Announcing the 2016 California Extreme tournament


#21

My guess is decreased prize pool and decreased participation due to the “more expensive” (obviously not true, but sadly most people can’t read or put 2 and 2 (or in this case $20 and $20) together) entry fee. In my experience in the past it’s been largely a futile effort to cater heavily to players who complain about entry fees or location or anything like that…drop the entry fee and then those same players still don’t attend because Reasons.

I’m sad to see yet another one of the major unlimited qualifying events move away from the format. Of course I’m still coming anyway so don’t listen to my whining too much. I’m looking forward to the show and I am sure that you guys will do a great job tournament-wise with good games and good TD-ing (is that a phrase? Can we make it a phrase?)!


#22

We actually didn’t have PAPA participation in the prize pool last year either. They discontinued that at the same time they expanded the circuit.


#23

I’m predicting the prize pool will go down as well, although I’m still hoping we can hit $1000 for first place.


#24

As soon as there is adequate prizes for others than top finishers as well. it is good to make sure that the money of the players that contribute 96% of the pool (out of 100 people for example) do not end up 80% in the pocket of the top 4 :wink:

Not that I am doing it for the money but it gives a better motivation for intermediate players.


#25

The payout percentages are listed in the original post. They are pretty standard.


#26

Hope the other 33% goes to those who provide games…


#27

5th through 8th are 4% each, not 4% total, silly.

Last year 24th was $60 I think? I’d expect every qualifier to walk out with more than their entry fee this year.


#28

My statement stands :wink:


#29

I personally think this is a very good measurement of how to distribute the pool among contestants.


#30

at 24 qualifiers I don’t really agree with that unless the entry fee was pinburgh like.


#31

Or at least their entry fee back


#32

What do you disagree with? Or rather, how would you do it?


#33

Sure, I can go for that!


#34

At 100 players, the 24th place would get their entry fee back, $40.


#35

I would disagree with any guaranteed prize money that far down without knowing the attendance.


#36

I really wish criticisms of CAX being a show that “takes” significantly from the prize pool would go away. If you want an accounting of where every dollar came and went from last year, or this year, it can be provided.

The main reason CAX’s prize pool is lower compared to shows like INDISC and Expo is time: there is only 1 full day plus a few hours of qualifying. Having paid ~$300 out of pocket in a year where there was a guaranteed prize pool that wasn’t met by entries, it’s very important to me to be part of a trustworthy tournament, and I don’t understand why there have been several accusations that the show keeps a significant percentage of entry fees.

I may be misreading you. If you meant something else, I apologize in advance.


#37

My problem with CAEX is they take a chunk but offer NO games. At least the worst offenders of all RMPS and PPM provided games to use. Meanwhile Greg is there the day of begging for games from vendors and attendees.


#38

Actually CAX hasn’t taken a bite of the prize pool for the last two years, maybe longer? Bowen would know beyond that.


#39

CAX show organizers have provided games every year. It sounds like your expectation is that the show organizers should provide all the games for tournament? There are very few tournaments where that happens. Locals should be providing machines, and are compensated for their effort with show passes and other offers.

The difficulty (in 2014 anyway) was the transition from “lots of games brought up from So Cal” (a crapload of work by Jim and Brent and Laura and Dan and others) to “all the games are coming from No Cal”. In 2014 this clearly did not work well, but it was better in 2015. I can’t speak for Greg but I know he’s done more in this direction than I ever did, and I’m very happy he’s in charge.

CAX hasn’t taken a dime, let alone a “chunk” (whatever that is), from the prize pool in the last 3 years. I don’t know about 2013 because I wasn’t there, but Steinman was there and I suspect the same thing happened. The only “chunks” removed from the prize pool pay for the trophies, the casual and kids tournaments, and the bounty payoff for top score on each machine. The show’s take is $0.

Like I said before, I don’t understand why CAX has a reputation for “taking” from the prize pool. It doesn’t happen. It sounds like we need to prepare some more obvious evidence of this fact for 2016.


#40

The set entry fee per person will provide very direct evidence for you this year :slight_smile: