In an IFPA event, wouldn’t two players agreeing to split a prize regardless of outcome undermine the competitive aspect of the event?
From the IFPA rules
"Any collaborative effort between players in an attempt to unfairly affect the outcome of the competition, or to “lock out” a third player, or to otherwise refrain from making the best possible competitive effort on each and every game played, will be looked upon very poorly by tournament officials, and may result in disciplinary action, including disqualification and/or ejection from the tournament."
This was brought up at length in the discussions around Pinburgh, the round 10 seeding and groups colluding to benefit everyone vs competing at their best… or in the other pinburgh related ‘sandbagging’ tangents and the theme is anything that would be counter to players competing at their best falls into this area. The topic of ‘not playing leading to a better outcome’ was also discussed at length and debated on if this rule applied at a PER game level or had to be evaluated at the event level… because a choice may better me in the long run vs now,etc. But again, the spirit seemed to be about protecting the integrity of the competition in the sense that all players should be doing their best to WIN.
But if you have two players colluding to share a prize regardless of outcome - doesn’t that undermine that spirit? By taking away the big prize incentive to win, doesn’t that hurt the competitive integrity of the event? Because such a decision guarantees an outcome for both players… removing or at least diminishing the ‘big lure’ the event has setup with the prize pool?