“Hey, everyone, I really want those byes - there's $100 each if you'll all concede to me.”

Obviously, if we hear that, we're going to DQ for Bribery. And on the off chance that we learn that it happened later, we can still do that. But creating an environment that encourages that sort of offer is what happens when we stray too far down the path suggested by Sam.

You're right, Sam, it's hard to stop those concessions, esp. since they can be done legally.

As I said in my first post, it's an elusive beast, this language.

I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here as I have been to quite a few GPT's where there's been some trouble in the top 8. For my scenarios i'm going to assume we have 400$ in prizes to be split, and 1 or 2 players in the top 8 really really want the byes.

If the players want to discuss any form of a change in prizing, I should not be able to determine what player will get what position/prize, otherwise they're trying to fix a winner. There should only every be discussion on what the prizes for each position in the top 8 should be.

If they players want to prize split, the result is 50$ per person. At that point the tournament will continue as planned, with no agreement on the spot to concede. The players who have no concern for bye's points will not care about what they gain by winning, and will likely concede, which we really can't stop. The players who care about bye's points will not concede. It's quite possible/plausible that 4 players will concede in the quarterfinals, 2 in the semifinals, and 1 in the finals, however they're still matches and every time the player has the option to play to try and get those points/byes they haven't agreed to give those up.

I think an issue than can come up without anyone noticing is that perhaps one of the players in the discussion wants to play it out, but they don't want to be “that guy,” and they just go along with the group. I think the best way to go about it is if someone wants to propose a split, take a page from Star City Games' book and vote anonymously. I'd hate to see one player denied their desire to play for the win through peer pressure (even if the other players didn't mean it that way).

What I do at cash events is I take 8 mountains and 8 forests and give 1 of
each to the players. They then give me one that I hold and one that goes in
my pocket.
Forest means split and mountains don't. Keeps anonymity perfectly and the
players find out after everyone votes.
On Mar 12, 2014 10:14 PM, “Kyle Edwards” <

We used a similar model as Josh points out at a PTQ in San Jose.

Our SK printed “Prize Chop forms”. They explained the splits for the round indicated (Quarters then Semis) and had a YES and NO. Players selected their vote, then sealed the ballot and passed it to the judge.

How I explain this rule to people is that players may agree to split or share prizes at any time, and players may ID or concede at any time, but tying these together in an agreement to do one in return for the other is a Bad Thing (TM).

I also agree strongly with doing high-value split discussions by secret ballot.

What if they want to split prize and, once done, they want to go to the pub without playing any of the single elimination rounds?

I read here we NEED a winner, what if nobody really cares and they all leave?

Originally posted by Josh McCurley:

Forest means split and mountains don't. Keeps anonymity perfectly and the players find out after everyone votes.

I think this is a good advice and I could see myself doing this in the future. But what do you do next?
Bear in mind, the point of my original post here is to just understand how to manage the event, Tournament-side, when players come to the HJ announcing a prize split. I don't think I should care about the reasons for the players to split, as long as they don't meet any of the DQ requirements.

The general philosophy pointed out by Uncle Scott is absolutely clear to me, but it struggles to become real and Evan couldn't express this better:

Evan Cherry
They're willing to keep sitting down while I run pairings and enter results to obey the letter (and philosophy) of the law, but as Lyle is pointing out, it's a farce at this point and we're going through the motions at the expense of people's time. We're upholding “philosophy” but can't realistically enforce what we really want.

As far as I know, here in Italy you can't organize a cash tournament for legal reasons, so the prize pool is commonly built from unopened product or specific staple cards. Almost every Competitive event is a GPT or a PTQ and has a unique 1st-place prize that you can't split like the rest of the prize pool.

At the end of the day, either we accept that there may be no winner for the GPT due to a split and we walk the “drop everyone” road, or we have to do “something” on WER to complete the GPT. Whatever the case, we're staffed by a TO who asks for a smooth ending for his customers, and I personally wish to be better prepared for the next GPT I will manage because I still feel bad for what happened in the GPT I reported in my original post.

Edited Stefano Ferrari (March 13, 2014 11:57:21 PM)

Originally posted by Josh McCurley:

What I do at cash events is I take 8 mountains and 8 forests and give 1 of
each to the players. They then give me one that I hold and one that goes in
my pocket.
Forest means split and mountains don't. Keeps anonymity perfectly and the
players find out after everyone votes.

Jeffrey Higgins
We used a similar model as Josh points out at a PTQ in San Jose.

Our SK printed “Prize Chop forms”. They explained the splits for the round indicated (Quarters then Semis) and had a YES and NO. Players selected their vote, then sealed the ballot and passed it to the judge.

I really like these solutions - I've only seen it asked publicly, followed by players awkwardly looking at each other, followed by one player who feels he or she has a good matchup sheepishly requesting no split (probably followed by 2-3 other players silently thinking the volunteer). I'll be doing this from now on - thanks, Josh and Jeffrey.

Greetings…

At my GPTs (and larger events), I print out and use “Prize Split Vote Sheets” which permit anonymous voting on the prize split (this way nobody has to be worried about appearing to be “that guy” - thank you StarCity for the original idea).

The form clearly indicates that while the prizes would be split (and the split is clearly indicated based upon what part of the finals we are in); the form also clearly indicates that the finals still need to be played out.

If the players then decide that they want to concede at that point, that is entirely up to them. While I understand the philosophy of WotC that Uncle Scott (and others) have pointed out; there isn't a lot that can be done if they want to manufacture a winner within the letter of the rules.

This would be no different than the players deciding that it is late and want to go home, so they do the same.

Until that time…

I've never had people try and do this, but I'll outline how I run top 8s and what I think I would do.

Is there an indivisible prize (like byes?)

Yes: Get all players together for a mini player meeting, ask everyone to close their eyes and raise their hand if they want to split the divisible portion of the prize if it exists. Get everyone to open their eyes. Tell people if there will be a split or not, then they'll them to go get a drink/go to the washroom. When everyone is back then announce pairings for round one. If the players then all complained that they want to go home because no one wants the prize, I'll inform them that I have to give it to someone, and ask if anyone wants to concede their match? Continue this process until someone “wins” or we have a game to actually play. Play until someone wins.

No: same as above, but also ask people if they want to play out the top 8 while eyes are closed, and if no one wants to play it we all go home. If one person wants to play then we play, but I remind people they can concede if they're really wanting to go.

A worse problem I've had was when the prize for 2nd place was better than for 1st place :s I've since convinced the TO to stop doing that. (It was either byes or the consolation prize of like $200 worth of stuff :s)

While I agree with anonymous or “blind” voting on splits being better (avoiding peer pressure), I still think there's an even better way. I've been up on this soapbox a number of times in the past, but I'm happy to hop up there again…

Award product prizes based on final Swiss standings. Then, ask each of the top finishers (starting with #1) if they want to play for the byes / invite / other non-splittable prize. Drop anyone that says “No”, and once you have 8 who said “Yes”, you've got your Top 8. No more prize sharing or splitting discussions can occur, as there's nothing left to split.

This often has the (positive) side effect of making people want to play, instead of ID, in the last couple rounds.

When product prizes are determined by the single-elim, Top 8 portion of a tournament, things can easily go wrong.

</soapbox>

d:^D

As a disciple of Scott's teachings (having worked with him for several
events) I can attest to having used his prize division method to great
success at local PTQs and GPTs. A great benefit o this method is the
complete avoidance of the awkward “I don't know if I'm going to the PT or
not” “Well maybe I can offer you something to make it worth your while”
conversation/DQ.

So if I'm understanding this right, players ARE allowed to split prizes in a PTQ/GPT Top 8. But, they AREN'T allowed to “decide” a winner for the two byes.

While we can't force them to play, what can we do to still respect the philosophy behind the IPG and MTR?

If the only reason players are still playing in the Top 8 is for the byes or invite, then you don't have to force them - they'll play. That's why you award prizes based on Swiss, not Top 8, finish.