Minimum attempt buyin must be X1.25-X2 number of games?
Alternative proposal… I think it might be a better format (more deserving of 3x TGP) if it was “up to 4 attempts per machine; you can’t exceed 4 attempts on any particular machine”
If someone’s first attempt is the event’s best score for that machine they can:
- not bother playing their other 3 available entries on that machine (go get some lunch, conserve their energy, enjoy the show)
- play their entries attempting to further pad their lead protecting from someone else’s great score later in qualifying
- play their entries (at a normal pace of play) to tie the queue as a defensive move slightly reducing the number of competing scores that get posted and getting some extra practice
I had the max 4 per game idea and that helps with giving more flex on # of over all games.
Now refund rules may need to be changed to refund used + # of tickets needed to get to 4 on the new game.
A large part of my unlimited best game attempts is to prep myself for finals (assuming the machines used for finals are the same machines used in qualifying). This is especially true for me if there are no re-picks in finals.
I’m on team ‘keep this simple’ and if I blown up AIQ on my first game, I’ve earned the right to use those 3 additional entries for practice on other machines. Say King of Diamonds . . . followed by King of Diamonds, and then maybe another King of Diamonds.
1 Like
Yup, that makes sense to me. I think the format where you get to leverage your AIQ skill into extra KoD practice is a less skill-testing format than the one where you only get at most 4 attempts on each machine. But if you’re happy giving 3x TGP for that first format structure then I’ll take it and look forward to seeing those events in the calendar.
No, but he would be have the entries available if he wanted.
Maybe “guaranteed minimum” could use some wordsmithing, but the idea would be that everyone entering into the tournament would be given enough tickets that they could play every game in the bank x times, if they wanted.
some events may change stuff on games / do fixes on the games before finals.
That can also fix some issues with UNLIMITED.
Even at X1 for events with like 15+ games make the min buy-in be at least able to play all games once.
Now for card based any ideas for
limited card
limited card plus
UNLIMITED card min buy in?
“everyone entering into the tournament would be given enough tickets that they could play every game in the bank x times, if they wanted”
This is exactly what we’re doing . . . however we’re allowing that flexibility of using the tickets you COULD PLAY on AIQ on any other games in the bank.
Logistically this is also far more easier for TD’s to handle - 40 tickets (for 10 machines) . . . the end, have fun, good luck. When they go to sell more entries they can see exactly what a player has left and if they’ve hit that threshold.
Good, I agree! This type of imbalanced play count is fine, because it is skill-based and not money-based.
1 Like
But maybe for classes of events like Certified?
make the min buy-in be X1 # of games? If that is to much then maybe 1.5 X of games that count if that adds up to less then # of games.
The IFPA wording should have some small flex build in to cover changes in number of games.
What if top players were limited to 1 or 2 plays per game in qualifying, while players further down the rankings get more attempts per game? Players far down the rankings can play many times as their money and time permitted.
Seems unfair on its face, but it would lessen the ease with which a top player cruises through qualifying.
Don’t we want the top players to cruise through qualifying? With the goal being to award the most WPPRs to the players who demonstrate the most skill during that tournament.
Maybe. But if the goal is to have large prize pools, you must provide weaker players with a convincing illusion that they could win (or at least go far).
It’s not . . .
2 Likes
The organizers can CHOOSE this format or not. If they want maximal prize pools (The Beast) or if some or all of the prize money goes to charity (PATZ, YEGPIN Classics, etc.), then they stick with unlimited. Not a problem.
1 Like
That’s a fine goal for a tournament organizer. But it’s not the overall goal of the WPPR rules. Sometimes tournament organizers plan events that are lower TGP for the sake of attracting a broader base of players. That’s totally fine and Unlimited Best Game is still a good option for that (big prize pools) or some variation of Limited Best Game (can’t buy your way into more chances of getting to finals).
Ignoring TGP implications, I’m not sure if IFPA would sanction a tournament that gives players more/less plays based on ranking. That feels like it wouldn’t be allowed.
More/less plays based on money paid in (Unlimited best game rebuys) is allowed because although it’s not equitable in the grand scheme of life, it is an opportunity that’s on the face of it available to any player.
It also occurs to me that if players are faced with a cap on the number of attempts per game, they may try to circumvent it by playing the game without submitting an official attempt.
Maybe that issue is self-limiting, since they’d be waiting in a queue to do so. Or maybe tournament staff already know how to solve it.
It’s definitely a risk. It’s already a concern for any Limited Best Game format (for the reasons you stated) and a concern for Unlimited Best Game (for payers trying to save $3 on an entry each time they cheat).
It’s somewhat prevented by the fact that Never Drains (and I think MPE) does not let the player remove themselves from the queue once they’re at the top of the queue. It’s also something Scorekeepers should keep an eye out for. Unauthorized game restarts are a similar issue too.
I have heard of players getting Yellow Carded / Red Carded for this kind of stuff.
Good news / bad news is that these are existing concerns, not new to Hybrid Best Game.