It depends on the format of the tourney. If it's herb-style or similar then yeah, paying for more entries can be an advantage during the qualifying round. Generally the number of entries is not taken into account. If you want to run a tournament with this factored into seeding or final ranking then AFAIK you are free to do so. Realistically this on its own is only going to get you into the top 16 or whatever the playoff round allows. You still have to play well.

I see it from a completely financial standpoint. What do I stand to win? Is the prize $1,000? Then if I pay $1,000 in entry fees to qualify, that was pretty pointless. I understand playing for pride too, but my pride would be pretty low if it took me 100 entries to qualify and subsequently win a tourney. I want to be the guy who bought one entry and won the whole damn thing. That is baller status right there. Let people bitch though. You are playing within the rules until they change the rules.

The open qualifying is totally a financial thing. Its a way to boost the prize pot or donation. Now, those people who "buy" there way in quickly find out they don't belong in the playoffs. This summer my girlfriend used a total of 10 tickets (we had 4 games in the main and one in classics) to qualify for our 74 person tournament. It was pretty crazy. This is not the normal. There are people near the top of the IFPA standings that can come in and play about one game and get in. That's just how it is. There was a graph for the Southern Fried Gaming Expo showing how much each player used to get in. I don't know where it is though. Maybe someone else can dig it up.

I don't feel bad when I have to use more tickets. I don't play as much big tournaments as some of theses guys and need to adjust to the playing conditions.

If you don't like this format. Run a tournament where you only get 3 chances on each machine (or less). This method worked great at a tournament in Cleveland.

Some people hold a belief regarding the unlimited format that players can buy their way into a good qualifying run.

I disagree with that philosophy as an overall concept.

While it is true that having more attempts allows the "potential" for a better game, it does not guarantee it. Most players, given multiple attempts on a single game, will eventually place a score commensurate with their skill level. Since all players are engaged in the same format, the higher skilled players will produce the higher results over the long run.

Just like there are house games, there can be breakout games. However, even in the unlimited qualifying, single game attempts, a player needs to perform well on several games. Keep in mind, the qualifying format usually encompasses multiple games, often the sum of ranking results on 5 or 6 games to produce an overall composite score. Consistency still is a major factor.

So that means a player hoping to buy their way in, needs to achieve a decent score multiple times across multiple machines. If the skill is not there, hoping for luck across a bank of 5 games is not going to yield a top qualifying run.

Also, it is not reasonable to think that of all the players participating and qualifying at a tourney, that the top 16 (or whatever amount) have the most money or have even spent the most money. The same repeated names and top qualifiers seen at local, state, world events and on the IFPA front pages are there because they have skills, not because they bought the spot.

Another way to think of it is like this: Many people, including tourney players, own games at home. Having constant access to the games does not mean the scores keep going up indefinitely, nor does it mean unlimited attempts will guarantee reaching a wizard mode, for example. A result on one's own personal machine simply cannot be forced because of unlimited access. So going back to the tourney setting, throwing more money at game is not going to mean a player spending more money will qualify.

The OP knows this, but I've been running monthly tournaments at my location for over 2.5 years. I've helped run several open format tournaments. So I have data on a few events. I won't share it, it really can't be anonymized at this point. But for the small/medium sized events of 20-30 players I've been involved with, you can definitely buy your way into the A division. In a larger event, I think it would be much more difficult to buy your way into A division.

Is is acceptable? Sure. The event allows it and it increases the prize money. If it weren't acceptable it wouldn't be allowed. Some could argue that in effect you are also buying IFPA points. That's a valid argument. But it is allowed.

My opinion is based on what I've seen, and I'm applying this to events the size I've been involved with: If you are paying 5x to 10x (or more) to qualify than the players that finish 1-3 in the division, you probably bought your way in. Nothing wrong with it, but don't kid yourself.

I'm still an inconsistent player with flashes of promise, so I prefer the multiple attempts. I also think it's a good idea for building a pot, if that's what you're going for. I do like the idea though that I think I heard on PapaLive where any subsequent attempts would nullify previous tries. So you could try to do better but if you choke, you're stuck with the bad score and would need to try again so there'd be a bit of a risk/reward for multiple attempts.

That's exactly what I would argue... for mid-range players. Because this is actually fool's gold: spending hundreds may buy you a seat in the next round but you won't last long when facing players who needed 1-2 tries.

Hate this format anyway.

Sometimes the amount of entries used is not to just try to qualify, but rather to improve one's position. There are incentives to qualify higher : earn byes, drive the bus, more prize money, and some tourneys offer bonus prize money for top qualifier.

In a top 24 A-division using typical match play, if byes are in place, qualifying in the top 8 is a HUGE advantage over the lower 24. Top 8 grants 3 rounds of byes, top 4 is 4 rounds of byes. A guaranteed higher placing is of course gauranteed higher prize money. So, there is incentive to maybe spend a little more during qualifying to potentially be gauranteed a higher payout.

I would not necessarily call someone employing the above technique, "buying their way in". It is an educated strategy, based on knowing one's skill level. With the new software that keeps track of qualifying scores and time of entries, it is an interesting (and useful) excerise to go back in time and see where one stands had they stopped playing earlier.

When new players ask my opinion on how much to spend, I always encourage them to set a budget. At 3 games for $10, in most unlimited qulaifying tourneys, $20 will buy a complete round to generate a composite score. (Assuming no more than 6 games count toward the composite score). So for $20, a player can buy a single entry and have a composite score against all other players. After that, a player should decide how much they want to spend based on time and financial constraints.

There is no correct upper limit, but a player should set their own limit to avoid chasing a dream and falling into a trap thinking that the next game HAS to be better. I explain that $100 buys 30 total game tickets to be used as desired, which by that point, one should have a very good idea how they are doing.

Good points, this is why I qualified my statements. I'm talking about small/medium (usually local) tournaments that are simple open qualification, no byes.

Disagree with what?

Following guidelines doesn't mean people automatically have to garner respect. There are a lot of ways in life you can follow the rules but still end up looking bad. There's also the adage that just because you can do something, that doesn't mean you should do something.

I don't have a problem with the rules. There are no perfect rules for these events.

I made a statement about following rules and life in general. I said nothing about your play.

If you'd like to discuss anything regarding my events or anything else you're always welcome to call me, email me, or grab me when I'm at PW. Best of luck.

The pay-to-win scenario breaks the worst in smaller events (i.e. it's easier to buy your way in). In CA, at least, most Herb-style events are run at shows or annual events like INDISC. In those events there are a lot of players and they're very high skill. As long as the critical mass of players is there it's not an issue.

Lord, I hope I never play in a tourney where subsequent attempts count, even if they are a lower score. Example, Multiple attempts on Avatar:

1. 6,456,xxx
2. 11,234,xxx
3. 17,789,xxx
4. 26,475,xxx
5. 4,502,xxx
6. 36,331,xxx
7. 9,492,xxx.

Now my best score on Avatar is 9,492,xxx? That is not remotely how pinball in general works, IMHO.

For a better alternative to pump and dump(which I am perfectly fine with), I would endorse a format where you get 3 attempts at each machine. All attempts count, to be added up for a composite score for each individual machine. Like this:

TWD
1. 34,567,000
2. 10,456,000
3. 56,123,000
Total for TWD = 101,146,000

EB
1. 56,230
2. 117,450
3. 359,120
Total for EB = 532,800

NF
1. 589,123,000
2. 1,234,991,000
3. 2,006,471,000
Total for NF = 3,830,585,000

These aren't IFPA rules per say. These are just the typical rules for a herb style format. People are free to run a tournament however they please really.

With the new Ifpa point system there are 2 major factors for points. # of players to create the base points. 64 players equals 32 points. So a tournament with 20 players is going to get 10 points at best. I don't see a huge buying points problem in that scenario. 2nd factor is number of games. 28 possible games played to road to victory to get the full 32 base points with 64 players.

Running tournaments is not an easy task. I prefer running match play events myself but that needs lots of time and a much larger # of machines. 8 games and you can have a great 2 day herb style format event. 64 people and say top 16 qualify. Match play you would need at least 32 games to have that run at all smoothly. Just not feasible for most locations.

Just some of my thoughts.

-Jim

About a day later...

It seems like you were fishing for confirmation that your activities were indeed legit. If so, this isn't the place to ask. Not many competitive players here.

So you did what you planned and that's it? Did you have any fun along the way?

We aren't to the point yet where tournaments are invitational and all expenses are paid. So technically, EVERYONE who qualifies in any tournament has bought their way in. Has anyone here ever played in IFPA approved tourney (gave out points) that was free? Even launch party tourneys with $5 entry fees usually require you to drive a few miles and buy some food and drinks. So it's the nature of the beast. You have to spend money to qualify. And because tournament payouts still aren't big enough, no one can live off thier winnings. Not even KME.

Different players qualify differently. Some guys need a lot of entries no matter how good they get. Including PAPA winners. Other guys don't need as many. Some guys always wait till the last minute to put up big scores (I got Belsitoed!). No matter how much money you have, you can't buy your way into every event. I know this from personal experience. Money will only take you so far. You need some skills to go along with the money.

Herb style tournaments can be fun if done properly. Most importantly, you need plenty of games, plenty of qualifying time and quick data entry with easily seen standings. You also need players. If you're doing all those things above and regularly getting only 30 or so people, that's not enough. Switch to some other format. A Herb style tourney should take at least 2 days and get at least 50 people. Novice or B divisions are the norm now. As are payouts to all qualifiers. When I play in a pump and dump now, the payouts determine how much I spend. If I can spend $40 to qualify and win a minimum of $40, that's my idea of fun. I get to hang out with friends and play pinball for free for a few hours. If I finish higher up in the money (rarely happens), that's a bonus.

As always, I recommend folks milk their novice division eligibility as long as possible. It gets a lot harder when you get up with the big boys. And when you're playing in novice or B, you're often playing right along side the A players. Watch and learn.

The point of the suggestion was the risk/reward vs consistent play. In the example below you should have probably stopped at entry 4 or 6, or you play more, dumping more money. I think it lends itself to a bit of self reflection. You know if you have a better game in you, but if you put up a "decent" score, maybe you don't want to risk it. I think it would be interesting to run one that way just to see what happens. I doubt it would keep any of the top players out, but it's just something different.

Wealth provides an inherent advantage in any competitive pursuit. Rich cyclists can buy the best bikes. Rich golfers can practice on the most challenging courses. Rich sprinters can hire the best coaches. This advantage is hardly unique to pinball and there's really no practical way of adjusting for it.

Anyway, players buying more entries in a tournament is barely going to impact on results. The way to really buy your way into the finals, or higher IFPA rankings, is to buy lots of machines. Or dump plenty of cash in every time you play on location. Maximising your practice time and the variety of games you play will make far more difference to your tournament results than buying a few more credits on the day.

I don't know if this is the norm in the US but in europe I have never been to a tournament run with multiple attempts at qualifying (excluding classics on a sunday).
Most compos seem to be play 6 games (maybe with 1 redo) and that's your entry.

Surely if Pinball want to be taken seriously as a sport the format must be the same (whichever is decided). I've known of WPPR points being awarded for playing with your feet before now!

You're kidding right?

I ran many tournaments last year in Dallas area that were free, including a league, and IFPA qualified.

Less than 50% of our local player/collector community bothered to show up.

That was my graph. It'd be a bit of work to recreate it, but I do have the stats breakdown. The amounts are approximate as I can not account for any free entries that were given out to volunteers.

Main Event
Of the 16 qualifiers, the average amount of entries was 43.8125 at an approximate cost of $146 per player. The high amount was 109 plays (~$363) and the low was 25 plays (~$83).

Classics
Of the 8 qualifiers, the average amount of entries was 30 at an approximate cost of $100 per player. The high amount was 45 plays (~$150) and the low was 16 plays (~$53).

I'm not a fan of pump and dump format tournaments either. You just aren't getting the best consistent players in the elimination rounds. You are getting some consistent players and then some people that spent $100 to get that one break-out game. I see the pro's of doing it this way for the tournament to make more money for the pot, charity, etc though.

For instance - On ST I'm very consistent at 60-80 million points. Every 10 or so games I'll get a 150-200 million point game and about the same I'll get a 15 million point game. Does this mean I'm a 150-200 million point skilled player or a 15 million point player? I'd argue I'm not either of those and my true skill set is more around the 60-80 million points.

I like the format of having a ticket to where all your scores for that ticket count. If you don't like your score then you start a new ticket. This gives players a chance to chase that great game but it also rewards the more consistent players. I know most don't like this type but to me it get's you the best players out of the qualifying pool which, to me, is what qualifying should be about.

Being able to sell individual tickets and allowing players to be able to improve their standing one game at a time is far more inviting for people to "give it a shot".

I've seen the PAPA style be a bit overwhelming for some players when being forced to put together a run of consistent games is a) more expensive per entry, and b) more stressful in general.

Ultimately any qualifying style only gets you into the finals. At that point most of the tournaments are the same (either group play or head-to-head matches, where there are no do-overs).

From my player's perspective, I want those players chasing that 150-200 million point game on ST paying over and over again to qualify to help build the pot. Then they can put that 60-80 million game in Finals and that's the only score I have to worry about at that time.

I'm with you on that one, Vett....problem is I can't even think about running those kinds of tournaments around here because nobody except for me, Marcus, Ken, my wife, and two or three other people will even THINK about showing up...because they know they have substantially close to zero chance. Even if it's a FREE tournament. It's absolutely ludicrous. I've never seen a group of people that say they're into something, then don't participate in it at all, unless they're effectively handed a lottery ticket to winning, or it's tied to free food etc...

Our two biggest tournaments that we ran last year? Labor Day at Nickelrama (Herb), and the Christmas party/potluck at my house (swiss). Go figure that both were potluck. I don't even have that many games, it's not like my collection is a massive draw. Case in point that NOBODY unexpected showed up to a single league night that I ran, even several people that had supposedly committed at the start never showed to a single league night over what....6 or 7 months?

Point is, novices/casuals/non-competes like herb BECAUSE they can have that breakout game and qualify, even if it's in a "B" division. They know that they're most likely going to get blown out in the finals, but that's beyond the point apparently. In match play, they stand almost no chance against highly consistent players. I'm pretty sure I can say that nobody outside of the "core" competitive group in Dallas area has any interest in actually improving their play at this point. They do not care about IFPA, they will never care about IFPA, and it being "free" is only a deterrent to people showing up because there's no prize other than WPPRS.

If I run any events this year, at all....they will not be free if they are IFPA at all.... End of story. =|

After running events in the DFW area over the past 7 years, I have learned five "truths" about tournaments in the DFW Area. These "truths" are simply for events outside of a large show or expo. The large shows & expo are a different animal since the captive audience is always willing to give it one or two tries.

#1. Everyone wants a prize for winning their group. The prize must be cash or trophy. The preference is both.
#2. Nobody is willing to gamble a single large entry fee. Even though a player may spend $50 attempting to qualify, these same players will balk at a $30 or $40 entry fee. They prefer to nickle and dime their way to $50.
#3. Players want to compete against their own skill set.
#4. Players have zero interest in funding prize money for an event that seems beyond their grasp.
#5. If it is not convenient, most will not travel for events, regardless of the prize or the cost.

Hopefully this year, I'll run a few free IFPA events at Nickelrama on weekday nights and see if that gets the local excited.

Marcus

Dang... That sucks! We had about 70 people at our event in the middle of nowhere Michigan... and it was completely for charity. We had people driving from Jackson, Saginaw and Grand Rapids. Some were driving from 3 hours away. Now with the new WPPR format, we are thinking we will get over 100 for the National Baby Food Festival Open (yes that's really what it's called) this year. I just can't believe it takes all that just to get people out to an event in Texas.

Good luck. You know I'll try and get there, ESPECIALLY if it's on a tuesday or wednesday.

At least I learned most of this in a year and a half. If I could find a way to do cheap trophies, I would've done it at least for league, but with no entry fees at all....there's just no way until I get a better paying job I'm going to front 70-100 bucks on awards. I'm happy to donate my time (or Jennifer's time LMAO) running things, but money is money, and I have bills to pay.

It doesn't. Just in DALLAS.

They had THREE people show up at Nickelrama in Garland for one of the charity tournaments, if I'm not mistaken? I was at work.

*Edit* Oursler fundraiser... five people. 2 tourney players, 3 casuals (Though Sam is showing up to more and more..).

Python fundraiser was nearly HALF the people that showed up were from out of area...

But that is the problem. You aren't getting the best at the tournament in the finals. You are getting a couple of the best and then some lucky people with a bank roll.

I myself am not that great of a player as I'm not as consistent as I could be with blow out games. I can blow up a game periodically though but the problem is I don't have the bank roll to spend to pay until I blow the game up just to get into a bracket to where my average score would be competitive.

It's a major deterrent to me even wanting to compete anymore at these types of tournaments as it's so frustrating to be on the sidelines watching people that qualified when they are putting up scores well below what my average score is on a particular machine.

For the record, obviously, I'm not talking "A" bank here. In that bank I don't think the format really matters all that much. It makes a difference in "B" and even more in "C" and lets be honest, "B" and "C" banks are where I feel the hobby growth will/is coming from.

Frax - Major bummer. A lot of collectors up there so I'm surprised to hear that. I can't complain one bit about the tournaments here in Austin. Most of them here are cheap buy ins (low cash payouts) and normally some sort of double elimination or scoring format where you play as much as you can for ____ time and add up peoples wins to make the brackets. Collin does an amazing job putting these on. There is another guy that's done a few nice ones too, I just don't know the group well enough to recall his name. To me, these are great tournaments as you don't drop $10-$20, play two games, lose and go home. It gets everyone playing for a while which leads to friendships forming and more fun for all.

Likely Brian Dols. I think he runs most of the stuff at Buffalo Billiards.

It was a lot of fun having most of the Austin guys up here for State last weekend. I'll actually be down there um.....what is it ..not this weekend but the next one. As far as pinball goes, I'd much rather be in Austin...but my job is here, my condo is here, so.....screwed.

Yeah, that's him. Those two do an amazing job putting things together in a way that include as many people/skill sets as possible.

Adding up scores is a Really Bad idea--lots of games have nonlinear scoring, so one good game dominates bad games.

A tourney in Brisbane a couple years back was total score over four games -- two on Met and two on Avengers. Never minding that this makes Avengers worthless, the winner's score on Met on one game was higher than each other player's composite score, since if you get your teeth into Metallica you get many, many more points.

Best-score-of-three is probably more fair.

All I know is he took me out in 2014 SCS 1st round, lol.

He doesn't ever travel up here for tourneys, and I've only run into him one other time, at the 2013 Garage Gauntlet. Was pretty funny to have a second crack at him after losing to him in the GG, but I blew it bigtime last year at Pinballz. Only game I did even remotely good on was Centaur.

If everyone just gets one shot, we'll see more "lucky people" qualifying than we do now (based on the principle that if you had to play a match against, say, Bowen, you would stand a better chance to win a one game match rather than a best of seven). But your argument is that if people get many attempts, then we'll also see too many "lucky people".

What are you proposing exactly?

This goes against the argument that pump and dump exclusively rewards players with money. The top 16 at Southern Fried last year was almost exclusively elite players: http://www.ifpapinball.com/view_tournament.php?t=871#results

And it sounds like it took them a fair number of entries to qualify.

I'm not psyched about pump and dump because I'm not a top player, so I don't like the idea of having to buy a ton of entries for something that I have no shot at anyway. But I know that if I only buy one entry (while others have many), I truly have *no* shot. When everyone has a limited number of tries, I've got a better change.

I'd put up $100 to play at a poker table with top pros...*if everyone was putting up $100*. But I wouldn't sit down with $100 when those same guys had $1000. And I wouldn't pay $1000 to sit at that table either because it's just throwing money away.

If we're trying to get things to grow and be more friendly to newbies, why not have only the A division be pump and dump, while the B, C, D, etc. are a different format (with IFPA ranking based restrictions regarding who can compete)? I also like the idea of a division that is restricted to people who have never played in an IFPA event previously.

yup... golf analogy here...

if i'm better than someone, i want to play against them on a par 5 instead of a par 3, because they have more opportunities to screw up on the par 5, whereas i'm likely to make at least a par, with an occasional birdie mixed in and an occasional "aw f&^&" mixed in...

on the par 3, they only have to hit one lucky shot to beat me...

Isn't that what D is for? If not, I totally agree. then once your ranking is high enough, you must play in a higher league.

I've heard this mentioned somewhere, but thought maybe it only happened at the papa finals - which I think is a little silly because why would you be at the highest event in pinball if you've never played in a tournament before.

The pay-per-game entry format exists primarily to raise the pot. While it is true the better players will always rise to the top, it is also true that the same players risk not qualifying at all if they don't get enough chances, as pinball has some level of randomization built in.

While these types of pinball tournaments are widely accepted it's very tough to come up with another skills-based tournament where the officials don't enforce equal qualifying attempts among participants. In NASCAR, you tend to get 2 qualifying runs to qualify for race position. In golf you get 2 qualifying rounds for a weekend tournament. All amateur and professional sports teams have the same number of regular season games used to qualify for playoffs. For anything head to head this is usually by necessity, but pinball can be run purely as an individual man-vs-machine score fest, which allows this qualifier format where one participant can have 1 entry per game and another can have 10 entries per game.

My personal preference is either to use for a flat entry fee or match play to keep qualifiers as even as possible ... in other words I'm not a fan of the pay-per-game qualifier format.

Just a reminder that IFPA requires that the event be open to everyone. If you exclude "ranked" players, your event will not earn WPPR points.

And if your event does not earn WPPR points, then the "D" league never gets a chance to accumulate points.

While it may be a tough love approach, I still believe in playing with better players. "Steel sharpens Steel".

Very few burst onto the scene and establish themselves as "A" players. Dues are normally paid to get to the "A" level.

Marcus

My biggest gripe with the pump-in-dump format is that it can often times make it almost impossible to even get in 1 qualifying attempt per game unless you show up early to the event because the lines get so long towards the end. Try qualifying for a 2 day tournament like MGC on the last day when everyone else is still trying to improve their position and you were unable to play the day before. It's darn near impossible when the wait for playing a single game can be close to an hour! I like the way they do it now where they limit the number of attempts. That way everyone has the same shot, yet you still have a few mulligans to use in the case that that you weren't warmed up or got a feel for the game on your first attempt.

I also like the PAPA format tickets which reward consistency across an entire ticket although you can abuse that system by playing defensive tickets and it also gets crazy towards the end of qualifying.

Agreed...but I'm literally only talking about their very first tournament.

Good point. This could easily be changed if it helps entice new players. Or, it's okay if they don't get points - but it might be more encouraging if they did.

I agree that I am not a fan of pump and dump, but it also helps to get people to show up earlier for single day events. I have struggled with PaD and how to make it work. Trying to make it easy for all types of people to feel welcomed and willing to play, but at the same time keeping things running.

I think the old PaD for multiple day events is something to avoid unless pot building. I have never even put in a single entry for some of the big events because I don't like the format.

We are trying PaD on the 21st but I figure if we get a decent turn out there won't be too much repetition of play since games will be occupied most of the time and people will have the ability to make it through all games (assuming they show up early enough) and then replay and try to better a few stinkers. Maybe after this time, we can get a better idea and then make it limited play.

I really like that format. I like how Tully is doing Wauna this year where you get 8? tickets to play 5 games. That gives you 3 mulligans, but also enforces the need to show up early in order to get your attempts in.

I will say that logisitcally if players can give organizers a heads up of total planning to attend it helps to determine format. Unfortunately, with many events even providing and tracking advanced notice of expected player count can be a logisitical nightmare.

I wish someone much smarter than me woudl come up with a simple tounament ap that allows an organizer to set up parameters (like registration open from x to x) where player can show intent.

That's the thing, if you want to have at equal qualifiers you have to make the effort to be there on Friday with everyone else or you will be at a disadvantage. A good alternative which I haven't seen implemented is for the organizer to put a cap on the number of entries per person, say 5 games per machine, or 25 entries in a 5 machine bank. That gives some flexibility to not feel you have to be there all day both days for the best qualifying opportunity, but you still have to be careful, as you may still see the same last minute rush scenario, so planning is still imperative.

This also becomes an argument against the pay-per-qualifier format as the ultimate pot builder. If someone can't commit to 2 days, there is a good chance they won't throw any money into the pot. If a lower ranked player sees that it requires standing in lines for 2 days to get an equal number of qualifiers with the higher ranked players, why should bother at all? Less players ultimately results in a lesser pot.

There are always exceptions. Like the Swedish Championships.

Papa style I guess. But in a pump in dump format, just that they either limit the number of tries to a reasonable amount or take an average of the scores for the machine (with the ability to drop a high and low score). I personally would like to see them just limit tries to 10 games and the best of that is what you get. I have no issue with multiple tries, it just that at some point it gets past the point of skill and more along the lines of lucking out into a blow out game. 10 games may even be to many but at least this way the tournament gets to make money and there is and end to your tries (adds some pressure to).