$100 Entry, 50 man P9 Tournaments

[Prospero]

I was talking to a friend today about just how rare P9 tournaments are in the U.S. nowadays and how I didn't think another would happen anytime soon.  Specifically, I asked whether he'd be willing to play in a 50 man (thus, limited number of entries) tournament in which everyone paid $100 (or about that) and a set of power nine was given away, with some credit being given out on top of that.

I think I'd be more likely to play in an event like that than I would be to play in a small tournament for credit, just because the reward is so much higher.  Would you?  If not, why not?  

If the entry fee was $100 and the number of entrants was capped at 40 players (with nothing but power being given out), would you play?  What about if it were $80 with 50 players for nothing but the power nine?

[quicksilvervii]

I'd probably play.

[Pokey]

I would, but why limit max entry?

[Prospero]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

[Thecheese]

Yeah I'd play in that type of event if it happened only once or twice a year. Every month would be unjustifiable to the wife

[Prospero]

Yeah I'd play in that type of event if it happened only once or twice a year. Every month would be unjustifiable to the wife

I need some serious time off from T/O'ing, but I'd consider running something like this in July.  I'd only run it once a year.

[Demonic Attorney]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the range at which prizes are given out?  Say, for example, if you end up with 75 players, you could extend prize support through the t16 or something, keeping the ratio of contestants to prize-eligible finishes roughly the same.

[quicksilvervii]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the range at which prizes are given out?  Say, for example, if you end up with 75 players, you could extend prize support through the t16 or something, keeping the ratio of contestants to prize-eligible finishes roughly the same.

Agree on this, but I would imagine if the price of entry was to drop down a bit, it could garner more interest.  The problem is finding that sweet spot where you have a fee that is attractive enough to get people to come out, but not so low that you end up far in the red.

[Bill Copes]

WANT!

[Godder]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the range at which prizes are given out?  Say, for example, if you end up with 75 players, you could extend prize support through the t16 or something, keeping the ratio of contestants to prize-eligible finishes roughly the same.

Potentially, but a smaller field means venue hire is easier/cheaper, and same for staffing costs. Less of a headache for the TO all round, so I can really see the appeal.

[TheProfessor]

A tournament like this makes me wish I lived within reasonable driving distance 

[Methuselahn]

I'd rather play in a $5 tournament than a $100 tournament.  Prizes are nice and all but I'd just want to play cards.

[cvarosky80]

I would absolutely jump at the chance to play in an event like this. And at once or twice a year, potentially, I think it would be fantastic. I hope you go through with this, Nick.

[Cody.TopDeckInsurrection]

I was actualy talking about this also today. It would be absolutely bangin. I'd even pay upwards for 150$ for entry and I think you be able to easily get a crowd.

I think this should only be run once a year to add to excitement/ I don't think many people could justify 200-300 for 2 tournaments

Hopes this carries through this year

[Prospero]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the range at which prizes are given out?  Say, for example, if you end up with 75 players, you could extend prize support through the t16 or something, keeping the ratio of contestants to prize-eligible finishes roughly the same.

Potentially, but a smaller field means venue hire is easier/cheaper, and same for staffing costs. Less of a headache for the TO all round, so I can really see the appeal.

If I ran it, I'd be looking to one of the medium sized stores on Long Island, where you can't really fit much more than that many players, so, yes, that was a big concern.  The staffing would be straightforward, I think, as I'd have one judge, and I'd do the scorekeeping.  I have to work on a few things, but I'd consider doing this if I manage to get a few things settled.  I'd also probably start taking signups for a July event sometime soon.  We'll see if it's possible.

[Thecheese]

I would, but why limit max entry?

I'd imagine that people would generally want to play in a smaller event with killer support than a larger event with killer support.  If there are more players I think most would push for the entry to be cut down before more support was given out, but it's tough to plan something like that out.  The first order of business is making sure that you're not killed on the prize support cost.

Wouldn't it be simpler to increase the range at which prizes are given out?  Say, for example, if you end up with 75 players, you could extend prize support through the t16 or something, keeping the ratio of contestants to prize-eligible finishes roughly the same.

Potentially, but a smaller field means venue hire is easier/cheaper, and same for staffing costs. Less of a headache for the TO all round, so I can really see the appeal.

If I ran it, I'd be looking to one of the medium sized stores on Long Island, where you can't really fit much more than that many players, so, yes, that was a big concern.  The staffing would be straightforward, I think, as I'd have one judge, and I'd do the scorekeeping.  I have to work on a few things, but I'd consider doing this if I manage to get a few things settled.  I'd also probably start taking signups for a July event sometime soon.  We'll see if it's possible.

Gotta make sure it's a stream able event!

[ramrodjon]

I haven't had the opportunity to make it to a LI event, but this sounds great.  As with many folks in the Vintage community, travel and commitments sometimes can be barriers, but with enough planning and scheduling, I'd make every attempt possible to attend this (and hopefully bring Cap'n Chris, and some Full of Win guys, too!) 

[MaximumCDawg]

I'd rather play in a $5 tournament than a $100 tournament.  Prizes are nice and all but I'd just want to play cards.

Meth speaks truth.  High stakes just make people into jerks.

[brokenbacon]

I'd rather play in a $5 tournament than a $100 tournament.  Prizes are nice and all but I'd just want to play cards.

Meth speaks truth.  High stakes just make people into jerks.

All I saw was "meth speaks truth" and I got excited

[Smmenen]

I would play in such a tournament not because of the money, prizes or the entry fee but because I enjoy playing in competitive Type 1 touranments -- hence why I travel to Vintage Champs and Waterbury's. 

I would prefer, however, to play in larger tournaments rather than smaller ones.   

[Protoaddict]

I would personally love to see an even like this at one of the larger cons, lets say gencon. I think at these events you have the critical mass of people needed to get people to play, plus people have cash to throw at an event like this.

Cap the attendance to 64 people, swiss then cut to top 16 to complete for the P9. I would actually think you would want prizes for the top 16 at that point, so maybe its like p9, a dual and then come packs or something.

I would absolutely play in one of these over most of the current structured events. One of my biggest pet peeves about magic on a whole is that unless I win an event, I often don't feel the prize support was worth the investment of my time. I have played in events in the past where I have won and at the end of the event i still did not feel like I got enough for the time and money spent. This would solve that.

Honestly I find that my time for the game is at more of a premium than the entry fee most of the time.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I'd hit it.  Both of them.  Possibly at the same time.

[Twaun007]

I'd pull out the Lambo and make the trip.

[mikekilljoy]

I voted yes, but it honestly would be really dependent on a number of factors for me.

Also, I have to agree to open up the attendence and give away more prizes with more people showing up.

[KrauserKrauser]

I'm in.  Would be more comfortable with a $50 entry, but I'm just a cheapskate.

[GrandpaBelcher]

I think I would have a hard time justifying this payment. However, I would be jealous of people who could attend.

[PDM]

I'd rather play in something like the p9 legacy tournies they used to run at Jupiter games that is a fraction of the price. Even if the lotus prize was creased in half. 100 is just too much of an outlay for players like me who aren't top vintage players.

[kevgenocide]

sounds pretty awsome.  I would be happy paying 50-80 but 100 would be doable.  I love playing type 1. What I love more is good competition in type 1.  People bringing their "A" game, instead of just dicking around at the 5-10 tournies

[Ten-Ten]

$100 would be a bit much for a sanctioned event. $50 would be best. $75 is my cap.
 
Also, the bigger the tourney the better.

Having one of these six months before or after the vintage champs would be nice.

Maybe having two major sanctioned vintage events a year will evolve the meta a bit faster.

Now, if the tournament allows proxies, I would pay $100 for this kinda prize support.

[Shock Wave]

I would play.