|
I don't see how having buy-in games will make any difference at all?
Right now, you say that almost every tournament is being won by top-tier players. Add in the buy-in and it's STILL true. The majority of good but not top players will still be making nothing, maybe even losing money due to the buy ins, which makes these tournaments very unappealing to anyone but the top.
The reason SnG's work for Poker is because no matter how awful of a player you are, there's still somewhat of a chance that you'll win some cash. The large luck factor is what attracts random people who just throw in money into the game.
For the same reason, this is why we don't have "SnG" hockey, football or basketball tournaments. The results are too heavily dependent on skill, so the average player would never want to put up money to enter and will just play casually instead.
|
To encourage people who are afraid to not win anything to play those low stake tournaments,
How about a model like:
64 player tournament with 10$ entrance fee (640$ price pool)
everybody who reaches round of 32 gets back 2.50$ (560$ remaining)
everybody who reaches round of 16 gets back another 2.50$ (520$ remaining)
everybody who reaches round of 8 gets back another 5$, making everything from this point profit (480$ remaining)
250$ for first place
100$ for second place
55$ for third
25$ for 4th
50$ remaining which could be used for a variety of things, which were already mentioned somewhere before, like commentators, website administration, etc
due to wider price spread, would probably also somewhat diminish the interest of "pros" in the tournament.
might be too much paperwork, though, don't know, you tell me.
edit: could make it even more casual-friendly, like:
ro32: 5$ return (480$ rem.)
ro16: 5$ return (400$ rem.)
ro8: 10$ return (320$ rem)
1. 150
2. 70
3. 40
4. 20
again having 40 for other stuff
|
I would suggest you alternatively look at this from a managerial or administrative perspective. When players start to pay money for something they are now purchasing a product in that tournament and expect a positive experience out of it. Funds will be drawn in to management and administration to unsure people actually enjoy the experience to a degree where they consider coming back. Consider that as soon as you start to handle money you become a company or corporation that operates at some level of profit.
It is possible to run something like this as a simple transfer of funds but the opportunity for corruption is also something to keep in mind. Unless you go some non-profit route but as is they way in free market economies, some one is going to take what you are doing and find a way to profit from it, reinvest and gain and edge.
Going the profit route will likely involve some level of government involvement and this will have rather large impacts, especially if you intended this to be international as you will be working with multi national regulation which means more administration costs to sort through it all. When ever something makes money the government wants their share as well as telling you what you can and cannot do. eSports regulation is rather nonexistent, but you make a good inference when you talk about online porker as this is where most legislature would likely be drawn from.
It is an interesting idea but it would require a well structured business proposal that could inspire investment from a bank or entrepreneur to get started. I would also suggest that it be broken down in to regions that do no mingle in terms of prize pool competition.
Not meant to be a discouragement, just the assessment of a Public Administration student
|
The thread is growing and I haven't had time to read through all of it so sorry if I'm just repeating someones post, but here goes anyway:
Change the format for lower level and lower prize tournaments to have much more even prize distribution, example:
Tournament setup: 32 players, 5$ buy in, 10% of total goes to rake, costs, etc.
Prize distribution: 144$ total, evenly distributed at 2% increase to 4% increase per top 8.
Distribution:
1st: 24% - 34.56$
2nd: 20% - 28.8$
3rd: 16% - 23.04$
4th: 12% - 17.28$
5th: 10% - 14.4$
6th: 8% - 11.52$
7th: 6% - 8.64$ (they made money on SC2!)
8th: 4% - 5.67$ (they get their buy in back)
This means that if you just beat a few players, you have your money back and a chance to win up to 7 times what you 'bet'.
From the pros perspective:
It costs to enter and you only 'win' if you place 1st or 2nd. With evenly distributed prize money, the gain is very little for the smaller tournaments.
From the low level players perspective:
It costs to enter and there will be pros competing. With evenly distributed prize money you have a chance against your own level and you can 'easily' get your money back.
Would you play in a tournament where there was a small chance of pro players, and you had a 'high' chance to get your money back?
|
On December 15 2010 14:52 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:ZIGGURAT, STOP. Seriously, dude, if you want to compare Starcraft 2 and poker, that's 100%. If you want to argue that you can't compare them, that's 100% fine. But for you to make incredibly idiotic statements like Show nested quote +And btw I think you would beat Ivey more like 40% if you play halfway decent (however if you played repeatedly he'd figure your play out a lot better than you'd figure out his, so maybe 25% is more accurate after a lot of hands). makes me rage, as someone who has a very intimate understanding of the game of poker, ESPECIALLY when you claim to have read ANY book relating to poker. NO professional will tell you that poker is even remotely luck-based. There is NO luck in long-term poker earnings, only odds and statistics. "Luck" is an illusion created by looking at a small sample size of a large number of hands. A player who gets AA dealt to them three times in a row is just as likely to have 27off dealt three times in a row as well. On another note, I understand that Starcraft 2 has a much much smaller "luck" element involved in it than Poker, in that skill will dictate the winner of any single SC2 match much more often than any single poker match, but I believe that this is completely irrelevant to my argument. In no point in me talking about bringing more money into the SC2 scene via tournaments am I suggesting that "luck" need be a necessary element.
I'm not sure how "intimate" your understanding of poker actually is, but it's not unusual to go on a downswing that lasts 100k hands. There is a lot of luck in long-term poker earnings. As for the outcome of any given poker tournament, that is at least 95% luck. No pro would disagree with these statements.
I also don't understand why this discussion would make you "rage". Just chill out and do your research 
Sorry if this seems like derailing the thread, but the OP started it!
|
Umm. Stating that the outcome of a poker tournament is 95% luck is crazyness. You would never see a small exlusive club of top players consistently coming to the final table if you were anywhere close to correct.
|
I guess Helmuth, Chan and Brunson, Ivey and all the top pros are just the luckiest people ever.
On December 16 2010 04:45 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2010 14:52 Steven.Bonnell.II wrote:ZIGGURAT, STOP. Seriously, dude, if you want to compare Starcraft 2 and poker, that's 100%. If you want to argue that you can't compare them, that's 100% fine. But for you to make incredibly idiotic statements like And btw I think you would beat Ivey more like 40% if you play halfway decent (however if you played repeatedly he'd figure your play out a lot better than you'd figure out his, so maybe 25% is more accurate after a lot of hands). Poker is so popular because it's like 95% luck. makes me rage, as someone who has a very intimate understanding of the game of poker, ESPECIALLY when you claim to have read ANY book relating to poker. NO professional will tell you that poker is even remotely luck-based. There is NO luck in long-term poker earnings, only odds and statistics. "Luck" is an illusion created by looking at a small sample size of a large number of hands. A player who gets AA dealt to them three times in a row is just as likely to have 27off dealt three times in a row as well. On another note, I understand that Starcraft 2 has a much much smaller "luck" element involved in it than Poker, in that skill will dictate the winner of any single SC2 match much more often than any single poker match, but I believe that this is completely irrelevant to my argument. In no point in me talking about bringing more money into the SC2 scene via tournaments am I suggesting that "luck" need be a necessary element. I'm not sure how "intimate" your understanding of poker actually is, but it's not unusual to go on a downswing that lasts 100k hands. There is a lot of luck in long-term poker earnings. As for the outcome of any given poker tournament, that is at least 95% luck. No pro would disagree with these statements. I also don't understand why this discussion would make you "rage". Just chill out and do your research Sorry if this seems like derailing the thread, but the OP started it!
And btw, he's actually really good at poker, but that's just luck right? I question whether you actually play any amount of poker because if you wouldn't say it's 95% luck. There's a difference between luck, skill and accidently making a correct play (i.e, a big portion of that 95% luck you're thinking of)
|
On December 16 2010 04:45 ziggurat wrote:
I'm not sure how "intimate" your understanding of poker actually is, but it's not unusual to go on a downswing that lasts 100k hands. There is a lot of luck in long-term poker earnings. As for the outcome of any given poker tournament, that is at least 95% luck. No pro would disagree with these statements.
It's extremely uncommon to go on a 100K hand downswing if you're a winning player in the game you're playing. Does it happen? Yes. Often? No. Very rarely, maybe once in a career. 10,000 hands is borderline common for a winning player...but 100K you're experiencing an extremely rare period of negative variance or you're not a winning player.
Most people that have played 100K hands are on a 100K hand losing streak, by definition. A significant majority of players are losing players.
To state that 95% of a tournament is luck is baseless and emotional. You're likely confusing luck with variance. To win the WSOP Main Event, yes you MUST get lucky. But professional players have a much much higher chance of getting "lucky" because they put themselves in better spots when they get their money in the middle. You could theoretically win if you went all in every hand and played like a robot. It is almost unfathomable, however.
There's an entire city built on the fact that winning 55/45 coinflips has no luck involved in the long run. Phil Ivey will get the money in good much more than 55% of the time against a novice.
|
On December 16 2010 03:06 Luggage wrote:
The thread is growing and I haven't had time to read through all of it so sorry if I'm just repeating someones post, but here goes anyway:
Change the format for lower level and lower prize tournaments to have much more even prize distribution, example:
Tournament setup: 32 players, 5$ buy in, 10% of total goes to rake, costs, etc.
Prize distribution: 144$ total, evenly distributed at 2% increase to 4% increase per top 8.
Distribution:
1st: 24% - 34.56$
2nd: 20% - 28.8$
3rd: 16% - 23.04$
4th: 12% - 17.28$
5th: 10% - 14.4$
6th: 8% - 11.52$
7th: 6% - 8.64$ (they made money on SC2!)
8th: 4% - 5.67$ (they get their buy in back)
This means that if you just beat a few players, you have your money back and a chance to win up to 7 times what you 'bet'.
From the pros perspective:
It costs to enter and you only 'win' if you place 1st or 2nd. With evenly distributed prize money, the gain is very little for the smaller tournaments.
From the low level players perspective:
It costs to enter and there will be pros competing. With evenly distributed prize money you have a chance against your own level and you can 'easily' get your money back.
Would you play in a tournament where there was a small chance of pro players, and you had a 'high' chance to get your money back?
No you need to split the prizes as so:
Where X7 is 7 times your entry fee payout
9-16 $5 ea (buy in back $120 remaining) X1
5-8 $7.50 ea (you made monies $90 remaining) X1.5
3&4 $10 ea (70$ remaining) X2
2 $25 X5
1 $45 X9
However this does not include the rake, if you include the rake you could probably cut prizes in places 3-8 to make monies. Now if you get sponsors, you can keep the money off the sponsors to pay for fees and profits, a bigger player pool would also result in better prizes. With 64 players $5 ea.
17-32 $5 ea ($240 remaining) X1
9-16 $7.50 ea ($180 remaining) X1.5
5-8 $10 ea ($140 remaining) X2
3&4 $17.50 ea ($105 remaining) X3.5
2 $40 X8
1 $65 X13
There is still huge prizes for 1st and second but players won't feel as bad because they get their money back if they win ONE match. These do not include rake/fees however a sponsor could easily replace that.
|
too much skill in starcraft imo, the top players will be winning everything
only way a tournament would work is if it was all bo1 from start to the finals to attract the less skilled players
so that even the less skilled players would hav a chance of winning
tats how u pump money into the tournament
|
why would someone dump any serious money into starcraft? What would the investor get back? If i were pepsi, what would i get in return for putting up 100k in prize money?
You'll see money put into SC2, when investors get more out than they put in. Tangible, hard core cash out.
I can see why razer does it, or MSi, because of synergy. But attracting regular large sums of money here in NA, never going to happen.
It also doesn't help to grow the community and generate buzz when at every corner many posters and pros remind the players that they're crap and their opinions don't matter (last sotg).
|
On December 16 2010 05:37 ashaman771 wrote:
why would someone dump any serious money into starcraft? What would the investor get back? If i were pepsi, what would i get in return for putting up 100k in prize money?
You'll see money put into SC2, when investors get more out than they put in. Tangible, hard core cash out.
I can see why razer does it, or MSi, because of synergy. But attracting regular large sums of money here in NA, never going to happen.
It also doesn't help to grow the community and generate buzz when at every corner many posters and pros remind the players that they're crap and their opinions don't matter (last sotg).
While I do agree with you that in NA you would be hardpressed to find investors besides the obvious gaming/computer companies, it is interesting to note that the GSL is funded by Sony Ericsson
|
On December 16 2010 05:27 red_hq wrote:
9-16 $5 ea (buy in back $120 remaining) X1
5-8 $7.50 ea (you made monies $90 remaining) X1.5
3&4 $10 ea (70$ remaining) X2
2 $25 X5
1 $45 X9
However this does not include the rake, if you include the rake you could probably cut prizes in places 3-8 to make monies. Now if you get sponsors, you can keep the money off the sponsors to pay for fees and profits, a bigger player pool would also result in better prizes. With 64 players $5 ea.
17-32 $5 ea ($240 remaining) X1
9-16 $7.50 ea ($180 remaining) X1.5
5-8 $10 ea ($140 remaining) X2
3&4 $17.50 ea ($105 remaining) X3.5
2 $40 X8
1 $65 X13
There is still huge prizes for 1st and second but players won't feel as bad because they get their money back if they win ONE match. These do not include rake/fees however a sponsor could easily replace that.
This is important. If players can make their money back on the first round, it means that they have a 50% shot at not losing any money...in the long run, they can break even (unless they are either really bad or really good). If the system is too top heavy, players won't want to compete with money, since they will only be feeding the consistent winners.
If the money is spread evenly throughout the players, then it encourages people to play. More people playing = more tournaments.
|
For the same reason, this is why we don't have "SnG" hockey, football or basketball tournaments. The results are too heavily dependent on skill, so the average player would never want to put up money to enter and will just play casually instead.
Actually, these do exist and, in fact, the players don't even win any money at all. People pay to play in rec leagues all the time. It is even more prevalent in individual sports. Wrestling, jiu jitsu, fencing, etc. all have tournaments pretty much every weekend with entrance fees and no prize money.
|
On December 16 2010 05:41 vicariouscheese wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 05:37 ashaman771 wrote:
why would someone dump any serious money into starcraft? What would the investor get back? If i were pepsi, what would i get in return for putting up 100k in prize money?
You'll see money put into SC2, when investors get more out than they put in. Tangible, hard core cash out.
I can see why razer does it, or MSi, because of synergy. But attracting regular large sums of money here in NA, never going to happen.
It also doesn't help to grow the community and generate buzz when at every corner many posters and pros remind the players that they're crap and their opinions don't matter (last sotg). While I do agree with you that in NA you would be hardpressed to find investors besides the obvious gaming/computer companies, it is interesting to note that the GSL is funded by Sony Ericsson
Absolutely, I watch GSL as well. But i suspect they sponsor because the analysis shows a net win on the money they put in.
|
solution is easy, just make the tournament divided by the level of players, so all bronze players have they respective tournament for bronze, all silver for silver, gold for gold ecc
even if i'm the last in my league i will partecipate if i know that i compete with only the players in my league
|
On December 16 2010 06:18 Garmer wrote:
solution is easy, just make the tournament divided by the level of players, so all bronze players have they respective tournament for bronze, all silver for silver, gold for gold ecc
even if i'm the last in my league i will partecipate if i know that i compete with only the players in my league
This is an incredible idea. Can't believe no one thought of this...it's perfect!
|
Yep, many games have the system and I think it's great. I'm sure many people would pay like 10 euros to take part in a tournament, and then the prize pool would go up to thousands, and this could be a weekly thing and... There'd be a lot of money to win.
In my opinion that's much better than the 1000 man 50 dollar tournaments there currently are. I'm not sure how they'd be organized though... paypal to the organizer I guess.
|
because the fee to run a SnG tournament is $10,000, good luck on finding enough people to pay that off.
This should end the thread barring anyone taking it out of context.
Once again, the fee you need to play blizzard to run a SnG tournament is 10k, so you need to generate enough profit from high school and college kids to make 10k, good luck with that.
Oh and for it working for poker, well thats because a majority of poker players dont rely on the talents of a young person (reaction speed anyone?) so they can play for a very long time, and it isnt physically draining on them. Anyone can invest money into poker, only a select few would invest money into video game competitions. People make the baseketball argument for eSports, that any fat slobby armchair ridden person is able to compete against the athletes jacked up on steroids, well this is tenfold for poker, anyone no matter the age, is able to compete in poker.
|
On December 16 2010 06:18 Garmer wrote:
solution is easy, just make the tournament divided by the level of players, so all bronze players have they respective tournament for bronze, all silver for silver, gold for gold ecc
even if i'm the last in my league i will partecipate if i know that i compete with only the players in my league
This is an incredible idea. Can't believe no one thought of this...it's perfect!
In my experience, this does not work, at least not without significant differences in prize pools. The prize differences between a gold tournament and a diamond tournament are not sufficient to prevent people from playing down if the same pool allocation is used across tournament 'levels'. A top level player maybe plays a diamond tourney on Monday and makes $800, that doesn't mean they won't play down to win $200 in a gold tourney on Tuesday. Top 200 players can be found in tournaments with prizes of $25 every week right now.
Also, there's does not appear to be an effective way to police at-level participation. Even in our Gold-Silver-Bronze tournaments we inevitably have some suspicion of someone playing down from time to time even when the prize is just a coaching hour. Not sure why anyone in platinum or diamond would join in that tourney but there really is just no way to be certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
