el3n1; I do think you reckon what you're doing is fair and honest but I don't think it is and the fact you're suggesting wgt reduces purses on the basis of it makes that important. How long until we hear "the players suggested to us that we reduce purses to keep these fine tournaments going"? When the purses are reduced participation will follow leading to reduced purses leading to..............
Fair enough you didn't realise WD's weren't shown, it's not as you suggested the only tornament where this is the case, but you still seem to persist with the view that your numbers have some sort of vadility.
el3n1:I also stated it could be viewed as a projected loss... which does illustrate why it makes sense WGT would be concerned even if those numbers are not 100% accurate they likely still give a ballpark number that shows WGT is noticing it on their end due to a lack of participation.
They don't give a ballpark number, I'd guess (and it's all I can do) that a lot more people WD from that tournament than finish it, how can it be when you are dividing by a totally arbitry number? Actually I suppose it's not totally arbitary we know it's way too low.
el3n1: As for the other aspects, I can't even imagine or conceive of building a bankroll of hundreds of thousands of credits to sale them back for gift cards. It seems that is more likely a rather small segment of elite players who are able to do that. So we are definitely thinking or approaching the game from a different mindset.
I spent years doing what you are then decided I'd rather use the money from 30min work that spend 4 hours on ad's and surveys (one particular holiday ad' I watched thousands of times at 1c a time still pops into my head sometimes).
Lol, I think with our relative progression you're more likely to get there than me but that doesn't matter for what happens. The point is that the small segment of players you mention are the ones winning the credits.
Lets at least look at a finished one, Septembers. Joe won it Ujjbnjk second and FrenchConnect third so all the credits went to them. None of them will buy credits so thats 52,500 credits. Joe and FC are verified and will most likely cash most of them in at 660 to the £, so that's $53. Uj isn't so probably gifts most of them meaning in effect it's costing wgt close to the $ per 100 they suggest every prize does = $175. They would need to have needed 115 entries to make a profit, on that over simple basis (not counting ball use, etc) in that one. From next month with the prize fund down 28.6% from what it was that would be 82 entries needed.
I said earlier that it was just a guess as to how many withdrew, but lets try something. This is a quote from Champ on p4 of this thread...
The tournament payout changes were to make them make more sense. In the top tiers we were giving 3x the credits compared to the tournament entries, and that's essentially been cut to 2x. It was illogical (and kind of still is). We also made it so that Champion and Tour Legend (and in some cases Legend) tier players were not competing for the same purse amount.
I think Champ will view the numbers as you do, $=100credits entry and prize. Take these numbers at face value, the prize was 52,500c so a third of that is 17,500c giving 88 entrants. From November 37,500c, with half being 18,750 giving 94 entrants. I appologise for now guessing again but, I assume he's not rounding numbers down and there were at least 100 entrants.
I actually don't really get the last bit of the quote from Champ', both he and you argue strongly that the prizes need to go down because of the numbers playing these. You've suggested that a lot more legends play (assuming all tiers have a similar % of WD's), a Legend for every 2.1 champs and one for every 4.56 (!)TL's. Suddenly prize funds are tier based too, "made not the same" doesn't mean dropping one and raising another in case that wasn't clear ;-)
The prize pool for all three tiers was 52,500c; next month it will be Champion 37,500c, TL 27,000c and Legend 21,000c. So the legend one, with by far the highest participation has been most savagely cut, having had a prize fund in October that was 150% more than the one it has been "changed" to.
el3n1: As far as I know, this entire thread is about offering suggestions. It doesn't mean we will all like what someone else suggest, it is ultimately up to WGT to weigh the pros and cons. I simply suggested a model that does work and is based on participation.
I think that's fair but I also think they know this model, every RG pays exactly 80% of the entry fees for a start. I don't pretend all this gives an entirely accurate picture, Joe even gifted me a set of balls after beating me in a recent CC mp game, I think he generally does, so even that would change the numbers as it's $5 I now wont spend :-)
I just think instead of slowly killing tournaments there must be better things wgt could do starting with listening to Mags and generally stop folk selling credits, perhaps looking at how to get players from all countries verified etc etc. This is penny pinching and daft.