New Redemption Grab Bag now includes an assortment of 500 cards from five (5) different expansion sets. Available at Cactus website.
However, what's not taken into effect here, is that John is also missing out on the opportunity cost of selling said packs - another $13.10 per entrant - So now we have $1300 dollars that John misses out on there.Suddenly that $150 he gave up starts looking pretty good - additionally we don't know if John is taking on any other costs.
Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 27, 2010, 02:22:20 PMHowever, what's not taken into effect here, is that John is also missing out on the opportunity cost of selling said packs - another $13.10 per entrant - So now we have $1300 dollars that John misses out on there.Suddenly that $150 he gave up starts looking pretty good - additionally we don't know if John is taking on any other costs. Sounds like someone has been paying attention in Economics class. You are making all social studies teachers everywere beam with pride!
When it was $75 was back before the prize pack change correct?
How much did the packs change, and what would be the equivalent value in dollars today?
What if the Regional hosts offered to pay this bonus themselves--or agreed to split the difference with Cactus/the folks putting on Nationals?
QuoteWhat if the Regional hosts offered to pay this bonus themselves--or agreed to split the difference with Cactus/the folks putting on Nationals?Why would a regionals host give money to whoever won? I am not seeing your point.
I lost $5,000 hosting the tournament, due largely to a problem with the contract I signed with the hotel, but two things to take away from that is that a). even if the contract had been done right, they still would have offered me a rate above what I took in for the weekend and b). if a person can host at a church willing to lend the space, that's a huge boon, but the cost to rent any space - including a church but especially a hotel ballroom - is a huge undertaking by the host.
Why would the Nationals host let regional winners in for free?
Both the Region and Nationals benefit by having the regional winners in attendance--Nationals by bumping the competition level and the Region by having their best players in attendance as representatives. There is also the factor of rewarding players for having played well, which I would think Regional hosts would have as much interest in doing as would the Nationals host.
That is very sad, but that is nothing normal at all compared to previous nationals.
In some ways my tournament was typical of the ones that came before it, and in other ways it was significantly different. So I don't have absolute certainty about how helpful this data will be but I thought I would offer it and let it be digested for whatever its worth by smarter economic minds than mine.
It seems to me that an easier way to do this would be for all Regionals to give prizes in Redemption Cash. Then have the Nationals host accept Redemption Cash from Regional winners to cover tournament fees. The Regional winners will then be able to play without paying any money. And the National host will be able to use the Redemption Cash to cover future tournaments that they host, so it will be the same as money to them.What do you guys think?
QuoteWhy would the Nationals host let regional winners in for free?Because...QuoteBoth the Region and Nationals benefit by having the regional winners in attendance--Nationals by bumping the competition level and the Region by having their best players in attendance as representatives. There is also the factor of rewarding players for having played well, which I would think Regional hosts would have as much interest in doing as would the Nationals host.
Not to be a wet blanket, but requiring hosts to accept Redemption Cash for tournament fees is not a viable idea. You may as well say they have to allow the players to attend free in terms of having the hosts cover the costs of hosting.
QuoteNot to be a wet blanket, but requiring hosts to accept Redemption Cash for tournament fees is not a viable idea. You may as well say they have to allow the players to attend free in terms of having the hosts cover the costs of hosting.Jaybee... just stop. Start thinking please.
How can you say you may as well allow players to attend free?
Everyone so far has agreed that something needs to be done, yet you keep bringing up points that are not too relevant to the topic. Yes they somewhat touch on the topic, but it is not really anything constructive. All of us agree something needs to be done, so bring up points that help us all think of a possible solution to the problem, or simply don't post anything.
Who said anything about people staying home because their entry fee is not covered? Only you brought that farfetched idea up.
There seems to be an ongoing effort to make it seem like this effort is costing the tournament host nothing or next to nothing... why?
What does that accomplish?
If hosts took in so little revenue from tournament fees, how would they cover their costs at all?
And if it's such a small setback for the hosts, it's considerably less of a setback for the regional winners. What, a guy's gonna spend potential hundreds of dollars trucking across the country in his car or on a bus or in a plane, but if you can't cover his supposed "five bucks" he's just going to stay home? How does that make sense?
and you guys want to argue with someone instead of trying to come up with maybe a cool idea for someone winning a regional tournament.
why not just the open two player catagories
and like tyler said maybe just half would show up
its always fun to come up with new ways to freshen up the game and create new and exciting incentives especially for us players who have seen and been apart of the game for so long.
It's not an effort to make it seem next to nothing, it's slimming down the categories, which would then make it easier to do on the host.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask why only some winners should get whatever this incentive is, and not others.
This is the part I don't understand. I was told this was to be an incentive to get them to show up. Then when I said that it might not be much of a draw for them, I'm criticized for "making up" the idea that it would not convince them to show. And now I'm told again that it's supposed to incentivize them. I think you can appreciate why I'm having a hard time following this line of thought
The other categories are all great and all, but if you are talking about how much money the host is losing, lets only make it to open 2 player categories, since those are the top ones.
It's not an incentive. I never said it was. I said it was a nice "invitation", or reward, and that something more needs to be done for the regional winners.
I just think we were trying to help your points out more, by saying only the two players, and when we were trying to come up with solutions for trimming down the hosts cost, you said another point that hurts my solution. Just can't win for losing.
Now do you have a good solution to what we could do, or should we all agree nothing will get done and leave it at that?
i dont understand why people get the idea that a free entry (no matter how small) to nationals because they win a regionals event is somehow owed to them?
no such thing as a free lunch in america.
no such thing as a free lunch.
Quote from: Master KChief on July 01, 2010, 09:19:43 AMno such thing as a free lunch.Fixed.