Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Love the idea! However, how about paying through 3rd place?? Spreads the cash around a little more and makes the semi-finals interesting..... Not to mention the additional side-action you could pick up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this idea is that then the two people who lost in the semis would have to play a match for no money. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't have to be for no money [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the skipper is playing anymore [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

What happened to the SFB!?!?

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

SFB sold his seat. no worries...he'll still be there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

[ QUOTE ]
SFB sold his seat. no worries...he'll still be there. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting... was the profit so nice that he couldn't refuse selling? Or was the fear of going cheaper than Yugo in the calcutta more than he could bear? Was he worried about the matches inevitably going past 6:00 p.m. and having to forfeit?

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting... was the profit so nice that he couldn't refuse selling? Or was the fear of going cheaper than Yugo in the calcutta more than he could bear? Was he worried about the matches inevitably going past 6:00 p.m. and having to forfeit?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO - YES - YES

A suggestion: some rules for the smaller calcutta.
 

I like the idea of a smaller stakes calcutta. But I think it's only worth doing if there's a way to make sure that the stakes stay small.

I propose

1. a fixed (or perhaps spread-limit) increment,

2. a cap on the number of bids that any one person may make.

This would leave room for bidding strategy while keeping the calcutta affordable for lower-stakes players.

Thoughts?

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

Um... Have you ever run a Double Elimination 16 team/player tournament???

Loser of the undefeated Semi plays the winner of the loser's Final. Loser of that match finishes 3rd, winner goes on to the finals against Mr. Undefeated and has to beat him twice to capture the Golden Chip of Positive Valueness.

All others go back home to continue their careers as pizza delivery people.

I could draw you a picture, but..... Brackets are easy, the complaining about the seeding is what will drive you insane.

Sixes could help out in this regard, he runs a tournament each year with over 100 entrants in 15 locations with no problems.

And WTF is this about SkooperPoop being out of the tourney?? Now who do I purchase for cheap?

SlackerOhSlacker

Re: A suggestion: some rules for the smaller calcutta.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of a smaller stakes calcutta. But I think it's only worth doing if there's a way to make sure that the stakes stay small.

I propose

1. a fixed (or perhaps spread-limit) increment,

2. a cap on the number of bids that any one person may make.

This would leave room for bidding strategy while keeping the calcutta affordable for lower-stakes players.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that even with a lower limit calcutta, it's inevitable that the best players will still go for a fair ammount. I wouldn't want to put restrictions on how many bids somebody could make, because then they could get screwed out of not getting a player they really wanted if they ran out of bids.

The spread limit idea is interesting, but so far in the other calcutta, people have just outbid each other by the minimum anyway. I could impose a $50 restriction or something, but it would probably not make much of a difference.

The way I see it, if some of the better players end up going for a lot, it will just create a juicier prize pool, and people will still be able to get very good odds on some of the other players.

I don't envision this being a ridiculously cheap calcutta, but at least this way, you will be able to get someone other than Yugo for less than $300.

If the prices get high, they get high.

Re: Interest in Smaller Stakes Calcutta?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Um... Have you ever run a Double Elimination 16 team/player tournament???

Loser of the undefeated Semi plays the winner of the loser's Final. Loser of that match finishes 3rd, winner goes on to the finals against Mr. Undefeated and has to beat him twice to capture the Golden Chip of Positive Valueness.

All others go back home to continue their careers as pizza delivery people.

I could draw you a picture, but..... Brackets are easy, the complaining about the seeding is what will drive you insane.

Sixes could help out in this regard, he runs a tournament each year with over 100 entrants in 15 locations with no problems.

And WTF is this about SkooperPoop being out of the tourney?? Now who do I purchase for cheap?

SlackerOhSlacker

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Slacker, but I'm not going to ask Irie to change the structure of the tourney to accomodate an additional calcutta. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I'll set things up this weekend. Let me know if there are any other suggestions.

Re: A suggestion: some rules for the smaller calcutta.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of a smaller stakes calcutta. But I think it's only worth doing if there's a way to make sure that the stakes stay small.

I propose

1. a fixed (or perhaps spread-limit) increment,

2. a cap on the number of bids that any one person may make.

This would leave room for bidding strategy while keeping the calcutta affordable for lower-stakes players.

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that even with a lower limit calcutta, it's inevitable that the best players will still go for a fair ammount. I wouldn't want to put restrictions on how many bids somebody could make, because then they could get screwed out of not getting a player they really wanted if they ran out of bids.

The spread limit idea is interesting, but so far in the other calcutta, people have just outbid each other by the minimum anyway. I could impose a $50 restriction or something, but it would probably not make much of a difference.

The way I see it, if some of the better players end up going for a lot, it will just create a juicier prize pool, and people will still be able to get very good odds on some of the other players.

I don't envision this being a ridiculously cheap calcutta, but at least this way, you will be able to get someone other than Yugo for less than $300.

If the prices get high, they get high.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of doing this unless there is some kind of cap? It'll just become a carbon copy of the original calcutta. The only difference will be that the bidding will take up more time, since the bidding increments & the initial pool will be smaller.
Obviously someone could get screwed by running out of bids. But they would have no one to blame but themselves. Everyone would know ahead of time how many bids they could make, and people would be able to see how many bids each of the other people in the calcutta had already used. And they could plan accordingly.