Triple Play Main Event Prize $300,000, proposal

[KJ Duke]

To maximize entries across players with different price preferences, and to offer a bigger carrot to those who want it ...

• Keep the Main Event prize pool intact with a flat $1500 entry.
• Offer a double-play option, where each entrant has the option of paying an extra $500 entry ($2000 total) for a winner-take-all payout of an additional $100,000 among only those double-play entrants. You would need 200 of the 450 participants entering the double-play to breakeven.
• Also offer a triple-play option for the high-roller, where each entrant has the option of paying an extra $1000 entry over the double-play ($3000 total) for a winner-take-all payout of an additional $100,000 among only those triple-play entrants. You would need 100 of the 450 participants entering the triple-play to breakeven.
• The highest scoring ME player who entered the DP or TP contest, respectively, would win these prize pools. So, you could have as many as three $100k winners, or if the overall champ was a triple play entrant, they would take home a cool $300,000 !!

This keeps all of the price-sensitive players in the game, gives you a monster headline prize to attract more players, and potentially increases the number of entries from the high-rollers who want more than a $100k overall prize.

[KJ Duke]

Any why stop there?

You could also offer a triple-play option for the high rollers ... edit above.

[la Jolla]

Bingo. Nice alternate thought process to keep everyone happy.

[poopytooth]

Perfect. But question...what if we get say, 600 entries? At some point $1500 × a certain number = an increase....not sure what the number is.

[poopytooth]

To maximize entries across players with different price preferences, and to offer a bigger carrot to those who want it ...

• Keep the Main Event prize pool intact with a flat $1500 entry.
• Offer a double-play option, where each entrant has the option of paying an extra $500 entry ($2000 total) for a winner-take-all payout of an additional $100,000 among only those double-play entrants. You would need 200 of the 450 participants entering the double-play to breakeven.
• Also offer a triple-play option for the high-roller, where each entrant has the option of paying an extra $1000 entry over the double-play ($3000 total) for a winner-take-all payout of an additional $100,000 among only those triple-play entrants. You would need 100 of the 450 participants entering the triple-play to breakeven.
• The highest scoring ME player who entered the DP or TP contest, respectively, would win these prize pools. So, you could have as many as three $100k winners, or if the overall champ was a triple play entrant, they would take home a cool $300,000 !!

This keeps all of the price-sensitive players in the game, gives you a bigger headline prize to attract more players, and potentially increases the number of entries from the high-rollers who want more than a $100k overall prize.

I would be in

[DOUGHBOYS]

It works for me.
There are already so many things out there called 'double play', so I would re-do the name, but the concept is sound.

[headhunters]

good idea. one important note- we did not have 450 participants or 435 or 420 or even 390. since multiple entries have been allowed - the number of individual participants has gone down.
Greg knows for sure- but I would say we probably had 250-300 last year in the main. I like the ability to enter more than once-since I think it saved the contest- but the facts are the facts.

[BK METS]

good idea. one important note- we did not have 450 participants or 435 or 420 or even 390. since multiple entries have been allowed - the number of individual participants has gone down.
Greg knows for sure- but I would say we probably had 250-300 last year in the main. I like the ability to enter more than once-since I think it saved the contest- but the facts are the facts.

I don't think the amount of individual participants really matters.. If someone will pay $2,000 or $3,000 for one main event team, they will likely pay it for two or three. There were 435 entrants in the main event, not including the X11. I am thinking that if they offer a chance for a larger grand prize, it might attract more people. Maybe not...

[KJ Duke]

good idea. one important note- we did not have 450 participants or 435 or 420 or even 390. since multiple entries have been allowed - the number of individual participants has gone down.
Greg knows for sure- but I would say we probably had 250-300 last year in the main. I like the ability to enter more than once-since I think it saved the contest- but the facts are the facts.

I don't think the amount of individual participants really matters.. If someone will pay $2,000 or $3,000 for one main event team, they will likely pay it for two or three. There were 435 entrants in the main event, not including the X11. I am thinking that if they offer a chance for a larger grand prize, it might attract more people. Maybe not...

I am likely to play two entries no matter the price, but some already have posted they would play more teams with a higher overall. That is additive without losing any entries among those that would drop out at a higher price, which judging by the poll so far, could be 5-10% if you simply jack up the price.

And there's no doubt that advertising a $300k headline prize will garner media attention and bring new players to the contest.

[Gekko]

Duke - Can you explain how the nfbc gets their rake on any additional money people would put in?

for sake of discussion, suppose 200 people pay an extra $500 and 100 people pay an extra $1000.

[KJ Duke]

Duke - Can you explain how the nfbc gets their rake on any additional money people would put in?

for sake of discussion, suppose 200 people pay an extra $500 and 100 people pay an extra $1000.

Like any contest Mark, if you reach only the breakeven number of entries, well, you breakeven. Let's say with the triple-play concept the ME expands to 510 this year and 50% take the double-play option. That 255 entries is an extra $127,500 in revenue and $100,000 gets paid out.

The $100k would be the NFBC guarantee, or whatever figure Greg comes up with ... I'm not suggesting that the DP/TP pools be a 100% payback based on entries, they can't do that from a legal standpoint anyway. Same as any overall contest, you'll need to set a prize pool based on the minimum number of entries that you think you can attract.

If Greg believes that at least half of all entries would pay $2000 to win $200k, rather than $1500 to win $100k, there's your target. Likewise, if there are 50+ high-rollers that would take 2 teams for $3000 to win $300k, there's your 3rd $100k pool.

The advantage of setting a higher minimum is that there would be intense pressure for players to trade up if possible because the payout percentage would be better than 100% until you surpass the minimums, and as we see each season players will flock to a high percentage payout game.

The secondary appeal of the DP and TP is that at each higher entry level there are fewer and fewer players you have to beat to win at least $100k. And you get this extra action without having to manage more teams, more FAAB time, etc.

[Gekko]

ok, got it!

[Baseball Furies]

good idea. one important note- we did not have 450 participants or 435 or 420 or even 390. since multiple entries have been allowed - the number of individual participants has gone down.
Greg knows for sure- but I would say we probably had 250-300 last year in the main. I like the ability to enter more than once-since I think it saved the contest- but the facts are the facts.

I don't think the amount of individual participants really matters.. If someone will pay $2,000 or $3,000 for one main event team, they will likely pay it for two or three. There were 435 entrants in the main event, not including the X11. I am thinking that if they offer a chance for a larger grand prize, it might attract more people. Maybe not...

Quite frankly, Bruce, a chance for a larger grand prize is the number one thing (and perhaps the only thing that you can market to attract new players to the NFBC. But the key here is marketing, something I venture to say that most of those going off the deep end on these boards in effort to keep things as they are for the sake of the base, simply don't get. You don't innovate and market, you're dead sooner or later which would be a sad thing for us all.

And if all of this has caused enough of a ground swell, or in this case a small earthquake, to get KJ to come up with something in terms of greater overall prizes that even he knows down deep inside is an absolute necessity for the NFBC's long term survival in this market, then so be it. Although his idea has merit, there are easier and simpler ways to increase the overall Main Event grand prize without gouging the base for significantly greater entry fees, while attracting the new players that are needed via creative, strategic marketing and promotion. Although if his idea becomes a reality, it's an improvement from where we are now...

[KJ Duke]

Although his idea has merit, there are easier and simpler ways to increase the overall Main Event grand prize without gouging the base for significantly greater entry fees, while attracting the new players that are needed via creative, strategic marketing and promotion.

GIven that this is 100% optional for each and every player, Mike, calling it gouging is off base. It is more action for those that want and can afford more action, and inclusive for those who do not. Likewise, absent raising the entry fee or finding that mythical promotional money, it is the only way to increase the prize potential without significantly diluting the actual odds of winning. I like my odds of winning a $300k contest out of 500 with twice the entry fee more than winning one with 1500 entrants.

Likewise, you keep posting about creative having ideas ... finding a promotional partner is not creative, it's what the entire industry has tried to do since the beginning and has mostly failed except in small doses, primarily because the high stakes player pool simply isn't big enough to be worth large ad dollars. Let's hear your ideas.

[Greg Ambrosius]

ok, got it!

We are all for side events using existing teams and I think there are some unique and fun ways to do that. But we couldn't keep the highest rake possible beyond $100,000 as you stated. It would have to be based on a percentage of payout that is based on our guarantee and a cutoff point of teams once we reached that level.

Trust me, if half the Main Event owners want to add to a side pool in a "winner take all" format, we'll run it. If we have 200+ owners who will pay $2,000 to $3,000 per Main Event team, then Mikey is right that $200,000 isn't far away. If these folks are here in the NFBC already, we'll gladly run any side contest with additional prizes. That's an easy choice.

[DOUGHBOYS]

We have a late fee for teams that sign up late for a softball tourney. They are willing to spend up to a third of the tourneys fee on this late charge.
It made me think about adding this to Kevin's idea.....
What if before the drafts, we have those that do and do not want to put in there extra $ 500 like Kevin says, but we add a $100 late fee for those that have drafted their team and feel so impressed with their team, that they now want to play in the double play.
They would owe the $500 for the right to be in the double play and a $100 charge for getting that peek at their team first.
I just have no idea where the $100 goes, whether it too goes into the pot or somewhere else.

[KJ Duke]

Could work Dough, it would of course go to STATS since the "pot" is a fixed number unless it exceeds it's payout targets. My only concern would be that it might encourage some owners to not commit early, which would give Greg more grey hair wondering if he'll hit his minimums.

[DOUGHBOYS]

Could work Dough, it would of course go to STATS since the "pot" is a fixed number unless it exceeds it's payout targets. My only concern would be that it might encourage some owners to not commit early, which would give Greg more grey hair wondering if he'll hit his minimums.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Could work Dough, it would of course go to STATS since the "pot" is a fixed number unless it exceeds it's payout targets. My only concern would be that it might encourage some owners to not commit early, which would give Greg more grey hair wondering if he'll hit his minimums.

They are called GUARANTEES, not minimums. And before I guarantee another $100,000 I'd need proof that this "winner take all" format would have the support of the masses.

We also need an influx of new players. Back to the Cutline rules I go......

[KJ Duke]

Could work Dough, it would of course go to STATS since the "pot" is a fixed number unless it exceeds it's payout targets. My only concern would be that it might encourage some owners to not commit early, which would give Greg more grey hair wondering if he'll hit his minimums.

They are called GUARANTEES, not minimums. And before I guarantee another $100,000 I'd need proof that this "winner take all" format would have the support of the masses.

We also need an influx of new players. Back to the Cutline rules I go......

If you reduce the guarantee to $50k in each pool, you'd need only 100 and 50 entries, respectively, to hit your targets. That should be an easy bar to reach, and if you exceed those numbers you could set a player-friendly 90% pay structure since there are no extra draft/site costs, just CC fees. The $200k prize number for marketing is an attention-getter. Doubling the ME payday with a much smaller number of competitors to beat for that second $100k looks appealing.

By 2015 you'll have a better view of demand and should be able to set each pool at $100k from the start.

[Hells Satans]

This is an absolutely fantastic idea. Well done KJ. Count me in for 3

[KJ Duke]

This is an absolutely fantastic idea. Well done KJ. Count me in for 3

Greg wants proof that players want it. Here's the start.

Triple-Play signups:
3 - Particelli
2 - Duke

We're 10% there already for $200k!

[Outlaw]

This discussion is a decent idea, but IMO will not appeal to a high % of the current 435 Main players...there is something called a weak and furthur weakening economy going on.... The majority of NFBC players outside of folks who play the Diamonds and such exotics probably will not risk the addtional $$$ wihout increasing thier odds of winning somehow.

[Hells Satans]

That's probably right, but we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

I have no doubt that you could easily get 50 "extra money" entries just from the people who play the Diamond/Ultimate/Supers. Pretty sure we can lock in Lowy and Juprinkle's money right now.

It wouldn't take a huge percentage of the remaining players to make this meaningful.

[TParsons]

We would be in once, twice, or three times...maybe more if they add more ME dates.