Arcaden Munich Open (Betfair ET 6) Qualifying !!!

Wild WC wrote:OK Monique take the UK Championship how about this as a Module then using the exact UK Prize pot as this year but distributed slightly Differently.

Last 96 £300= £4,800
Last 80 £500= £8,000
Last 64 £3,000=£32,000
Last 48 £6,000= £88,000
Last 32 £8,000= £120,000
Last 16 £11,000=£88,000
Q F £17,000 =£68,000
SF £25,000= £50,000
R Up £50,000= £50,000
Winner £110,000 =£110,000

Wild WC wrote:ive Booked a Flight to denmark 2nd of January the cheapest flight was about £200 but some was up to about almost £500 so flights aren't cheap then Hotels on top of that i do get that and i understand that im just asking what can be done someone somewhere has to Move around and travel but if you pay £1,000 to a Last 128 in a Flat system thats £64,000 bill before the Last 64.

Wild WC wrote:OK Monique take the UK Championship how about this as a Module then using the exact UK Prize pot as this year but distributed slightly Differently.

Last 96 £300= £4,800
Last 80 £500= £8,000
Last 64 £3,000=£32,000
Last 48 £6,000= £88,000
Last 32 £8,000= £120,000
Last 16 £11,000=£88,000
Q F £17,000 =£68,000
SF £25,000= £50,000
R Up £50,000= £50,000
Winner £110,000 =£110,000

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:OK Monique take the UK Championship how about this as a Module then using the exact UK Prize pot as this year but distributed slightly Differently.

Last 96 £300= £4,800
Last 80 £500= £8,000
Last 64 £3,000=£32,000
Last 48 £6,000= £88,000
Last 32 £8,000= £120,000
Last 16 £11,000=£88,000
Q F £17,000 =£68,000
SF £25,000= £50,000
R Up £50,000= £50,000
Winner £110,000 =£110,000

I would go with that. I have no problem with the top prize being slightly lower to compensate for the lower ranked players to get something fair. I would even get the winner at 100K in order to give the last 80 a bit more.

Witz78 wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:OK Monique take the UK Championship how about this as a Module then using the exact UK Prize pot as this year but distributed slightly Differently.

Last 96 £300= £4,800
Last 80 £500= £8,000
Last 64 £3,000=£32,000
Last 48 £6,000= £88,000
Last 32 £8,000= £120,000
Last 16 £11,000=£88,000
Q F £17,000 =£68,000
SF £25,000= £50,000
R Up £50,000= £50,000
Winner £110,000 =£110,000

I would go with that. I have no problem with the top prize being slightly lower to compensate for the lower ranked players to get something fair. I would even get the winner at 100K in order to give the last 80 a bit more.

the problem i have with that is that thousands of pounds is paid out to people who dont win a game, whether at the last 96 stage of last 32 stage. I did research into last years WC and worked out that almost 300k was paid out to "losers"

For me people who dont win a match arent contributing to an event and therefore shouldnt be rewarded, as Hearn might say they are mediocrity.

Thats why i favour a flat system

Lose your last 128 match and you dont get rewarded

Win 1 game and make the last 64 and you get your expenses covered and make a few quid

Win 2 games to make the venue and you get your qualifying and venue expenses covered plus make decent money

Prize money obviously increases throughout tournament at venue stages.

The advantages of this system is that winners are rewarded, PLUS the prize money is weighted towards the venue stages so the actual people who have earned their right to be their and playing in the tv stages are rewarded.

Monique wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:OK Monique take the UK Championship how about this as a Module then using the exact UK Prize pot as this year but distributed slightly Differently.

Last 96 £300= £4,800
Last 80 £500= £8,000
Last 64 £3,000=£32,000
Last 48 £6,000= £88,000
Last 32 £8,000= £120,000
Last 16 £11,000=£88,000
Q F £17,000 =£68,000
SF £25,000= £50,000
R Up £50,000= £50,000
Winner £110,000 =£110,000

I would go with that. I have no problem with the top prize being slightly lower to compensate for the lower ranked players to get something fair. I would even get the winner at 100K in order to give the last 80 a bit more.

the problem i have with that is that thousands of pounds is paid out to people who dont win a game, whether at the last 96 stage of last 32 stage. I did research into last years WC and worked out that almost 300k was paid out to "losers"

For me people who dont win a match arent contributing to an event and therefore shouldnt be rewarded, as Hearn might say they are mediocrity.

Thats why i favour a flat system

Lose your last 128 match and you dont get rewarded

Win 1 game and make the last 64 and you get your expenses covered and make a few quid

Win 2 games to make the venue and you get your qualifying and venue expenses covered plus make decent money

Prize money obviously increases throughout tournament at venue stages.

The advantages of this system is that winners are rewarded, PLUS the prize money is weighted towards the venue stages so the actual people who have earned their right to be their and playing in the tv stages are rewarded.

I agree with you witz and I would even go so far as to say that the whole tournament should be played at the venue, in one go. That would allow for a true rolling ranking without it becoming a nightmare because qualifiers are intertwined with venue stages. It would also solve the issue of players paying too much for flights and hotels because they have to wait for the results of qualifs before they can book anything or ask for a visa.
However the point wild and myself were discussing was purely about how to spread the money, all things being like they are today, and we both are of the opinion that while that particular system is used, more money should be paid in lower rounds and it would still not make a massive difference at the top.

Wild WC wrote:i agree with you witz but i honestly cant see a totally flat system happening any time soon

Wild WC wrote:This could be a system they might use in some events with 128 players

Round 1 65/96 v 97/128
Round 2 Winners play each other
Round 3 33/64 v Qualifiers
Round 4 1/32 v Qualifiers (Taking Ding/Ronnie/Trump/Chinese players to china)

Sickpotter wrote:All I can say is that I've never once been in a tournament where a player recouped their expenses by winning one match.

That concept is lovely but unrealistic, particularly when players travel from all over. There's no static expenses, they vary wildly from player to player so how do you make your calculations on what every winner should get paid? According to the highest expenses? Lowest?

Here's another scenario....Suppose we have a group of 10 players in a phenominally remote location. So remote in fact that in order to attend even the closest snooker event they'll incur $5000 in expenses. How can you possibly pay out $5000 for winning one match? You'd need a prize pool far beyond anything the sport offers.....

What's the answer?

IMO all you can do is limit the tour. I don't think that's really all that bad but there are pros and cons.

Pro would be it ensures quality players and ensures they can all cover expenses. The negative is the potential impact to sponsorship.

If we limit the field to 64 players and in doing so eliminate 80% of the Chinese players...what happens to the sponsorship? Certainly the nationality of the competitors will impact sponsorship from that nation so the sport could wind up losing money.

I'm sure there's a middle of the road but I'll be damned if I can find it.

Like they say, you can please some people some of the time but you can't please everyone all the time.

Witz78 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:This could be a system they might use in some events with 128 players

Round 1 65/96 v 97/128
Round 2 Winners play each other
Round 3 33/64 v Qualifiers
Round 4 1/32 v Qualifiers (Taking Ding/Ronnie/Trump/Chinese players to china)

64 players in Round 1 = 32 matches

32 Round 1 winners = 16 matches

16 Round 2 winners............play 32 seeded Round 3 players

Sonny wrote:Apparently Selby won 442 points to 2 with 3 centuries. Good signs for York.

Sonny wrote:Apparently Selby won 442 points to 2 with 3 centuries. Good signs for York.