I am hoping to have heard from substantively all players tonight. We can go from there.

Will need to have specifics laid out in regards to scoring rounds and how advancement to the next round is calculated.

I can afford to join the games, but (sorry j2kjbk) I can't afford a side-bet.

It's OK, hopefully I can keep my grief contained. I just need time.

I have 24 replies: missing are
josunice
csteinhardt
stressedlines
fulhamish

I am sorry if I missed your replies somewhere in there.

Anyway, based on the results so far we have 12 people that could be pushed to bet 600 . Would give us 7200 as a pot, but I am not sure that is attainable. A couple of them would prefer something a little lower. If we go to 400 it seems like we'd have 13 people at 5200 total, which is again still good but also attainable.

Plus 4 players yet to wager could increase that by 1600. So, all in all, a good pot and its not the 600 that is breaking people's banks too badly. It is unfortunate for the 10 or so who cannot participate but there is no other way around this.

I will add an additional amendum here - for the players who have paid the bet and make the final table, before this round you may vote to see if you want to change the way the points are distributed to yourselves. Must be unanimous.

I will type up some rules for the first round and send them out to a couple captains, ask them to forward along with the games they create.

Hopefully we hear from the missing players soon.

So, if I am correct, only 12 or 13 of the 28 people would really be in the running for the prize? What is our motivation? If you do 200 and all 28 people can do that, then you can bring in 5600 and everyone is in the main pot. But having over half of the people (not 10, but 15 or 16) playing for "bragging rights" doesn't really seem right. And if this goes off and, heaven forbid, none of the minority that puts up the ante makes the final table, what then?

The problem is, jim, that to change the bet to 200 it really only adds one or two people to the mix. I currently have 6 that only have enough points for the games, and only 3 that are in the bubble-range, which includes you.

Unfortunately, to have a 28 person tournament this is the way it is. Most of these people will have fun playing, so I don't want to cut this to a 14 person tournament, although, it is an option I suppose.

I"ll do what needs to be be done. I want to run a tournament, I want to include all the people that showed interest including some awesome players but I also want a reward at the end of it.

No matter how things are organized, people always have to compromise.I apologize that this isn't smoother.

I was only using the 200 number as an example. I think it is great that you are running this and putting up with all of the hassle. I just think that the people putting up big points might not want their fate depending on someone who is just in it for the minimum. I know that I wouldn't. But if they are cool with us poor folks playing along, then I'm all for it. But the question remains: what happens if none of the big boys make the final table? I know that it is very unlikely with the great players that you have assembled, but it is still a possibility. And if only one gets on the final table, does he/she automatically win? Just throwing out some food for thought.

I need to think about that, suggestions are welcome.

I think there are three options on the table here:

1. Continue the tournament as-is. The optional side pot may not be the best option, and I think jimgov has a good point.

2. Create a tournament only for those who can afford the buy-in. Fewer people, less complications.

3. Make the buy-in as low as possible to get as many people as possible. More people get involved, possibly more fun and more rounds, but less of a prize.

I think the prize is a good idea, especially for the winner of what's looking to be a pretty stacked tournament field. Unfortunately, I don't think the optional ante is the best idea, but I like the ante possibility. A big prize will bring some big players. Of course, we can always postpone the tournament until everyone has enough points.

Are points the only option for a winner? What about if I bought a $50 amazon gift card for the winner? Is that lame?

I agree there are those three options. However, number 3 is basically nil other than games because there too too many players with just enough for that.

So, three options:

1) As is.

2) 14 people, big buy-in

3) 28 people no buy in bragging rights.

I'd rather have a larger tournament with fewer points. We can always do a big pot game separately or a big pot tournament at a later date. More people is more fun.

I also like Mapu's idea for prizes other than points. Draugnar cooks dinner for the victor? Maybe the winner gets to be an admin for a week? A special profile icon?

You know that 28 people at only 50 apiece is still 1400 . That is a pretty good payout for the amount wagered. And everyone has a vested interest. If you can't guess, I'm a poker player and am looking at this like a poker tournament. A winner take all format makes it very worth while. And interesting.

I think there are several folks that can't even afford 50 and still pay 35 per round.

Unfortunately, I think that the only answer it so tell us all what it costs and stick to it. If it is 100 or so, then I'm in. If it is 600, then I will watch and hope that the tourney is exciting and well played. Either way, I will harbor no ill will toward anyone. Life is too short.

I like the icon profile idea - how about a anchor/boat icon next to your name for a month/season/year? Would the admins be OK with that?

Or does it require extra coding?

bump

I am going to make a decision around this based on what people conteribute here today.

I should note I will not be able to do much online today as I am very busy.

I liked the idea of 100 each into a pot = 2800 - 1st Prize 1500 2nd Prize 900 3rd Prize 400 . If anyone is short of cash SplitD said he would donate to the pot for them, they just have to find 35 minimum or 135 if they have it. There can only be maximum of 10 people without 135 therefore max cost to SplitD is 1000

I think the moderators don't want to transfer points between players Nigee.

I liked the idea that there would be two optional side bets. One with 100 buy-in and the other with 600.

@Nigee - the moderators won't let us do that. Unfortunately, for a 28 person tournament the bet has to be nil OR we have to wait for a bunch of new people.

Then that has forced our hand, we storm HQ, take Kestas hostage and demand justice. We will need pitch forks, tickling sticks, liquorice for the developers, probably a torch, plasters, a compass, a chocolate bar, plenty of water, a rain jacket, mosquito cream, toilet paper of course, wet wipes, anything else.
Who will join me, we set sail for WebDip HQ at dawn..... if the kids are united then we'll never be divided.

That is ridiculous, how many are short of the cash, we could have a few LIVE NON-Anon FP/PP games for the players who are short of cash and see how they get on, I reckon they would have a good chance of winning the points they need ;-)

LOL, you have no respect for authority, do you? :-)

I'm a Republican, we shall over-throw King Kestas and introduce democracy to diplomacy, they said it would never work, but they were Californians, they come out with all sorts of stuff out there, too much quinoa and pliates can screw with your mind !!