Does anyone know how BH earned $191 at the Euro Open?



GM was running inside the Open pool and he won that. I think they did something similar at the Japan Open.



If this is run like I think it is run, this is a great idea. I am thinking that the Masters and GMs play in the Open division and then have a side pot against any / all Masters and GMs that want to play for the side pot.

This would make the Open division bigger and the payout deeper and it would allow the Masters and GMs to inter-compete as well.

Is there a downside to this idea?

The downsode is the same old gripe the Open players have with the current system: the top Master finisher will take home more money than the top Open players because the master will get fifth place Open money plus 1st place Masters money.

The downside should not have anything to do with the top open players griping. Any of them with half a brain will like the idea. I mean, their pool is bigger, mostly with weaker competition. The only reason a guy finishing fifth gets more return is that his bet was bigger (the open bet plus the masters side bet).

That dovetails into one obvious downside. I, as a master, now pay two entry fees to enter a tournament, whereas it used to be just one. Furthermore, if I am fairly certain that I won't cash in open, and I'm 50/50 or worse in masters, why the hell would I join in? You've just turned a potentially break even ROI over time into a losing ROI. You've simply run off another PDGA participant.

Except that the Master will have paid more entry fee than the Open player in fourth place with the side bet ante. As a GM, I wouldn't enter regular events that had this as a standard format. But if it's a big event like the Euro & Japan Opens where only Open was offered, I would probably do the side bet as an add on if for some reason I even ended up playing in one of these which is unlikely.

James' downside is a bigger concern than mine.

So long as it is something TDs can do, and not something that everyone has to do, what's the big deal? If James doesn't want to pay two entry fees he can skip the Japan Open and go to the Pittsburg Open instead.

Anything that anybody does that is different from what most everyone else is doing is going to benefit some at the expense of others. So some should play the tournament and the others should play league or something that weekend.

Thanks. Now that those are pointed out they seem pretty obvious. But I gotta agree with Bruce, let the TDs decide what they want to do, and the players vote with their entry fees. If they payout is big enough, Masters and GMs will probably still come and enjoy.

I have no problem with letting the TDs do things such as a open-only tournament, etc.; but the implication that I hear is that laissez-faire type PDGA administration of tournament standards is the best strategy. I have heard versions of this twice on this thread, and twice over the weekend. I have yet to hear any compelling evidence that the PDGA should just get the hell out of the way and let TDs do whatever. I hear "the market will take care of everything" bandied about as some kind of mantra.

As someone who is almost always distrustful of matras, or set-in-stone "philosophies" and "principals," I really question the assumption that the PDGA should get out of the "giving direction/standards for tourneys" business.

It also seems like puting the cart before the horse. In other words, let's apply our philosophy independent of any discussion of our goals. It seems backwards. The PDGA should have some goals, and then develop ways to achieve them, not become slaves to philosophies.

That rant aside, I have no problem with some open-only tourneys.

We were about to inplement this at an event a few years ago when there were ratings based events. The Pdga told us they would not or could not support this format anymore and so we went back to the standard format. The idea was for EVERYONE to play based on score regardless of division and only payout was to be based on division. Everyone would have fun playing with others of there skill level. Down sides turned out to be, top players wanting to only play with their division, and boys and girls not wanting to play against each other. There were only a few complainers but they were very vocal.

We were about to inplement this at an event a few years ago when there were ratings based events. The Pdga told us they would not or could not support this format anymore and so we went back to the standard format. The idea was for EVERYONE to play based on score regardless of division and only payout was to be based on division. Everyone would have fun playing with others of there skill level. Down sides turned out to be, top players wanting to only play with their division, and boys and girls not wanting to play against each other. There were only a few complainers but they were very vocal.



Getting rid of ratings-based events was a huge mistake. The vocal complainers were:<ul type="square"> the Pro Masters players rated above 960 (I think 960 was the cutoff) who were then forced to play in the Gold division with the all the big boys
the 955-975 rated Gold division golfers who didn't cash in Gold and saw golfers with lower ratings than them win a small amount of money in the Silver division for a worse score. [/list]
They complained even though all (or nearly all) the added cash from tournament sponsorship went to the Gold division, and the Silver division was basically playing for peanuts - each other's lower Silver division entry fees.

All the 920-959 rated Pro Masters players who hadn't cashed in Masters in years and were finally competitive again in the Silver division loved the format, as did Advanced golfers looking to make the jump to Pro, as well as mullet Pro golfers of all ages.

Down sides turned out to be, top players wanting to only play with their division, and boys and girls not wanting to play against each other. There were only a few complainers but they were very vocal.



I say that if the formats are well documented in the flyers/wesite where players enter, then they can't really complain.

I think that the PDGA standards should be the starting point and all players should be able to expect an event that follows those standards for divisional play and payouts unless the tournament is clearly advertised differently. All departures from the standard formats should be clearly explained on the entry form and the players can then decide if they want to participate, and have no grounds to complain about the format after the fact.

The X-Tier designation should be used for all non-standard formats, and the X-tier designation should be a flag for the players to check and see what is different from the standard. And yes the entry form needs to be required to spell out the differences.

We should also be more flexible in handing out X-tier status. As long as PDGA points will be generated fairly, it should be okay.

The current division options are a softer edge version of the ratings divisions. Women aren't forced to play in Advanced or Intermediate, but some do. Pros of all ages below 955 rating aren't forced to play in Advanced but some do. Perhaps for 2007, pros who sometimes play in an Advanced division should be allowed to optionally accept merch prizes as cash at 50% value? We did this at the Mid-Nationals this year and I think more pros considered this a reasonable compromise compared with the problems of full conversion with the shortlived Pro 2 format which was a nightmare for TDs and payout calcs.

Getting rid of ratings-based events was a huge mistake.

The notion that ratings based events have been gotten rid of is mostly an illusion. Any TD can run a 95% ratings based tournament within the framework of the current format by not offering masters divisions, pro women or juniors. With the exception of the few Advanced men rated over 955 and the few Rec men and junior boys rated under 825, everyone else is playing in a ratings based division.

The fact that TDs are not doing this shows that there was never much demand for ratings based tournaments.

Getting rid of ratings-based events was a huge mistake.

The notion that ratings based events have been gotten rid of is mostly an illusion. Any TD can run a 95% ratings based tournament within the framework of the current format by not offering masters divisions, pro women or juniors. With the exception of the few Advanced men rated over 955 and the few Rec men and junior boys rated under 825, everyone else is playing in a ratings based division.

The fact that TDs are not doing this shows that there was never much demand for ratings based tournaments.



There's a very big difference, Bruce. Until there's a tournament that divides 955 and up rated golfers to play in thier own division, 925-955 golfers in their own division, 900-925 golfers in their own division, etc. and pays cash to professional competitors in those divisions, in my opinion there are no longer true ratings based events.

The break points and means of payout are arbitrary, and not really relevant to whether it is ratings based competition or not. It is merely relevant to the format that you prefer, and which coincidentally happens to give you an arbitrary advantage over most of the rest of your field. :eek:

What makes a competitive format ratings based is that there are no parallel divisions based on age, gender, or payout preferences. A TD can acheive that with our current format. There are work around solutions for the high rated amateurs and the Am IV and Am V rated men. We might offer Am IV at our tournaments next year. I have a solution for that that does not require PDGA approval or knowledge! :eek: X 2 = :D

Did you just click-click-back-back me? :D

I'll support the idea of ratings-based events until the end of time even if my rating was one point over the arbitrary dividing line because it makes sense. As you pointed out, what makes a competitive format ratings based is that there are no parallel divisions based on age, gender, or payout preferences, but that's all the current system is. And I can't envision any work around to that.

Well, I can. If any TDs want to run tournaments with a ratings based flavor with no parallel divisions, but they cannot figure it out for high rated amateurs and really, really low rated amateurs, I have e-mail and private messaging, etc.

Also, we are discussing how Am IV would work over at www.discontinuum.org/forums (http://www.discontinuum.org/forums) where you can read and discuss without having to be a member or get as password.

We might offer Am 4 at our tournaments next year.

We are offering Am 4 at our tournaments this year. Among those who pre-register it is proving to be very popular. They pre-register as Am 3s but note that they want to play Am 4. For PDGA report purposes they are trophy-only Am 3s who are getting in on an optional payout sidegame for players rated less than 835. You have to have the rating to get in, so this works to get the lower rated players joining and supporting the PDGA. Right now we have nine Recreational players pre-reged for IOS #1. Seven are Am 4s.

In response to the idea "if you don't like it you don't have to play":

At some point, if you want to play in a tournament, you have to accept how things are. Personally, I don't like playing ADV, not because the competition, but because of the cost. I simply can't afford to play that many tournaments. Now, with the cost of ADV events in the area being $40 or more, I can either pay the money or not play. I don't really have the option to wait for something else to come along. The fact that there is a large number of players that can afford an entry fee does not mean that others will not be playing because the price is prohibitive. This can be applied to the idea of GM, and Masters playing for sidepots in open. While you might still get a good turnout, what you may have done is simply weeded out the players that can't afford to play, so even though your numbers look good, you have still lost players.

Basically what I am trying to say is that if you go by whether or not players will protest by not playing, I think that most will just pony up the money, and the numbers that don't play will be over shadowed by the number that do, and thus, letting the market sort things out doesn't accomplish anything.

Besides, why have standards for an organization if they don't have to be followed?

I'm surprised you haven't asked your TDs to offer a Trophy Only option in Advanced. That's allowed for true Ams playing in Am divisions.

In response to the idea "if you don't like it you don't have to play":

At some point, if you want to play in a tournament, you have to accept how things are. Personally, I don't like playing ADV, not because the competition, but because of the cost. I simply can't afford to play that many tournaments. Now, with the cost of ADV events in the area being $40 or more, I can either pay the money or not play. I don't really have the option to wait for something else to come along. The fact that there is a large number of players that can afford an entry fee does not mean that others will not be playing because the price is prohibitive. This can be applied to the idea of GM, and Masters playing for sidepots in open. While you might still get a good turnout, what you may have done is simply weeded out the players that can't afford to play, so even though your numbers look good, you have still lost players.

Basically what I am trying to say is that if you go by whether or not players will protest by not playing, I think that most will just pony up the money, and the numbers that don't play will be over shadowed by the number that do, and thus, letting the market sort things out doesn't accomplish anything.

Besides, why have standards for an organization if they don't have to be followed?



Couldn't agree more.

Now imagine Open entry fees which are usually twice as expensive as Advanced, and the phenomenon is even more pronounced.

When saying 'trophy only' what exactly does that mean? The reason I ask is that most tournaments I have been at there has not been a 'trophy' in the strict sense of the word. So, if playing trophy only, you get nothing at all for finishing at the top (if you do by chance)? Also, I'm guessing a TD could just deny the request, correct? It is definitely something I would like to look into more.

TDs have the option to offer a reduced entry fee between 1/3 and 1/2 the base entry fee for any division to those who wish to play for the competition but not the prizes. Players still earn ratings and points, get player packs if offered and can win CTPs. They can also win the trophies or plaques if provided for finishing at or near the top. They just can't win merch. Usually players have to ask the TD if they will offer it. The PDGA TD report handles it properly so there's little extra work for the TDs because it's not another division, just a subset of players in a regular division.

Trophy-only RULES. Even if I finish in the merch (I'm about 50% doing so in AM1), it's almost always a bunch of plastic I'll never throw, so why not save half &amp; still get players pack &amp; possible prizes from ancillary events (my specialty). Love it; thank you Virginia TDs for making it an option in a lot of Virginia events!

Trophy-only RULES. Even if I finish in the merch (I'm about 50% doing so in AM1), it's almost always a bunch of plastic I'll never throw, so why not save half &amp; still get players pack &amp; possible prizes from ancillary events (my specialty). Love it; thank you Virginia TDs for making it an option in a lot of Virginia events!



Note to self: Drive to Virginia. Kidnap TD's.

I'm surprised you haven't asked your TDs to offer a Trophy Only option in Advanced. That's allowed for true Ams playing in Am divisions.



I've asked for a TO option a couple of times and have been rejected each time.

What then?

play different events.

...or none at all. :(

This region needs another decade or two before we have competing events every weekend.

No trophies? No trophy-only? I feel sad for the players in your region. Clearly there is not much competition among tournament directors to put on good events down there. Maybe your attitude "If you don't like it, don't play" is widespread and that enables TDs to run lame events? My attitude is, "If you don't like it, step up and offer something better."