base information and proved to be valuable. Acurracy, and consistency would contribute more stability to tournaments and players peace of mind, which in turn would increase the # of players willing to play, and be fans. Just my opinion. As far as prodding me to hold tournaments, I have just relocated across the country to play more DG and am still getting settled. It will take me a little while to get enough contacts to feel comfortable for a directors position, but have had experience in the TD department, so I'm not oblivious to all the challenges involved.