(Topic ID: 185543)

Are you in favor of the IFPA changes for 2018? POLL


By pinlink

2 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 513 posts
  • 106 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 1 year ago by Blitzburgh99
  • Topic is favorited by 13 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic poll

    “Are you in favor of the IFPA changes for 2018 regarding the $1 entry fee?”

    • YES 215 votes
      50%
    • NO 212 votes
      50%

    (427 votes)

    Topic Gallery

    There have been 14 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

    pasted_image (resized).png
    pasted_image (resized).png
    MeanMeanest (resized).jpg
    85c588a29c8804b1e95223ed060880e7_one-dollar-bob-on-make-a-gif-one-dollar-bob-gif_320-180 (resized).png
    download (resized).jpg
    Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 3.40.48 PM (resized).png
    IMG_4979 (resized).PNG
    pasted_image (resized).png
    IMG_1567 (resized).png
    pasted_image (resized).png
    bop (resized).jpg
    large_uAvG211cGNKSFyPzXFVMZzjkBB8 (resized).jpg
    download (resized).jpg
    1mlwhh (resized).jpg

    There are 513 posts in this topic. You are on page 5 of 11.
    -2
    #201 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    Currently more than half of pinside favors this change as is??? I assumed we would polling at closer to 20-25% approval. Consider me SHOCKED at the level of support this has so far.

    I wouldn't put too much stock into the poll and people's "support" - it's a popularity contest on Pinside and I'd be shocked if less than 3/4ths of the votes aren't out of spite.

    Were I in your shoes, I'd be more concerned with people like Bowen Kerins disagreeing with it.

    #202 2 years ago
    Quoted from Cornelius:

    I wouldn't put too much stock into the poll and people's "support" - it's a popularity contest on Pinside and I'd be shocked if less than 3/4ths of the votes aren't out of spite.
    Were I in your shoes, I'd be more concerned with people like Bowen Kerins disagreeing with it.

    I don't actually put any stock in Pinside polls and assume most of the "for" votes are just anti-Hilton votes

    I'm not concerned with Bowen disagreeing. We had a good chat this morning and we're simply agreeing to disagree on this. I believe even he thinks I'm actually doing what I believe is in the best interest of moving the sport forward. He just wouldn't process the same direction and I totally respect that.

    #203 2 years ago

    To me it seems like the legal concerns (and ethical concerns related to charity events) associated with the proposed changes are the real kicker.

    #204 2 years ago

    I'm actually surprised the fee isn't higher. Running the IFPA seems like a lot of work. That they do it for almost free is amazing. I host a few league nights, but I have zero paperwork. Our league manager (or whatever his title is) does a ton of largely unappreciated work.

    I could see them charging a dollar or three for each event, just to build a pot. I could also see a membership fee for players that want to be ranked and maintain a profile on the site. Heck, I would pay it and I am probably like 4th from last in the national rankings. Being ranked looks good on my resume

    #205 2 years ago

    I don't think it's a money issue as much as how the money is being collected and what it's going toward.

    If you told a new player the money was going toward the IFPA to provide services to maintain a website and organize tournaments and to promote pinball I think most people would be on board.

    If you tell a new player this money is going to a fund the prize pool of elite players and you have little chance of seeing it unless you play very well and enter every possible tournament you can to earn all the points you can I think most people would scoff at that.

    Charge a yearly administrative fee of $5 paid through the IFPA website. If you pay you get ranked in all the tournaments you play on for the year. If you don't pay your points will count as if you played in the tournament so other players don't get screwed over but you cannot see your points on the website.

    Calling it a fee also hopefully gets around states with gambling laws like Wisconsin.

    If the IFPA wants to use 100% of your $5 for prize money that's fine. They can do what they want with their "fees."

    Do not do this amateur vs. pro separate tracking. Keep it simple!

    The collecting $1 per tournament from players 1/2 of which are willing to pay and the other 1/2 are not then sending the money to IFPA, designated who did and didn't pay for that particular tournament is a logistical disaster.

    #206 2 years ago
    Quoted from Cornelius:

    I wouldn't put too much stock into the poll and people's "support" - it's a popularity contest on Pinside and I'd be shocked if less than 3/4ths of the votes aren't out of spite.

    I feel this is true in all election type events

    #207 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    I'm not concerned with Bowen disagreeing.

    Whoa, if Bowen isn't on board then I'm not. I really enjoy his tutorials and frankly what have you ever done for me? Who can I see about getting my vote changed from anti-Hilton (not sure who this is) to pro Bowen.

    #208 2 years ago

    If Josh wants to spend all of the "fee" money on getting a "Most Extreme Pinball" reality TV show with the Kardashians that would be fine with me.

    Just don't complicate the system any more or muddy the waters with amateur and pro rankings.

    #209 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    For everyone else that still wants to play competitive pinball for free ... here's the best question I can ask:
    Did the IFPA build this house of cards that is competitive pinball, and with a new "Amateur" ranking system that doesn't exist yet, we will somehow stop everyone from playing competitively who don't want to pay this fee?
    IMO that gives FAR TOO MUCH CREDIT for what the IFPA has done to help move the competitive pinball scene forward.
    If we're only a piece of the pie in terms of growing the sport, we're only a piece of the pie missing if we ever disappeared for good (regardless of this change being implemented or not).
    Currently more than half of pinside favors this change as is??? I assumed we would polling at closer to 20-25% approval. Consider me SHOCKED at the level of support this has so far.

    I do not think you give IFPA the credit it deserves for building competitive pinball.

    If IFPA disappeared tomorrow, and the rankings with it, competitive pinball would still exist in some form.

    PAPA would still be a very popular circuit. Some leagues would continue to thrive.

    But you would lose a large, casual player base that enjoys the flavor that IFPA adds to the Pinball experience.

    While IFPA is not solely responsible for the rise of competitive pinball, it was the driving force behind the resurgence IMO.

    It provided the tools that passionate pinball players needed to grow competitive pinball.

    Marcus

    #210 2 years ago
    Quoted from Hi-Fi:

    If you tell a new player this money is going to a fund the prize pool of elite players and you have little chance of seeing it unless you play very well and enter every possible tournament you can to earn all the points you can I think most people would scoff at that.

    Are new bowling league members told when they sign up that their money is going where? I doubt it. They're told it costs $x to be part of this league. They're not going to be told $y of their league fees goes to the bowling federation and national prizes.

    #211 2 years ago
    Quoted from Xerico:

    I do not think you give IFPA the credit it deserves for building competitive pinball.
    If IFPA disappeared tomorrow, and the rankings with it, competitive pinball would still exist in some form.
    PAPA would still be a very popular circuit. Some leagues would continue to thrive.
    But you would lose a large, casual player base that enjoys the flavor that IFPA adds to the Pinball experience.
    While IFPA is not solely responsible for the rise of competitive pinball, it was the driving force behind the resurgence IMO.
    It provided the tools that passionate pinball players needed to grow competitive pinball.
    Marcus

    I think this outcry is exactly because of how valuable wppr points are to any event. Problem is people like free better.

    #212 2 years ago
    Quoted from zimjoe:

    I'm actually surprised the fee isn't higher. Running the IFPA seems like a lot of work. That they do it for almost free is amazing. I host a few league nights, but I have zero paperwork. Our league manager (or whatever his title is) does a ton of largely unappreciated work.
    I could see them charging a dollar or three for each event, just to build a pot. I could also see a membership fee for players that want to be ranked and maintain a profile on the site. Heck, I would pay it and I am probably like 4th from last in the national rankings. Being ranked looks good on my resume

    what about kick in levels per event based on number of players say

    under 10 $1-$2
    10-20 $2-$3
    20-50 $5?
    50-100 $10-$15
    100 and over $20 + $10 per next 25?

    and for charity events lower / call it a flat IFPA ADMIN fee say $5-$10 MAX

    #213 2 years ago
    Quoted from zimjoe:

    I feel this is true in all election type events

    Oh so true indeed.

    #214 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    I don't actually put any stock in Pinside polls and assume most of the "for" votes are just anti-Hilton votes

    Not trying to add to the dogpile on you, kind sir, but it's hard to tell what's serious about all this and what isn't. I mean, other than that change is afoot.

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    I'm not concerned with Bowen disagreeing. We had a good chat this morning and we're simply agreeing to disagree on this. I believe even he thinks I'm actually doing what I believe is in the best interest of moving the sport forward. He just wouldn't process the same direction and I totally respect that.l

    I don't see why Bowen's "passion" for Pinball makes his comments any more or less valued than Hilton's.

    #215 2 years ago

    curious why nobody likes my idea that for each SCS, the players have to pay a $200 fee to play?

    It seems like this is a really easy way to meet all of the IFPA goals.
    It puts the fees back on the people that play in SCS.
    It ups the prize pool for SCS and allows the winner enough funds to cover nationals trip.
    It ups the nationals prize pool.
    It makes for a consistent and equal pay in for each state to nationals so equal representation for the amount paid to nationals.
    In theory the same people playing in SCS are the paople that have won the most prize money each season by winning enough competitions and hence qualifying.

    It simplifies everything! 1 event with only 16 people to pay in. They are paying in with the chance to win it right back and go to nationals to win even more. This also cust down on the total transactions the IFPA needs to deal with. If all 50 states play then it is only 50 total transactions.

    Everything about this seems like all positives that also meet the needs of all involved.

    any down sides?

    #216 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    curious why nobody likes my idea that for each SCS, the players have to pay a $200 fee to play?
    It seems like this is a really easy way to meet all of the IFPA goals.
    It puts the fees back on the people that play in SCS.
    It ups the prize pool for SCS and allows the winner enough funds to cover nationals trip.
    It ups the nationals prize pool.
    It makes for a consistent and equal pay in for each state to nationals so equal representation for the amount paid to nationals.
    In theory the same people playing in SCS are the paople that have won the most prize money each season by winning enough competitions and hence qualifying.
    It simplifies everything! 1 event with only 16 people to pay in. They are paying in with the chance to win it right back and go to nationals to win even more. This also cust down on the total transactions the IFPA needs to deal with. If all 50 states play then it is only 50 total transactions.
    Everything about this seems like all positives that also meet the needs of all involved.
    any down sides?

    what if a small player state can't fill the full field? at that price

    #217 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    any down sides?

    The goal of the SCS is to get more people playing in local events so they can make it to the state finals. If the price of playing that even is $200, that changes everything.

    In a world where most local tournaments are free or $5 to enter, you're raising the standard entry fee to the SCS by 40x or more. I predict you couldn't even find 16 people in Colorado who would pay $200 to play in that event, even if you went all the way down to 241st place in the state rankings.

    It'd just be DNO, and the Lefkoffs playing for $600 and a trip to nationals.

    #218 2 years ago
    Quoted from Joe_Blasi:

    what if a small player state can't fill the full field? at that price

    I would say it then sounds like they need to work harder to build up the player base to fill the field.

    If only 10 people pay in, then only 10 people pay in. I would suggest they still have to send the minimum to IFPA for nationals ($800; the same as any state with 16 players).

    If in theory there are so many people looking for skin in the game and prize money at teh SCS and National level, then I assume it would be easy to fill the field.

    #219 2 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    The goal of the SCS is to get more people playing in local events so they can make it to the state finals. If the price of playing that even is $200, that changes everything.
    In a world where most local tournaments are free or $5 to enter, you're raising the standard entry fee to the SCS by 40x or more. I predict you couldn't even find 16 people in Colorado who would pay $200 to play in that event, even if you went all the way down to 241st place in the state rankings.
    It'd just be DNO, and the Lefkoffs playing for $600 and a trip to nationals.

    reallly????

    Isn't the whole idea that the top 16 people are the same people that win all these prize pools throughout the year? That si what Josh keeps saying is that they are just taking money off the top of the prize pool for every tournament.

    #220 2 years ago

    Yes. Even as someone who qualified in the top 8 both of the last two years, I wouldn't pay it. Neither would you.

    #221 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    curious why nobody likes my idea that for each SCS, the players have to pay a $200 fee to play?
    It seems like this is a really easy way to meet all of the IFPA goals.
    It puts the fees back on the people that play in SCS.
    It ups the prize pool for SCS and allows the winner enough funds to cover nationals trip.
    It ups the nationals prize pool.
    It makes for a consistent and equal pay in for each state to nationals so equal representation for the amount paid to nationals.
    In theory the same people playing in SCS are the paople that have won the most prize money each season by winning enough competitions and hence qualifying.
    It simplifies everything! 1 event with only 16 people to pay in. They are paying in with the chance to win it right back and go to nationals to win even more. This also cust down on the total transactions the IFPA needs to deal with. If all 50 states play then it is only 50 total transactions.
    Everything about this seems like all positives that also meet the needs of all involved.
    any down sides?

    I don't like this idea.

    $200 to play in SCS! Are you crazy?

    $1 play VS $200. I will pay in my $28 bucks (2016 event total) VS $200

    And why shouldn't someone who is interested in playing in the SCS pay in?
    All the other tournaments are playing for the right to play in the SCS.
    Talk about not being fair.

    #222 2 years ago

    I already won over $200 this year playing pinball and would be fine paying that money in for my entry fee into the SCS.

    This is in a state with limited payout events.

    Keep in mind for SCS I am thinking $200 per player for a total prize pool of 3200' $800 goes to nationals. This leaves 2400 for SCS to divide out.

    I would suggest payout of:
    1st $800
    2nd $400
    3-4th $200
    5-8 $100
    9-16 $50

    Most it really costs anyone is $150 to play.

    25% odds you break even or win big

    #223 2 years ago

    I played in a WSOP event a few years ago, and that was $1000. (That's a lot of money, but I played semi-professionally in the early 2000s, so it had always been a dream of mine). There were a few thousand people in the event, so the prizepool was massive.

    I would not have paid $1000 to play in a 16 person event with a $16k prizepool, against players who were as good as, or better than me.

    Would I have paid $1000 to play in a 16 person event of top players with a $50k or $100k prizepool? Hell yes.

    #224 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I would say it then sounds like they need to work harder to build up the player base to fill the field.
    If only 10 people pay in, then only 10 people pay in. I would suggest they still have to send the minimum to IFPA for nationals ($800; the same as any state with 16 players).
    If in theory there are so many people looking for skin in the game and prize money at teh SCS and National level, then I assume it would be easy to fill the field.

    Hilton, you mentioned the dollar fee would reduce the amount of players that come to the events you TD (correct me if I'm wrong).

    At the locations you TD, are you also the operator that owns the games?

    And you have stated that the tournament's you run are free to enter. But you also mentioned that they are coin drop tournament's, so not free.

    Do you think that getting rid of the coin drop, charging the one dollar instead and putting the games on free play, would keep attendance the same, or even actually grow the turn outs?

    I mean, it's for the love of pinball and helping it grow after all.

    #225 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I already won over $200 this year playing pinball and would be fine paying that money in for my entry fee into the SCS.
    This is in a state with limited payout events.
    Keep in mind for SCS I am thinking $200 per player for a total prize pool of 3200' $800 goes to nationals. This leaves 2400 for SCS to divide out.
    I would suggest payout of:
    1st $800
    2nd $400
    3-4th $200
    5-8 $100
    9-16 $50
    Most it really costs anyone is $150 to play.
    25% odds you break even or win big

    Yes but that was your experience. You won a mini at a big event and came in 2nd in the main.
    So the person that makes 16th place in SCS that maybe won $5 if even anything has to pay in $195.

    Did Kaneda steal Whysnow's account.

    #226 2 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    And why shouldn't someone who is interested in playing in the SCS pay in?
    All the other tournaments are playing for the right to play in the SCS.
    Talk about not being fair.

    you are neglecting to state that NOT all the other people playing in other tournaments are playing to play in the SCS...

    that is really what is not fair. asking someone with ZERO chance of even qualifying for SCS to chip in for their prize pool. sheesh...

    #227 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    you are neglecting to state that NOT all the other people playing in other tournaments are playing to play in the SCS...
    that is really what is not fair. asking someone with ZERO chance of even qualifying for SCS to chip in for their prize pool. sheesh...

    But at this point in 2017 they are playing for SCS.

    #228 2 years ago
    Quoted from smokedog:

    Do you think that getting rid of the coin drop, charging the one dollar instead and putting the games on free play, would keep attendance the same, or even actually grow the turn outs?

    I can not afford to do that and the games dont make anywhere enough to do that. I would just pull all my games off location rather than put on free play.

    #229 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    asking someone with ZERO chance of even qualifying for SCS to chip in for their prize pool

    Every tournament, at every level, has a sizable chunk of the field contributing money who have no chance of winning that small tournament.

    #230 2 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Every tournament, at every level, has a sizable chunk of the field contributing money who have no chance of winning that small tournament.

    Like YOU tonight at your tourny! I'm coming for ya WPPRS RYAN!!!!!

    #231 2 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    But at this point in 2017 they are playing for SCS.

    I thinka VERY small percentage of people playing in any WI tournament are playing for SCS. They may get a few points towards it, but there are less than 10% of the total WI competitive population that are playing to get into SCS.

    We will ahve over 500 novel players this year and only the top 50 are even hypothectically in the game for SCS opportunity.

    However, most seem to enjoy the annual ranking and seeing how they size up.

    #232 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I can not afford to do that and the games dont make anywhere enough to do that. I would just pull all my games off location rather than put on free play.

    I'm not saying free play all the time, just the tournament's.

    You can't tell me the games don't get played at all except for tournament's.

    So are you saying this change may affect your bottom line as an OP?

    #233 2 years ago
    Quoted from InfiniteLives:

    Like YOU tonight at your tourny! I'm coming for ya WPPRS RYAN!!!!!

    I can see that you're a man of principles and priorities.

    #234 2 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    Every tournament, at every level, has a sizable chunk of the field contributing money who have no chance of winning that small tournament.

    but you need to realize in WI where we dont have prize pools for 90% of events, you are asking 500 people to pay in for a tournament at the end of the year that they dont have a chance to even play in. The math does not add up for them.

    #235 2 years ago
    Quoted from smokedog:

    So are you saying this change may affect your bottom line as an OP?

    yes, tournament nights are a sizable portion of the entire monthly coin drop. Our committed player base is what allows us to put and keep our personal games on location. We have not taken a single quarter out of the box in over 3 years and everything goes into maintaining the games and paying down loans on new games. I have run the numbers and putting games on free play for tournament nights is not an option.

    It is way outside of the conversation at hand, but I am amazed that anyone would ask or expect and operator to not only maintain and host events but to also make them free now...!!!

    #236 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    I thinka VERY small percentage of people playing in any WI tournament are playing for SCS. They may get a few points towards it, but there are less than 10% of the total WI competitive population that are playing to get into SCS.
    We will ahve over 500 novel players this year and only the top 50 are even hypothectically in the game for SCS opportunity.
    However, most seem to enjoy the annual ranking and seeing how they size up.

    Looking at the top 50 ranked players in WI right now their are probably 5 people not interested in the points. I think the rest of the 45 would want to go play in the SCS if they qualify.

    #237 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    you are neglecting to state that NOT all the other people playing in other tournaments are playing to play in the SCS...
    that is really what is not fair. asking someone with ZERO chance of even qualifying for SCS to chip in for their prize pool. sheesh...

    It is completely fair when it is made clear that a paid entry is required to participate in the event. Let the player decide if the paid tournament entry is worth it to them. If the paid tournament entry cost is not worth it to a player, then a player makes the choice not to participate. If it is worth it to the player, then the player will join the event.

    There is nothing unfair about the process. There is a risk, and players will need to determine if the risk is acceptable to them.

    If you are playing in an IFPA sanctioned tournament, then you are playing in the SCS/National qualifying event. Only the player can decide if the risk is worth it.

    Marcus

    #238 2 years ago
    Quoted from TomGWI:

    Looking at the top 50 ranked players in WI right now their are probably 5 people not interested in the points. I think the rest of the 45 would want to go play in the SCS if they qualify.

    exactly. now go look at last years list from 51-400ish and tell me whom is interested in the SCS and points.

    #239 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    but you need to realize in WI where we dont have prize pools for 90% of events, you are asking 500 people to pay in for a tournament at the end of the year that they dont have a chance to even play in. The math does not add up for them.

    Good point. But here, we have prize pools for 90% of our tournaments, so it doesn't seem like a big deal.

    Wisconsin should just opt out as a state. I'd lobby for: you can keep getting WPPRs, but don't get a state ranking, and can't send anyone to Nationals.

    #240 2 years ago
    Quoted from ryanwanger:

    I'd lobby for: you can keep getting WPPRs, but don't get a state ranking, and can't send anyone to Nationals.

    unfortunatley it sounds like that is not an option for 2018 IFPA system.

    I think the reality is until the legal and tax things get squared away, this thing is dead in the water in WI. After that then we can get back to the social discussion of "fair" and whom should pay and how.

    Until legal and tax are 100% dealt with, I will not be taking the risk, I know MGC obviously wont, and I have a good feeling quite a few other TDs wont. I am sure some will and they can have fun with the abbreviated and stunted ranking and SCS, but it just is not worth the risk for me personally.

    I am much more inclided to push forward with an emmulating state based ranking system that emmulates everything else of the current IFPA system, allow it to be used for free so everyone can still have state rankings and a state end of year tournament. I think it is a bummer that we wont be able to have IFPA points, but also think the state stuff is more important to most people.

    edited to add: I do like the fact that my IFPA ranking goes down so I am not restricted at bigger events

    #241 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    exactly. now go look at last years list from 51-400ish and tell me whom is interested in the SCS and points.

    Where is it?

    And if no one cares about WPPRs in WI, why are we even having the discussion?

    #242 2 years ago

    The deal I have with my locations is for practice time you pay coin drop, tournament play is free coin drop... Works great for location as they get liquor/food sales, work good for operator get a some revenue cause people pay to practice, and work great for tourney as entry fee can be increased due to no coin drop and given away to winners. Everyone wins!!!!

    Quoted from smokedog:

    I'm not saying free play all the time, just the tournament's.
    You can't tell me the games don't get played at all except for tournament's.
    So are you saying this change may affect your bottom line as an OP?

    #243 2 years ago

    I'm ambivalent to this change so far, and the reality is I don't think most people are affected by it in a meaningful way.

    If I understand it correctly, out of the $1 fee, $0.75 goes to the SCS pool, and $0.25 goes to the national pool. In effect, the only people impacted negatively are local tournament players who regularly place in the money due to a reduced pot, but are not good enough to place in the SCS or nationals. Prize pools for SCS and Nationals are increased, which increases incentives for the best players.

    This does mirror other amateur competitive events who accumulate fees to increase national competition payouts and/or offset national travel once qualified. The rest of us will just keep donating as always.

    #244 2 years ago
    Quoted from frolic:

    Are new bowling league members told when they sign up that their money is going where? I doubt it. They're told it costs $x to be part of this league. They're not going to be told $y of their league fees goes to the bowling federation and national prizes.

    Perhaps being totally transparent wasn't our best path through this . . . but that's just how I roll.

    If I did this as an "administrative fee" to pay for our expenses, and everyone was okay with it, then I guess I'll learn my lesson with our next announcement having to do with collecting any funds.

    #245 2 years ago
    Quoted from Cornelius:

    Not trying to add to the dogpile on you, kind sir, but it's hard to tell what's serious about all this and what isn't. I mean, other than that change is afoot.

    I don't see why Bowen's "passion" for Pinball makes his comments any more or less valued than Hilton's.

    I absolutely value Hilton's comments and Bowen's comments, as I have with our previous 100 announcements over the past 11 years that typically get received with a giant "WTF" to start.

    #246 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    any down sides?

    In Illinois . . . not being able to find 15 other players that want to give $200 to Zach

    #247 2 years ago
    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    In Illinois . . . not being able to find 15 other players that want to give $200 to Zach

    #248 2 years ago

    Just make sure there is a Funhouse in the SCS in Illinois next time, he chokes big time on that machine

    Quoted from ifpapinball:

    In Illinois . . . not being able to find 15 other players that want to give $200 to Zach

    15
    #249 2 years ago
    Quoted from Hi-Fi:

    Charge a yearly administrative fee of $5 paid through the IFPA website. If you pay you get ranked in all the tournaments you play on for the year. If you don't pay your points will count as if you played in the tournament so other players don't get screwed over but you cannot see your points on the website

    I know I can't change the tracks on the Josh Train, but this is the way I would go.

    Set up IFPA as a charitable foundation. (I'm not 100% with USA laws but that'd seem the way to go)

    Make it $5 or $10 annual donation to be a member of IFPA. Clever computer guys like Brian Shepherd or Lucas from NYC could easily set up an auto mail out with a PayPal link. All automatic.

    The people who donate the bucks have their ranking points listed for the year. If you don't, your name is at the bottom of the list as "inactive"

    If 10,000 of the 40,000+ on the IFPA site donate $10, that's $100,000. Don't forget, this would attract money worldwide, not just in the USA/Canada Eh.

    As a charity, the IFPA can distribute the funds as it sees fit. Some to the world champs, some to SCS, some to Pinmasters, Woman's, whatever!

    Seems like a lot more simple and less labour intensive way of doing things....

    My philosophy in business, or whatever I do, is KISS ... keep it simple stupid. The easiest path is generally the way to go.

    rd

    #250 2 years ago
    Quoted from Whysnow:

    yes, tournament nights are a sizable portion of the entire monthly coin drop. Our committed player base is what allows us to put and keep our personal games on location. We have not taken a single quarter out of the box in over 3 years and everything goes into maintaining the games and paying down loans on new games. I have run the numbers and putting games on free play for tournament nights is not an option.
    It is way outside of the conversation at hand, but I am amazed that anyone would ask or expect and operator to not only maintain and host events but to also make them free now...!!!

    I take $2 A head. All games on free play for about 5 hours.

    For the love of the game and all.

    Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
    From: $ 42.00
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 15.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Metal-Mods
    $ 5,599.00
    Pinball Machine
    Little Shop Of Games
    $ 79.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    From: $ 42.00
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 86.95
    Cabinet - Shooter Rods
    Super Skill Shot Shop
    From: $ 99.99
    Cabinet - Other
    Lighted Pinball Mods
    $ 90.00
    Lighting - Under Cabinet
    Rock Custom Pinball
    $ 6.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ULEKstore
    $ 68.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    PinWorlds
    $ 14.95
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ULEKstore
    $ 11.95
    $ 10.00
    Playfield - Decals
    Metal-Mods
    $ 38.99
    Lighting - Interactive
    Lee's Parts
    From: $ 22.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 48.00
    Cabinet - Other
    ModFather Pinball Mods
    $ 239.00
    Cabinet - Toppers
    Tilttopper
    $ 7.50
    Playfield - Decals
    Doc's Pinball Shop
    From: $ 48.00
    Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
    PinWorlds
    From: $ 220.00
    $ 125.00
    Lighting - Backbox
    Great American Pinball
    $ 89.99
    $ 39.95
    Playfield - Protection
    Little Shop Of Games
    From: $ 21.95
    Apparel - Unisex
    Pinball Wheezer
    There are 513 posts in this topic. You are on page 5 of 11.

    Hey there! Got a moment?

    Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside