Hello judges,

Today, a GPT was held and the prize break down for top 8 were as followed:
1st - $250 cash + 2 byes
2nd - 1 box of Oath
3rd-4th - 18 packs
5th-8th - 9 packs

Now, up to this point, I've been under the assumption that the TOs were allowed to restructure the prize support (even split) prior to the start of the top 8. Once evenly split, we play out the rest of the top 8 to determine who receives the 2 byes for the upcoming GP.

I was told today that there was a major discussion a few months ago by Toby where he mentions that because GPTs can't have prize support be evenly split, the restructuring of prize support prior to top 8 cannot be done (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/magicTCG/comments/3ewbcx/proper_way_to_propose_a_split_without_fear_of_a_dq/ctjfpw1?context=3). I've also heard that prize support CAN be restructured by the TO prior to the top 8 as long as the judges are not a part of it simply because the players can agree to anything they want. The TO/judges cannot facilitate anything.

In that thread, Toby mentions something very important - Ultimately, the players have the power to do what they want with prizes within the limitations set out by 5.2 (so no engineering results in association!), but tournament staff should not be involved.

So with that said, will there be any changes to the MTR, maybe even a section specifically for prize splitting, so we can address this issue and not question it? As of right now, it seems poorly worded and today, I second guessed myself when someone brought this to my attention and asking around 6 other judges on this, I received about a 3/3 split on responses. That shouldn't be the case.

This is the part where Colorado judges suggest following Uncle Scott's
example, as most of us have, and distribute prizes based on Swiss standing,
with the Top 8 played solely for the byes/invite/etc. This type of prize
structure allows and even encourages players to participate in, for
instance, GPTs for GPs they aren't attending or Invitational Qualifiers
feeding events they won't go to. It also nicely eliminates the need to
worry about prize splitting in the Top 8, as the only remaining prize is
unsplittable, so the players have no incentive to get themselves into
trouble by trying. This method also has the side benefit of slightly
discouraging draws in the last rounds, as Swiss standing alone determines
prize so draws hurt your chances of being 1st seed and thus getting the
most prize.

I am still interested in hearing a more official response to your query,
but in the absence of one, or of a clear enough one, there is certainly an
easy, clean solution.

Note that TOs are part of tournament staff. They should be handing out the prizes as announced in unsplittable situations. What the players do afterwards is up to them, so long as you don't have bribery concerns.

I doubt this will be addressed any time soon, honestly.

Prizes after Swiss is a great idea.

And that's what is interesting as you pointed out in the reddit thread, but also seems like a loophole when we don't really need to have one. As of now, it is an accepted norm to simply split the top 8 (or distribute even prizes prior to top 8 which still is the same thing) and play out for the byes by a lot of communities. Why have it be a loophole when we can simply just incorporate it into the MTR? I can't imagine this being due to legal reasons.

Originally posted by Toby Elliott:

Prizes after Swiss is a great idea.

I've got to say that I have a lot of difficulty convincing TOs to do this. They really want to have top heavy results because it looks better on advertisements. I can't argue this point. Saying first place gets $250 cash looks way sexier than saying that Top 8 gets $31.25 and 18 packs.

I have had players interested in redistributing prizes to make a more balanced fair exchange. $150 for first + invite and $50 for second renegotiated to $100 each and invite for winner or $150 for second and $50 + invite for winner.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I've got to say that I have a lot of difficulty convincing TOs to do this. They really want to have top heavy results because it looks better on advertisements. I can't argue this point. Saying first place gets $250 cash looks way sexier than saying that Top 8 gets $31.25 and 18 packs.

“Come play at Generic Comic Store this weekend to win your share of $250 in cash and two boxes of Oath of the Gatewatch given out to the Top 8”

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I've got to say that I have a lot of difficulty convincing TOs to do this. They really want to have top heavy results because it looks better on advertisements. I can't argue this point. Saying first place gets $250 cash looks way sexier than saying that Top 8 gets $31.25 and 18 packs.

Whats the difference if you say 250$ for first place with swiss standings or 250$ for first place after top8?

I do alot of prices after swiss, didn't see a difference so far, thats why im asking ^^

Marc prizes after Swiss doesn't mean an even split, it just means the prizes are awarded based on Swiss standings prior to top 8.

I agree that it doesn't have to mean an even split, but those who I've seen willing to head in that direction are more interested in balancing out the prize pool than giving more rewards to top swiss ratings since many of those are largely out of player control.

If I were TO, I'd do it differently. But most TOs I speak with don't want to prize based on swiss standings or give equal prizes to top 8. I'd note that GPs and the Pro Tour haven't moved to this model for their cash prizes so clearly you can't make that argument that it's the “best way to do things”.

Most places I've seen do it give prizes based on match points.
Something in as much control as a player can have at an event. While
coming 9th on tie breakers might mean you don't get the invite, it's
nice to get the same cash/booster prize as 8th.

Most of the events I've seen advertised with a $ value in the name of
the event are listing the total prize pool not the prize for first.
The reason here is obvious: they want to quote the largest number
possible and still give out prizes to second (et al.) place.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Marc DeArmond
<forum-25470-0a26@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> I agree that it doesn't have to mean an even split, but those who I've seen
> willing to head in that direction are more interested in balancing out the
> prize pool than giving more rewards to top swiss ratings since many of those
> are largely out of player control.
>
> If I were TO, I'd do it differently. But most TOs I speak with don't want to
> prize based on swiss standings or give equal prizes to top 8. I'd note that
> GPs and the Pro Tour haven't moved to this model for their cash prizes so
> clearly you can't make that argument that it's the “best way to do things”.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/164719/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/25470/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/25470/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

I'd note that GPs and the Pro Tour haven't moved to this model for their cash prizes so clearly you can't make that argument that it's the “best way to do things”.

Um, yeah, actually, I can still make that argument, and I will! :)

Removing the association of Top 8 results from prize distribution does a lot to remove the incentive to violate our policies re: Bribery. Also, if someone is only interested in prizes, but not the additional awards (Grand Prix Byes, etc.), they can claim their prize, then drop before you cut to Top 8 - and then the 9th player might win those byes.

We've started to notice an impact of the Play/Draw rule change on the final round(s) of Swiss - more and more, players are trying to get that top seed and always get to play first. That cuts down on intentional draws. I noticed a similar effect when I first started awarding prizes based on Swiss, instead of Top 8 results - fewer Intentional Draws, as players wanted the 1st place (after Swiss) prize.

Note that GPs and Pro Tours are great examples of what TOs should do, per policy - they announce a prize structure, and that's how those prizes are awarded … no matter what (re)distribution the players might prefer.

d:^D

Originally posted by Justin Miyashiro:

This is the part where Colorado judges suggest following Uncle Scott's example, as most of us have, and distribute prizes based on Swiss standing, with the Top 8 played solely for the byes/invite/etc. This type of prize structure allows and even encourages players to participate in, for instance, GPTs for GPs they aren't attending or Invitational Qualifiers feeding events they won't go to. It also nicely eliminates the need to
worry about prize splitting in the Top 8, as the only remaining prize is unsplittable, so the players have no incentive to get themselves into trouble by trying. This method also has the side benefit of slightly discouraging draws in the last rounds, as Swiss standing alone determines prize so draws hurt your chances of being 1st seed and thus getting the most prize.

I've never been to a tournament run with prizes this way. I could get behind it in theory but I'm curious what your experience has been with the playoffs. Are you suggesting that players who made the top 8 (or top 4) could drop and allow someone who didn't make the cut to play in the playoffs? Or are you simply suggesting “prizes based on swiss, then you can drop and give all of your opponents in the playoffs a bye?”

Edited Mike Combs (March 18, 2016 12:44:36 AM)

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

Justin Miyashiro
This is the part where Colorado judges suggest following Uncle Scott's example, as most of us have, and distribute prizes based on Swiss standing, with the Top 8 played solely for the byes/invite/etc. This type of prize structure allows and even encourages players to participate in, for instance, GPTs for GPs they aren't attending or Invitational Qualifiers feeding events they won't go to. It also nicely eliminates the need to
worry about prize splitting in the Top 8, as the only remaining prize is unsplittable, so the players have no incentive to get themselves into trouble by trying. This method also has the side benefit of slightly discouraging draws in the last rounds, as Swiss standing alone determines prize so draws hurt your chances of being 1st seed and thus getting the most prize.

I've never been to a tournament run with prizes this way. I could get behind it in theory but I'm curious what your experience has been with the playoffs. Are you suggesting that players who made the top 8 (or top 4) could drop and allow someone who didn't make the cut to play in the playoffs? Or are you simply suggesting “prizes based on swiss, then you can drop and give all of your opponents in the playoffs a bye?”

I've had success running multiple PPTQs where Prizes are as follows (based on final Swiss standings)

1st-8th: X packs
9th-16th (if attendance allows): Y packs

Players have been happy with this, since a a good number of them simply want the invite.

Originally posted by Mike Combs:

Are you suggesting that players who made the top 8 (or top 4) could drop and allow someone who didn't make the cut to play in the playoffs?

Yes, that's exactly what I've done.

d:^D

This is exactly what I and many other Colorado area TOs/judges have done. You announce your Top 8, ask each of them if they would like to play for the byes/invite, drop any who don't, ask the 9th/10th/etc. if they would like to, as needed, until you have a full playoff bracket. Everyone gets prizes based on where they finished in the Swiss, and the 8 (or 4, if applicable) players left do a typical playoff for the byes/invite.

This has largely been met positively in the area, and it's even led to situations where a player drops from being first seed b/c they only wanted their pack prizes but don't care about the invite. This ensures all 8 of the playoff players actually want the byes/invite. It also leads to amusing scenarios where lower seed players still get to participate. Our last GPT almost had a 1-3 player in the top 4 b/c no one else wanted the byes. A PPTQ a while ago had the 22nd seed playing in the top 8 b/c everyone else either didn't want the invite or had already left.

I would suggest that, if you change to this prize distribution, that you clearly announce to players that this is how it will be run, so that players who are close to Top 8 and want to play don't leave b/c they don't think they made it.

Sent from my iPad