Tourney Tournament payouts (1 Viewer)

[Caveatemptor]

I was playing a ongoing satellite tournament to win a seat to the WSOP, then the pandemic
It was a group of 9
Points were earned based on tournament place
Now that everything has been postponed, they're talking about giving everybody their money back, yet I feel it should be paid out by ranking,
We all still went and played the tournaments.
Tournaments are hard work and long hours.
Just to give everyone their money back.
Worst yet those of us who are ranked higher in points are receiving less
Should I be penalized because it only took me 4 tournaments to secure 1st place, while others played 6 tournaments and didn't make top 3!
I would appreciate feedback

 

[upNdown]

You really need to give us all the details of this series if you want a fair answer.
What was first place worth - did first place get you the seat, or just some advantage in the final tournament for the seat, or what?
How many tournaments were left in the series?
How much money was paid out per tournament vs how much was withheld for the seat?

 

[Gobbs]

Worst yet those of us who are ranked higher in points are receiving less
Should I be penalized because it only took me 4 tournaments to secure 1st place, while others played 6 tournaments and didn't make top 3!
I would appreciate feedback

This part is confusing me. How are you receiving less? You mean you paid 4 entries and are getting 4 entries back as opposed to those who paid 6 entries and are getting 6 entries back? Or, do you mean that the tournament is keeping some of your entry fee because you finished higher? As upNdown said, there just isn't enough information in your post to give an informed, intelligent response.

 

[DoubleEagle]

We were faced with the same problem. Each member of our nine player league paid $500 to play. Three $1,500 WSOP buy-ins were awarded. Our agreement between the players was that any money won playing in the WSOP event would be split with the nine players in our group on a 60/40 basis, with 60% going to the group and 40% going to the winning player.

With the WSOP in limbo, we decided to pay out the money as follows:

There were three $1,500 buy-in winners so we just considered each $1,500 as winnings. Therefore each buy-in winner received 40% on his $1,500 buy-in that was won which amounted to $600. There were nine members in the league so the 60% share of the $4,500 total buy-ins amounted to $300 each. Therefore the three qualifiers each got $900 ($600 plus $300) and the other six members got $300. We don't award any travel costs so this is just based on the buy-in prizes. That's about as fair as we could come up with. We talked about refunding the buy-in amounts back to the players but that would have been very unfair to the winners. We also determined just giving the winners $1,500 in cash was equally unfair to the other six players. I think this was a good compromise.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The WSOP is currently only postponed. My recommendation would be to send the winning player(s) at it's later date. Only an official announcement of cancellation would change my opinion.

 

[Caveatemptor]

This part is confusing me. How are you receiving less? You mean you paid 4 entries and are getting 4 entries back as opposed to those who paid 6 entries and are getting 6 entries back? Or, do you mean that the tournament is keeping some of your entry fee because you finished higher? As upNdown said, there just isn't enough information in your post to give an informed, intelligent response.

I played in 4 tournaments, ( bought into 4 tournaments) currently in first place, but instead of being paid out by rankings, they're paying out by entries, meaning someone who is in last place but paid 6 entries, will have their 6 buy ins back.
Just seems unfair
Does that make sense? Thanks

You really need to give us all the details of this series if you want a fair answer.
What was first place worth - did first place get you the seat, or just some advantage in the final tournament for the seat, or what?
How many tournaments were left in the series?
How much money was paid out per tournament vs how much was withheld for the seat?

We were playing for a seat to the WSOP.
Top 2 would win the trip to Vegas.
No money was awarded per tournament, instead we received points
I believe (before the pandemic ) there were 6 tournaments left to play
So now they've decided to end the satellite tournaments, and refund everyone's money, based on paid entries.
I made first in just 4 entries, so I would receive less return than someone who bought in 6 times but is in last place.
I just seems unfair, and believe it should be paid out by current standings.
I hope I've clarified my statement. Thanks

The WSOP is currently only postponed. My recommendation would be to send the winning player(s) at it's later date. Only an official announcement of cancellation would change my opinion.

They've decided to end the tournament series we were playing and just refund everyone's money.

We were faced with the same problem. Each member of our nine player league paid $500 to play. Three $1,500 WSOP buy-ins were awarded. Our agreement between the players was that any money won playing in the WSOP event would be split with the nine players in our group on a 60/40 basis, with 60% going to the group and 40% going to the winning player.

With the WSOP in limbo, we decided to pay out the money as follows:

There were three $1,500 buy-in winners so we just considered each $1,500 as winnings. Therefore each buy-in winner received 40% on his $1,500 buy-in that was won which amounted to $600. There were nine members in the league so the 60% share of the $4,500 total buy-ins amounted to $300 each. Therefore the three qualifiers each got $900 ($600 plus $300) and the other six members got $300. We don't award any travel costs so this is just based on the buy-in prizes. That's about as fair as we could come up with. We talked about refunding the buy-in amounts back to the players but that would have been very unfair to the winners. We also determined just giving the winners $1,500 in cash was equally unfair to the other six players. I think this was a good compromise.

Exactly. Refunding everyone's money regardless of ranking, is unfair to those who placed top 3.
I believe it should be paid tournament style.
Last report, they've collected $2550.

The WSOP is currently only postponed. My recommendation would be to send the winning player(s) at it's later date. Only an official announcement of cancellation would change my opinion.

They've decided to end the tournament series we were playing and just refund everyone's money.

The WSOP is currently only postponed. My recommendation would be to send the winning player(s) at it's later date. Only an official announcement of cancellation would change my opinion.

They've decided to end the tournament series we were playing and just refund everyone's money.

This part is confusing me. How are you receiving less? You mean you paid 4 entries and are getting 4 entries back as opposed to those who paid 6 entries and are getting 6 entries back? Or, do you mean that the tournament is keeping some of your entry fee because you finished higher? As upNdown said, there just isn't enough information in your post to give an informed, intelligent response.

Were being refunded our entries, instead of paying out our rankings.

 

[upNdown]

edit - I'm dumb. sorry. thanks @Mojo1312

 

[Mojo1312]

We were playing for a seat to the WSOP. Top 2 would win the trip to Vegas.
No money was awarded per tournament, instead we received points
I believe (before the pandemic ) there were 6 tournaments left to play
Now they've decided to end the satellite tournament series, and refund everyone's money, based on paid entries.

I made first in just 4 entries, so I would receive less return than someone who bought in 6 times but is in last place.

Refunding everyone's money regardless of ranking, is unfair to those who placed top 3.
I believe it should be paid tournament style.
Last report, they've collected $2550.

^^^

 

[upNdown]

It's a tough call. First place at the halfway point isn't worth THAT much.
I think I'd try to split the baby - give everybody half their entrance fees back, then distribute the rest of the money based on points - whatever percentage of the points you earned out of the total points awarded - that's what percentage you get, out of the remaining half of the prize pool.

 

[Gobbs]

I can see arguments for many sides on this one, but if I had to rank the obvious payment methods, I'd rank them in order from least fair to most fair like this:

1. Top Two Win It All - Cancel the remaining tournament and call the season complete.
   
   This would be very unfair for multiple, obvious reasons. First and foremost, you've only played half the season. I would say this is barely more fair than drawing for high card and giving it all to the players with the two highest cards.
   
   
2. Based on Points - Pay each player based on the percentage of points they earned.
   
   I would say to payout based solely on the points is barely more fair than paying the Top Two. Again, you only played half the tournaments and this was never the intention in the first place. Depending on the point system, people may play differently when they are playing for points vs. playing for points and cash or just cash. If I know only the top 2 in the league are going to win, I'm playing much differently than if I know the cash is going to be distributed to all players based on points and third or fourth place might be almost as good as second. It's not fair to completely change the payout rules like that and the point system was probably not designed to account for payouts like that.
   
   
3. Hybrid Payouts - Returning half the entry fee and pay the rest based on points (or something similar).
   
   While this is more fair than paying everything based on points, it still has the inherent problems of only having half the points for the planned season, it still doesn't consider that people played in the tournament with a strategy based solely on the top two being rewarded, and it still doesn't account for the fact that the point system may not have been designed with this type of payout in mind. Again, you are still changing the payouts midstream and that's simply not fair, albeit, it's not near as drastic.
   
   
4. Cancel Everything and Return Entry Fees - Basically, the tournaments never happened.
   
   I see this as the most fair. Nobody is harmed. Nobody can say they would have played differently had they known there were going to be cash payouts based on everybody's points. The tournament director doesn't have to worry about the point system he/she devised not being fair because it was designed for one type of payout but used for another type of payout. Nobody can say they wouldn't have played in three of the first six tournament if they had known there wasn't going to be six more. If you think about it, if you knew going in that you were going to be at a serious disadvantage and only play in 67 percent of the tournaments when others were playing in all of them, would you have done it? I wouldn't unless I was sure I was a lot better than everybody. People paid their money based on certain promises. Absent of something in the rules that say otherwise, I think the only way to ensure nobody is harmed is to pretend like it never happened. Sure, a few people think they are harmed by not getting what they thought they were going to earn, but with six tournaments still left to be played and only the top 2 winning, nobody was guaranteed anything.

 

[BGinGA]

I can see arguments for many sides on this one, but if I had to rank the obvious payment methods, I'd rank them in order from least fair to most fair like this:

1. Top Two Win It All - Cancel the remaining tournament and call the season complete.
   
   This would be very unfair for multiple, obvious reasons. First and foremost, you've only played half the season. I would say this is barely more fair than drawing for high card and giving it all to the players with the two highest cards.
   
   
2. Based on Points - Pay each player based on the percentage of points they earned.
   
   I would say to payout based solely on the points is barely more fair than paying the Top Two. Again, you only played half the tournaments and this was never the intention in the first place. Depending on the point system, people may play differently when they are playing for points vs. playing for points and cash or just cash. If I know only the top 2 in the league are going to win, I'm playing much differently than if I know the cash is going to be distributed to all players based on points and third or fourth place might be almost as good as second. It's not fair to completely change the payout rules like that and the point system was probably not designed to account for payouts like that.
   
   
3. Hybrid Payouts - Returning half the entry fee and pay the rest based on points (or something similar).
   
   While this is more fair than paying everything based on points, it still has the inherent problems of only having half the points for the planned season, it still doesn't consider that people played in the tournament with a strategy based solely on the top two being rewarded, and it still doesn't account for the fact that the point system may not have been designed with this type of payout in mind. Again, you are still changing the payouts midstream and that's simply not fair, albeit, it's not near as drastic.
   
   
4. Cancel Everything and Return Entry Fees - Basically, the tournaments never happened.
   
   I see this as the most fair. Nobody is harmed. Nobody can say they would have played differently had they known there were going to be cash payouts based on everybody's points. The tournament director doesn't have to worry about the point system he/she devised not being fair because it was designed for one type of payout but used for another type of payout. Nobody can say they wouldn't have played in three of the first six tournament if they had known there wasn't going to be six more. If you think about it, if you knew going in that you were going to be at a serious disadvantage and only play in 67 percent of the tournaments when others were playing in all of them, would you have done it? I wouldn't unless I was sure I was a lot better than everybody. People paid their money based on certain promises. Absent of something in the rules that say otherwise, I think the only way to ensure nobody is harmed is to pretend like it never happened. Sure, a few people think they are harmed by not getting what they thought they were going to earn, but with six tournaments still left to be played and only the top 2 winning, nobody was guaranteed anything.

Well thought-out and presented.

 

[Caveatemptor]

I can see arguments for many sides on this one, but if I had to rank the obvious payment methods, I'd rank them in order from least fair to most fair like this:

1. Top Two Win It All - Cancel the remaining tournament and call the season complete.
   
   This would be very unfair for multiple, obvious reasons. First and foremost, you've only played half the season. I would say this is barely more fair than drawing for high card and giving it all to the players with the two highest cards.
   
   
2. Based on Points - Pay each player based on the percentage of points they earned.
   
   I would say to payout based solely on the points is barely more fair than paying the Top Two. Again, you only played half the tournaments and this was never the intention in the first place. Depending on the point system, people may play differently when they are playing for points vs. playing for points and cash or just cash. If I know only the top 2 in the league are going to win, I'm playing much differently than if I know the cash is going to be distributed to all players based on points and third or fourth place might be almost as good as second. It's not fair to completely change the payout rules like that and the point system was probably not designed to account for payouts like that.
   
   
3. Hybrid Payouts - Returning half the entry fee and pay the rest based on points (or something similar).
   
   While this is more fair than paying everything based on points, it still has the inherent problems of only having half the points for the planned season, it still doesn't consider that people played in the tournament with a strategy based solely on the top two being rewarded, and it still doesn't account for the fact that the point system may not have been designed with this type of payout in mind. Again, you are still changing the payouts midstream and that's simply not fair, albeit, it's not near as drastic.
   
   
4. Cancel Everything and Return Entry Fees - Basically, the tournaments never happened.
   
   I see this as the most fair. Nobody is harmed. Nobody can say they would have played differently had they known there were going to be cash payouts based on everybody's points. The tournament director doesn't have to worry about the point system he/she devised not being fair because it was designed for one type of payout but used for another type of payout. Nobody can say they wouldn't have played in three of the first six tournament if they had known there wasn't going to be six more. If you think about it, if you knew going in that you were going to be at a serious disadvantage and only play in 67 percent of the tournaments when others were playing in all of them, would you have done it? I wouldn't unless I was sure I was a lot better than everybody. People paid their money based on certain promises. Absent of something in the rules that say otherwise, I think the only way to ensure nobody is harmed is to pretend like it never happened. Sure, a few people think they are harmed by not getting what they thought they were going to earn, but with six tournaments still left to be played and only the top 2 winning, nobody was guaranteed anything.

I agree...very thought out...superbly presented...thank you...
I believe we are leaning...toward #4 cancelling/refunds...thanks again...

 

[Poker Zombie]

This is a thread that everyone running a WSOP (or similar) league should read.

Yes, it's nice to say "we're just friends, we don't need a bunch of rules", but you do. There should always be a caveat written into the rules that says what happens to the money if the tournament cannot be completed, if the WSOP is not held, if the WSOP is postponed, if the WSOP is moved (say to Paris or something). Having to figure it out on the fly will almost always feel unfair to someone.

 

[Gobbs]

This is a thread that everyone running a WSOP (or similar) league should read.

Yes, it's nice to say "we're just friends, we don't need a bunch of rules", but you do. There should always be a caveat written into the rules that says what happens to the money if the tournament cannot be completed, if the WSOP is not held, if the WSOP is postponed, if the WSOP is moved (say to Paris or something). Having to figure it out on the fly will almost always feel unfair to someone.

Like I always say, you want to keep your friendly game friendly, avoid controversy. You want to avoid controversy, have a comprehensive rule set.

However, I have to admit, I had never considered having rules in place like this...until now, of course. Good call, @Poker Zombie !!!

 

[StevieG]

Since this is a WSOP satellite and that event is merely delayed and not cancelled, I would think the organizers here should either reschedule the end of their series, or award the current top two the seats.

It sounds like at least half the series was played. Cancelling now and refunding seems the least desirable option.

 

[Gobbs]

Since this is a WSOP satellite and that event is merely delayed and not cancelled, I would think the organizers here should either reschedule the end of their series, or award the current top two the seats.

It sounds like at least half the series was played. Cancelling now and refunding seems the least desirable option.

From where will the money come to pay for the two seats? From what I've read, people only pay for the tournaments in which they play. I seriously doubt people are going to pay for non-existent tournaments.

This brings up another good point, though. This format seems very strange and undesirable. People who played in the first few tournaments and do poorly are less likely to continue playing and contributing to a prize pool they have absolutely no chance of winning (not even a small percentage). How can you plan to send people to Vegas for the WSOP when you have no idea how much money you will have at the end of the series?

I believe it was @DoubleEagle who had a similar series of tournaments, but everybody paid their complete entry up front. This seems like a much better way to do things. You know the prize pool from the beginning and if players don't show, they aren't hurting anything.

 

[StevieG]

@Gobbs - I totally misunderstood that they were allowing incremental participation and that they did not yet have the ability to award the stated prizes.

I was going to write before that I would also not get involved in whatever these organizers do from here on out, but wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Now I know I would not want to get involved in any of their events.

I believe it was @DoubleEagle who had a similar series of tournaments, but everybody paid their complete entry up front. This seems like a much better way to do things. You know the prize pool from the beginning and if players don't show, they aren't hurting anything.

100%

 

[DoubleEagle]

This is a thread that everyone running a WSOP (or similar) league should read.

Yes, it's nice to say "we're just friends, we don't need a bunch of rules", but you do. There should always be a caveat written into the rules that says what happens to the money if the tournament cannot be completed, if the WSOP is not held, if the WSOP is postponed, if the WSOP is moved (say to Paris or something). Having to figure it out on the fly will almost always feel unfair to someone.

We did not have that in our written rules. We will the next time.