Reverse sandbagging

[Mando]

Speaking of payouts, what would be your view of an occaisonal winner-take-all format ?

[blackandwhite]

I think in a deuce or die type tournament, it would be fitting (most birdies wins). OR 1st place takes all cash and 2nd and 3rd get a trophy with the place # on it

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by blackandwhite

how many actually follow the payouts? I wish it was something that could be decided on during the players meeting by a simple vote of hands. at least this way the players get a 'voice'

Around here, all of them. And for sanctioned events, TD has agreed to comply with PDGA payouts.

Two drawbacks to deciding by player vote. One would be there are a LOT of options; the election could take a while. Another is that players who care about the payout may be reluctant to sign up if it's to be decided in the players' meeting.

[chrishysell]

sometimes they have events around here that are AM only. That's so unfair.

[TOURNEYPLAYER]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

Around here, all of them. And for sanctioned events, TD has agreed to comply with PDGA payouts.

Two drawbacks to deciding by player vote. One would be there are a LOT of options; the election could take a while. Another is that players who care about the payout may be reluctant to sign up if it's to be decided in the players' meeting.

I remember a tourney at Orangeburg where 1st in INT got like 12 bucks merch. i took third and got 7. that was some donkeynuts.

[sprintermatt]

I suggest a maximum of 9 divisions in any (normal) tournament. Let the TD decide what they are, and perhaps switch one out if nobody is really hitting one of those divisions. I've seen tournaments with 15 divisions. I personally think that's crazy! that's an average of 6 players per division!

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by Mando

Speaking of payouts, what would be your view of an occaisonal winner-take-all format ?

The possiblity is that you'd have a much lower turnout, since those who normally have a chance to cash if they play well, but almost no chance to win, might not play. To some degree, the broad payout draws in more players to contribute to the winner's purse.

But it might be fun to try. Especially with a relatively low entry fee, so more of those weaker players enter. If you had a modest $20 entry and 30 players played, that would be a nice high-pressure battle for the $600 prize.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by TOURNEYPLAYER

I remember a tourney at Orangeburg where 1st in INT got like 12 bucks merch. i took third and got 7. that was some donkeynuts.

Sounds strange (depending on the entry, players pack, and attendance).

[chrishysell]

Originally Posted by Mando

Speaking of payouts, what would be your view of an occaisonal winner-take-all format ?

For the past few years there have been between 3 and 4 of us at the Elk Creek event in contention. Last year someone got the smart idea that we should play winner take all. The TD said it was fine but he was still doing a payout. I agreed but said that I was looking forward to have all of the other players present me with their winnings. I had never won that event before and it was my time. Nothing felt better than watching the guy with the bright idea squirm and pay me.

[Mando]

Originally Posted by chrishysell

For the past few years there have been between 3 and 4 of us at the Elk Creek event in contention. Last year someone got the smart idea that we should play winner take all. The TD said it was fine but he was still doing a payout. I agreed but said that I was looking forward to have all of the other players present me with their winnings. I had never won that event before and it was my time. Nothing felt better than watching the guy with the bright idea squirm and pay me.

Ha. Priceless. How would you feel about winner take all in a team format like the VTI ?