CORDIAL MINUET ENSEMBLE

joshwithguitar

Member

Registered: 2015-01-07

Posts: 128

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

A higher factor would certainly make the contest for first place tenser, but I guess it might also be a disincentive to those who don't think they have a good chance of 1st place. I would prefer it, but as I said I'm a bit biased.

I think something needs to be done to stop people from stealing places by joining in the last few minutes with a pretty much guaranteed win. I'm not sure having a 1 game minimum would fix this as a player could still join, join a game and then leave straight away with only a small loss. I guess this wouldn't be guaranteed for the player though as they might not get a game...

Still perhaps you need to stop people joining in past a certain time, like in the last 30 mins. This should fix the issue.

What JA did was an exploit and I think Chin was robbed and should be reimbursed. I also think he has a point about JA not having a non-existent net profit. Claspa and I have agreed to lose the $12 to Chin if you're not willing to reimburse him Jason.

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

I just seems strange to do it at this point.

Those are the rules that the tournament ran by, and there were actually quite a few people who joined along the way for exactly this reason.  JA was simply the very last one to do it.  Making JA the smartest one.

Also, as you know, JA is a notorious villain looking to fuel the JA rumor mill.  It seems like JA just couldn't resist.

In my view, it is kind of operating as intended.  If you are going to have negative profit, it is better to not play at all, right?  I mean, if profit is king.

joshwithguitar

Member

Registered: 2015-01-07

Posts: 128

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

Well, I wasn't saying JA should have the money taken from them, just that it is an exploit . I think joining and not playing an hour before the contest ends would be fine as you don't know what the outcome will be and if you'll make money or not and so you are making a gamble. But 2 mins before it ends? Here you are pretty much guaranteed money for no effort. So, sure, make not playing a strategy. But don't allow a player to join in the last few minutes to take a prize.

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

Chin Professor, as a gesture of goodwill, I will refund you your $10 entry fee.  I will make this transfer when I pay out the Amulet cash prizes on Monday.

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

The simplest way to handle this in the future, so we're not splitting hairs and running into edge cases, is to simply require a minimum amount of profit to place on the leaderboard.  That would prevent someone from coming in and join/leaving several games in a row to make their game quota.

Thus, in the future, anyone with 0 or negative profit would not receive a prize.  The threshold in this case of this tournament could have been something like 25 cents.  So, if you don't take at least half of the chips from SOMEONE, you will receive no prize.

On the other hand, the threshold could perhaps be just 0.

We did worry about someone join/leaving right at the end, but that would put them at a -6 coin profit.  A higher profit threshold (like 25 cents) still seems safer, regardless.

joshwithguitar

Member

Registered: 2015-01-07

Posts: 128

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

I quite like this idea, as long as the entire prize pool is still given out at the end.

It should only affect tournaments with < 20 players and will give incentives for even a far out on top player to keep playing and bring everybody else down below 0 in order to get the whole pool themselves.

Professor Chin

Member

Registered: 2015-01-13

Posts: 54

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

Ok, I had a night of good sleep and cooled down.

Jason, I'm sincerely grateful for your proposal, but I renounce the entry fee refound.
In the end I played knowing the rules, actually it was also the dynamics of the last ten minutes of my tournament that made the outcome so bitter.

Your proposal, the change of rules and the support of Claspa and Josh in particular more than make up for it.

And thinking about money: until now I did deposit 20$ in CM (less than, say, the cost of the Witcher 3) and I had way more than one hundred of hours of fun and interesting time with it (never lasted more that 80 hours in an RPG ). Yet after I receive my Amulet tournament prize my balance will be of about 24$, mostly from your money, already on the profit side of things and enough to join future tournaments.

Finally, as in any good super-hero movie, I now have my super-villain and my motivation (well, in the movies they kill some dear one... but a last minute sniping will do anyway )
I'll have my (unlikely?) revenge on JA...

claspa

Member

Registered: 2015-01-15

Posts: 72

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

The simplest way to handle this in the future, so we're not splitting hairs and running into edge cases, is to simply require a minimum amount of profit to place on the leaderboard.  That would prevent someone from coming in and join/leaving several games in a row to make their game quota.

Thus, in the future, anyone with 0 or negative profit would not receive a prize.  The threshold in this case of this tournament could have been something like 25 cents.  So, if you don't take at least half of the chips from SOMEONE, you will receive no prize.

Interesting idea indeed.

Given the results of this tournament how would have been the prizes with a threshold of 25 cents?

..

Member

Registered: 2014-11-21

Posts: 259

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

Yes, that sounds like a good solution.

Regarding the prize ratio. Goals seem to include a large prize for 1st place but also a lot of people who receive prizes. With just those constraints the solution is to make the prize ratio large, and also have a low minimum prize (less than the buy-in). (I won less than 40% of the buy-in for the test tournament as a prize, but I was still happy to receive it -- it felt like a small win.) But that's not ideal, as then the 2nd and 3rd place prizes are low, which puts off the bulk of contestants who realistically have to aim for 3rd place rather than 1st place. I feel that 1.25 was too low and 2 is too high.

Also, automatic daily contests? Cool!

jasonrohrer

Administrator

Registered: 2014-11-20

Posts: 802

Re: $10 Tournament on Saturday, May 30

Okay, I've added a tournament parameter that limits winners based on a minimum profit threshold.  So, we can prevent people with $0 or negative profits from winning a prize.

I've also investigated various prize tier ratios, and it seems like 2x is the best, combined with a low minimum prize.  So, you buy in for $10, and the min prize is $5.  That gives us a first place prize of over $40 if we have 9 players, which seems about right.  5, 10, 20, 40, with 4 places paying.  If any of those 4 places scores under the profit threshold, the prizes in the higher places go up.

Will start a test tournament with these new settings soon.