What if you were watching the world series… and in the final game the two teams on their own just decided amoungst themselves how things go… instead of competiting.
The “if those involved agree” line of thinking assumes the only people of consequence are the competitors in that match. What about the people watching? What about the event’s efforts to build up to this point?
Why do we even have different payouts for the different finishes in the last match?? Because it’s supposed to matter. And a long established, well acknowledged method is REWARDING results.
Playoff bonuses for professional athletes in many sports are minuscule compared to their regular salaries, but athletes “not trying” in the playoffs because they don’t have financial incentive to do so isn’t really a problem that exists.
Why not play it as it was intended, and not split the prize? Surely the tournament organizers didn’t intend for 1st through 4th to get the same amount of money. If they did intend that, they’d make the prize the same for 1st through 4th (or whatever number get a payout).
Now I just don’t understand what your post is about. Originally, you were making the argument that splitting the pot altered the integrity of the competition, and you made the analogy that it’s similar to sandbagging or colluding to decide match outcomes. Now you’re saying splitting the pot makes it less entertaining for people to watch. Maybe that is true, but it has nothing to do with your original argument.
Here’s a question for you – As a spectator, do you think you would be able to tell the difference between a final where the player’s split the pot and players who did not?
What do y’all think about a group of people in a finals format…say 4, all agreeing before the finals start that they will split any money that they win equally, no matter what rounds they end up at?
It might just create a situation where if someone in your group makes it to the final four, you’ll all be cheering like crazy for that person
Incorrect - the point of the text you quoted was to highlight that the match has significance outside of the actual contestants in the match.
The match in itself is a product… something that is built up to. The “success” of that match and its integrity goes beyond just who finished in what order. Contestants colluding together to change the stakes alters that product.
I can tell you with Heads-Up the fact that Stern donated a NIB game into the prize pool throws everything off with respect to how I normally break a prize pool down.
I’ll always default to the “Seattle payout” structure which very rarely ends up with people splitting at the end. That structure does a great job of awarding the next finishing position just the right amount of ‘more money’ where it’s just significant enough to not really worry about splitting.
HUC has about the biggest drop off in prize payoff that I can think of . . . $5000 for 1st, $600 for 2nd (88% drop between 1st and 2nd). I won’t fault any of the finalists for ever deciding to chop that pot.
Then why award different prizes to the finalist in the first place? Or why create such big disparities between payouts?
The reason is they work to build both incentive for the competitors and build the suspense or value to the audience.
I mean… didn’t the IFPA just risk alienating everyone to attempt to drive up the prize pool for their branded competitions? I mean, if it really was insignificant… why bother? Because increasing the stakes increases people’s interest.
Because I needed to respond to different POINTS made, the direction of each post was not dictated by me. I’ve made several points and used analogies to support the ideas. Remember analogies are PARALLELS - not that the example is itself equal.
1 - That the relevancy is not limited to just the competitors in the match or direct impact to other competitors
2 - That the match in itself is a product that can be compromised/undermined regardless of the finishes
3 - That the stakes involved are part of the formula that impacts interest
4 - That the stakes involved are a long standing incentive for competitors
It clearly would depend on the players involved. Behaviors may differ. But I’ll ask you this in return… why does the size of the pot matter to a potential audience? They aren’t going to see any of it themselves…
Perhaps to you it undermines it, but I have no problem with it. If the competitors want to split the prize pool, I’m fine with it as long as they are all trying to win. I wasn’t on the edge of my seat during game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals because I was thinking about how much money LeBron James could win.
Then why are matches of consequence in global football more watched and valued than international friendlies?
Because the stakes matter! It’s a psychological element of both the competitors and the audience. It’s part of the hype organizers try to build to exploit.
I get that Bowen may say “I try my hardest regardless” - but that is a horrible standard to define rules by. If we just said “everyone will be on their best behavior all the time” half the rules could be dropped because you don’t have to worry about banning behavior that doesn’t coincide with your ideal case.
Thanks! In the “Seattle Payout”, a pot split guarantees 17%, which is only a marginal amount less than second place. A player would have to win outright (25% chance, assuming even competition) in order to earn a significant amount more than the guaranteed 17% that a pot split gives you. Pot split seems the smart decision here.
