[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

NY ABT Prize concerns

Posted By: Rich Munitz
Date: Monday, 11 January 2010, at 11:02 p.m.

In Response To: NY ABT Prize concerns (Chuck Bower)

"If ABT points were awarded independent of $ distribution, then at least this non-uniformity would be remedied. Maybe there are downsides to that (which I don't see at the moment)."

I made a detailed proposal for doing exactly this about a year ago and it was nixed.

My proposal was that the winner of any event with exactly 64 players entered should get exactly the same number of ABT points as any other event with 64 players, regardless of how many positions the director chose to pay out. Second place would get half that and so on like the current point system. That would standardize the value of each cash position across all ABT events.

The problem with that method is that the total number of points awarded to all players at the event would be a function of the number of places the director chose to pay out. In the current system, the total number of points awarded for the event is fixed and equal to the number of players entered.

You can either fix the value of first place, or you can fix the total number of points awarded, but you can't do both.

I felt that standardizing points given to the winner was the best system, since ABT titles are generally determined by who is winning events more than by whether or not somebody got 1.5 points or not for finishing second in the Last Chance. In particular, I pointed to the extreme case of what if some director decided to make his 45 player ABT event winner-take-all; the current system would award all 45 points to the winner, and that random person would probably win the ABT every year. Vegas was capped at 96 players (i.e. 96 ABT points) in 2008 when 98 attended, yet even if it had awarded the full 98, it still would have awarded fewer points to first place than Michigan awarded with only 94 players. To me, this seems wrong.

Ultimately, Bill Davis and Gregg Cattanach argued strongly that you can't give out 68 points to one 64 player tournament and 60 points to another, and that fixing the number of points equal to the number of players should be the primary requirement of the ABT formula. And that the current system was working well enough and should remain unchanged and that it is better to try to set some guidelines for directors in terms of number of prize positions relative to number of players.

Messages In This Thread


Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:

If necessary, enter your password below:




[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.