Quoted from Whysnow:
That is a GREAT idea!
Maybe we can try something like that out for our upcoming event. Maybe 21 entires max in a 7 game bank?
Any time you limit your entries, you're also limiting your prize pool. The bigger the payouts and the further down you pay, the more players you'll attract. (all other things being equal)
The number of games in the qualifying bank, the games selected to use and the setup on the games is extremely important in a Herb tourney. Rather than 7 games and only 21 entries, why not have a 10 or 12 bank of qulifying games setup hard and unlimited entries? Best 5 game scores make up your score (100-95-90-89, etc). Software is out there to easily do this.
Adding more divisions isn't practical. PAPA is the exception, not the rule. Tournament directors don't want to keep track of 3 or 4 different tourneys at the same time. For years, the best execution of a Herb style tourney has been CAX IMO. The casual division is run differently than the A division and every year they get a huge turnout with big payouts for both divisions. I don't recall all the rules for casual division, but one rule isn't you can't be in novice if you've ever won money in a tournament. That cuts out all the A players quick. And novice player CAN qualify for A division if they play well enough. EVERYONE GETS POINTS. That part is huge. All the games are setup tough there. You won't find a Spidey with closed outlanes and the middle post in place. If you use long playing games not setup properly, you will get lines. Use enough games properly setup and lines will stay short.
The NW tourney and INDISC use similar formats. These three tournments have among the biggest turnouts and payouts every year. If you're considering have a Herb style tourney, study these three tourneys to see how it's done right.