New York Pro Tournament: A Personal Recap
Mark Rosewater
a few notes on how things went. It's a bit lengthy but I hope you'll all
enjoy hearing about it.
It seems that a lot of you are interested in what happened at the Pro
Tournament in New York. As one of the people behind the scenes, I
thought that I'd take you through a quick recap of the weekend. First
off, I should start by saying that I personally had a fantastic time. We
had very high hopes for the event, and I was quite happy with how
everything came out.
Thursday
I arrived Thursday morning on the red eye and went immediately to my
hotel. After a quick nap, Skaff (Elias, of Magic R&D, you probably know
him as one of the designers of Antiquities, Fallen Empires, or Ice Age)
and I went down to the hotel bar area. We met several of the players
that had arrived early including a few guys who introduced themselves to
us as "Team Belgium". By the evening most of the guests of honor had
begun arriving (Justice, Stern, Hernandez, Blumke, etc.), and we sat
around playing Magic late into the evening.
Friday
The day was spent getting ready for the event. As the person in charge
of a lot of the video of the event, I spent the day interviewing all the
top players. It was at this point that the snow began to fall. It
didn't take us long before we began to realize that this wasn't just some
little snowfall. By the late afternoon, the airports were shut down. We
quickly starting making plans and decided to delay the start of the Swiss
rounds on Saturday until 12:45. The reception for 6:30 was still held as
a good majority of the players had managed to make it into New York
before the storm hit. There was a little bit of food and a lot of talk
as people either got together with people that hadn't seen for a while.
There were a number of players there from other countries and a lot of
the players reminisced about last year's Worlds. Also in the room was
different Magic memorabilia including copies of the original "gamma
cards" (the cardboard cards used in the early Magic playtesting complete
with art cut out of magazines) and the original art of all of Richard
Kane Fergusson's Magic pieces. Back at the hotel, there was more Magic
playing. Knowing I needed my sleep, I hit the bed early.
Saturday
I got up early and reported to the Puck Building. Besides doing the
interviews, my major responsibility was to do the live coverage of the
event. We had a large screen where we showed key matches while I and my
fellow commentators explained what was going on. The commentary was a
little rough (this was my first time trying to announce a game) and I
made my share of mistakes (I know, I know it's a Ruins of Trokair not a
Sand Silos. :) ), but all in all, I think it went rather well. Anyway,
Saturday was the day for the preliminary Swiss matches. The pairings
were done by match score, meaning that you advanced based on your wins
per match. Wins by game were only important for tie-breakers.
Originally we were going to hold all seven matches on Saturday, but due
to our late start, we held the seventh round early Sunday morning. There
were a number of early upsets (Stern, Blumke, Hernandez and several other
top players all lost early matches), causing a lot of mystery as to who
would win. The sixth round ended close to two in the morning and players
(and staff) had little time to sleep as the seventh round started at 8am.
Sunday
Before the seventh round, the four players with 6-0 records were
guaranteed entrance into one of the final sixteen slots. These players
were Mark Justice (U.S. National Champion), George Baxter (of "Mastering
Magic" fame), Eric Tam (Canadian National Champion), and Thomas Andersson
(from the Swedish National Team). Several name players were in
contention (among them Blumke, Dolan, Long, Wang, and others) but in the
following twelve got the remaining slots: Michael Loconto (from MA),
Leon Lindback (from Sweden), Preston Poulter (from L.A.), Bruce Swiney
(NW National Champion), Nathan Wildgrube, Betrand Lestree (1994 French
National Champion and Finalist at 1994 World Championship), Shawn
"Hammer" Regnier (from MA), Sean Fleichman, Dennis Bentley, Andrea Redi
(from Italy, 1995 World Quarterfinalist), Chris Bishop, and Jim Lemire
(from MA). In the round of sixteen the matches went as followed: Justice
beat Swiney, Poulter beat Andersson, Loconto beat Redi, Tam beat Bishop,
Baxter beat Lemire, Lindback beat Fleichman, "Hammer" beat Bently and
Lestree beat Wildgrube. The quarter final matches were all rather brutal
with one taking over three hours (Lestree vs. "Hammer"). In the end,
Poulter upset Justice, Loconto upset Tam, Linbuck beat Baxter, and
Lestree took down "Hammer". The semi-finals pitched Poulter against
Loconto and Lindbuck against Lestree. Lestree managed to defeat Lindbuck
in three straight games, Loconto took all five to take down Poulter. I
interviewed Loconto earlier in the day and he had told me that of all the
finalists, he most wanted to play Lestree. Having read about his match
with Dolan in The Duelist, Loconto had always looked up to Lestree. The
two had met in the Swiss rounds and Lestree had been the only person to
defeat him. Loconto wasn't sure if he could beat Lestree but he
definitely wanted to try. (Before I forget, the juniors - playing for
scholarship instead of money - also had a great tournament. The winner
Graham Tatomer used a speed black deck with Necropotence to defeat Aaron
Kline playing a white weenie in a tense five game match.) Lestree was
playing a white green Armageddon/Ernham Djinn deck (what seemed to be the
rage of the tournament) while Loconto was playing a white/blue millstone
deck. The decks were both what you would expect although Loconto did
surprise a number of people by playing Hallowed Ground in his deck (used
to activate Land Tax and boomerang Mishra's Factories). The first match
was brutal. Almost an hour and a half long, Loconto came inches away
from milling Lestree to defeat. But with only a handful of cards in his
library, Lestree managed to get out a few creatures and defeated
Loconto. After some sideboarding, game two began. At an hour and
fifteen minutes, the second game was as tough as the first. This time
Loconto did manage to run Lestree out of cards. The games were tied.
But it was no seven o'clock and both players were exhausted having played
eleven hours straight with very little sleep. Both players were willing
to play out the best of five match, but it was obvious that it would hell
on them. After some discussion, they (along with the judges) decided
that the two would split the money but play one last game to decide who
would get the title as the first ever professional tour champion. The
third and final game was the most exciting (and by far the shortest). It
looked like Lestree had Loconto right where he wanted him. After
attacking a few turns with a Whirling Dervish, Lestree cast Armageddon
removing all of Loconto's land. The end looked near as the Dervish
attacked growing with each hit. Loconto was down to four life and the
Dervish was big enough to finish him off on Lestree's next turn. Loconto
had a plains in his hand, but needed one specific card from his deck to
save himself: a Swords to Plowshares. Loconto drew his card and from the
smile on his face, you knew he got what he needed. He proudly showed the
card to the camera and proceeded to remove the Dervish from play.
Loconto then gained the momentum and managed to go on to beat Lestree.
Although the match was horribly long, the drama at the end was worth it
all. Loconto and Lestree accepted their prizes (a combined total of
$17,000) and the first ever Profesional Tournament came to an end. But
the true fun was just beginning as all the players went back to the
hotel. I think Sunday night was perhaps one of the best "moments in
Magic history". Imagine a literal who's who of Magic sitting around the
hotel lobby playing Magic. I got into a booster draft tournament with
Richard Garfield, Justice, Stern, Robaina, Chalice, Hernandez, Tam,
Unger, and numerous other top players. I stayed up most the night, but
it was hard to leave such a momentous event. Anyway, eventually day
light came and we all went our separate ways. I returned to Seattle.
But my thoughts are still in New York for what was truly one of the
highlights of my Magic career. I am looking forward to PT2, a booster
draft tournament to be held in Los Angeles (my old stomping ground) in
May. I strongly encourage anybody who can make it to try and come. The
top 64 at New York will be invited as well as the top DC members (with
the new ranking system finally getting up to speed) . There will also be
slots reserved for players who win key tournaments. But even if you
cannot get in the tournament, I would reccommed coming to watch the
event. Like other people on the Net have mentioned, there is nothing for
improving your game like watching the best the world has to offer in
tough competition with one another. That's all for my post (I'm sure I
talked long enough), but I hope others at the event will share their
feelings on how it went.
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
The Dragon Reborn
find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
mutual admiration society to me.
WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
Bridge tournaments.
Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
Bill
Mark Rosewater (wo...@netcom.com) wrote:
: I was so excited by the pro event in New York that I decided to jot down
5
Tournament wasn't Completely open registration, seeing as how it was
SWISS and all...
But then again, That's just me...
Ben Bleiweiss
AKA Poker Face
Matt Balderston (mbal...@fantasia.qualcomm.com) wrote:
: wcr...@indy.net (The Dragon Reborn) wrote:
: >Does anyone care about a bunch of SELECTED players playing each other? I
: >find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
: >excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
: >qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
: >be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
: >entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
: >will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
: >mutual admiration society to me.
: >
: >WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
: >learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
: >Bridge tournaments.
: >
: >Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
: >not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
: >
: >Bill
: Excuse me, but I like tennis, and it would sure be neat to be able to play
: at Wimbleton, so they should let anyone play there!! Puh-lease! You have
: to earn it. I have to admit that it can be tough to find Magic
: tournaments that allow you to get the ranking you need to play in the
: pros, but if you really want a ranking (and you're good enough to get
: one), the opportunity is there to get it. The pro-tourney also did have
: open enrollment for anyone who called fast enough but wasn't officially
: invited.
: I personally don't have much intrest in playing in the pros (at least not
: now), but I'm looking forward to the Long Beach tournament, because I want
: to go and watch. To conclude with the same idea I started with: just
: because I can't play tennis with Becker, Agassi, or Sampras, doesn't mean
: I don't enjoy watching them play.
: Matt
Jeff Sternal
>>Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major
>>tournament does not mean that we should be excluded from the
>>chance to win the big $$.
>>Bill
>Excuse me, but I like tennis, and it would sure be neat to be able
>to play at Wimbleton, so they should let anyone play there!!
>Puh-lease! You have to earn it. I have to admit that it can be
>tough to find Magic tournaments that allow you to get the ranking
>you need to play in the pros, but if you really want a ranking
>(and you're good enough to get one), the opportunity is there to
>get it.
>Matt
I suppose the opportunity is there if you live in San Diego/
LA, but this just isn't true in Chicago. Sanctioned tournaments
here are few and far between. Hopefully, the DC will have
formal qualifying tournaments nearby (not just Ohio/Michigan).
Jeff
Matt Balderston
>>find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
>>excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
>>qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
>>be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
>>entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
>>will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
>>mutual admiration society to me.
>>
>>WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
>>learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
>>Bridge tournaments.
>>
>>Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
>>not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
>>
>>Bill
>
>at Wimbleton, so they should let anyone play there!! Puh-lease! You have
>to earn it. I have to admit that it can be tough to find Magic
>tournaments that allow you to get the ranking you need to play in the
>pros, but if you really want a ranking (and you're good enough to get
>open enrollment for anyone who called fast enough but wasn't officially
>invited.
>
>I personally don't have much intrest in playing in the pros (at least not
>now), but I'm looking forward to the Long Beach tournament, because I want
>to go and watch. To conclude with the same idea I started with: just
>because I can't play tennis with Becker, Agassi, or Sampras, doesn't mean
>I don't enjoy watching them play.
>
>Matt
I just wanted to add something to my post. Keep in mind that all of this
is new, and as the DC grows, and more places have DC sanctioned tourneys,
it will be easier to find the events needed to score DC points toward
ranking. ALL of these events are available to whoever wants to play. I
still believe that the right to play in the pros should be earned.
Matt
Matt Balderston
>find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
>excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
>qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
>be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
>entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
>will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
>mutual admiration society to me.
>
>WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
>learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
>Bridge tournaments.
>
>Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
>not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
>
>Bill
Excuse me, but I like tennis, and it would sure be neat to be able to play
Kelly Sprankle
(Jeff Sternal) wrote:
> I suppose the opportunity is there if you live in San Diego/LA,
^%$##*&*WHAT!, San Diego and LA are near each other, but that is it. This
comment is like saying Chicago/St. Louis area....Near each other, but
that's it.
David J Low
> Saturday was the day for the preliminary Swiss matches. The pairings
> were done by match score, meaning that you advanced based on your wins
> per match. Wins by game were only important for tie-breakers.
Why *not* do it by games?? You get a much more reliable Swiss matchup
- for example, after three rounds you get the people on 9-0 (three, 3-0
wins) playing each other, rather than having 9-0's playing against 6-3's
(those with three, 2-1 wins). You reduce the effects of luck - winning
2-1 isn't statistically significant in itself.
We've had this discussion before here, with the general consensus that
although one might *like* to have Swiss-by-match, it really only works
properly if the matches themselves are statistically significant: more
than three games, as an example. If you're going to have just seven
rounds of three games apiece, you're better off going with games rather
than matches.
The general arguments in favour of Swiss-by-match in these cases is
that Swiss-by-game gives decks which win the first game but lose the
next two an advantage; or, more precisely, those which lose the first
game but consistently win the next two after sideboarding an
*advantage*. It is my contention that a deck which wins *all* its
games consistently, but has one unlucky round, shouldn't be castigated
for that stumble. Numbers in this case: someone going seven rounds at
2-1 would be 7-0 under one system, and 14-7 under the other; a deck
which went 3-0 for six rounds but was mana rorted in the other (1-2)
would be 6-1 or 19-2. The second deck would rank *under* the first deck
in Swiss-by-match. Is this reasonable? IMHO, the second deck had markedly
superior performance. The numbers can be extended as desired; these are
just easy examples. To show I'm not totally biased, compare the case
of seven @2-1 (7-0, or 14-7) versus four @3-0 and three @1-2 (4-3, or
15-6). By game, the 4-3 ranks ahead of the 7-0, showing the problem in
three-game matches (lack of significance in 1-2 or 2-1 results). It
would be interesting to see a breakdown of the final 16 (or even 32) by
*game*, to see if there were any stand-out differences....
Comments? Since each method discriminates against a particular type of
deck, which one is it better to harass? A good deck should have a mix
of 2-1 and 3-0 (with the occasional rorted 1-2); it's far harder for
someone to get a "lucky" string of 3-0 victories. 3-0 is far more
significant than 2-1 or 1-2 (although I wouldn't be staking my house on
sweeps in tourney MtG anytime soon!).
Regards,
David.
--
| David J. Low dl...@physics.adelaide.edu.au Oooo. |
| ( ) |
| WWW: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dlow ) / |
| "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness than blinded by the Light" (_/ |
Craig Sivils
>What *I* personally don't see is, besides lack of space, why this Gosh Dang
>Tournament wasn't Completely open registration, seeing as how it was
>SWISS and all...
I think the right to be in the pro-tourney should be earned, BUT
I think they should ALWAYS have a qualafier tourney the day before at
the same location, that way if your in a DC deserted area (HELLO
HOUSTON) you at least have a long shot. I don't agree that DC rank
should be the only way to EARN the right to be in the pro-tourney.
Craig
Charles T. Schwope
>What *I* personally don't see is, besides lack of space, why this Gosh Dang
>Tournament wasn't Completely open registration, seeing as how it was
>SWISS and all...
>But then again, That's just me...
>Ben Bleiweiss
>AKA Poker Face
>Matt Balderston (mbal...@fantasia.qualcomm.com) wrote:
>: wcr...@indy.net (The Dragon Reborn) wrote:
>: >Does anyone care about a bunch of SELECTED players playing each other? I
>: >find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
>: >excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
>: >qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
>: >be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
>: >entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
>: >will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
>: >mutual admiration society to me.
>: >
>: >WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
>: >learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
>: >Bridge tournaments.
>: >
>: >Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
>: >not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
>: >
>: >Bill
Maybe I'm wrong here... but I would have swore they had at least
"semi-open" signups. AKA call in to sign up, except for a handful of
people that WotC decided to invite.
Granted, the rest of them will be less open, which I can see both
points of, since they are trying to make this a "professional" system.
If it is a "pro" system you should have to go through some sort of
"minor" league. However, I'd like to see a system where there are some
(maybe up to half) the people "pre-selected" based on either previous
pro-toruneys,DC rankings, or whatever. I'd also like a certain number
of slots reserved for "local" to the tourney people (I will be
_pissed_ if I can't play in the Dallas one). I also don't feel that
DC rankings should be used as preselection basis, b/c that will
heavily bias against areas without sancitioned tourneys (and Dallas
happens to be one of these). I have played in a sum total of one
sanctioned tourney, and can think of only 2 or 3 others that I could
have played in, but was unable to. And this is in 9 months time.
Also, I personally would prefer to see all of the pro-tourneys be
constructed deck formats, simply because I enjoy deck design more then
any other phase of the game. Plus, if this "pro" concept really takes
off... wouldn't it be nice if players had signature decks?
-CT
--
Charles T. Schwope | Every man is a spark in the darkness. By the
aka CT | time he is noticed, he is gone forever, a
sch...@infrared.csc.ti.com | retinal afterimage that fades, and is obscured
c-sc...@ti.com | by newer, brighter lights.
zor...@hoover.stanford.edu
>rbl...@panix.com (5) wrote:
>
>>What *I* personally don't see is, besides lack of space, why this Gosh Dang
>>Tournament wasn't Completely open registration, seeing as how it was
>>SWISS and all...
>
>I think they should ALWAYS have a qualafier tourney the day before at
>the same location, that way if your in a DC deserted area (HELLO
>HOUSTON) you at least have a long shot. I don't agree that DC rank
>should be the only way to EARN the right to be in the pro-tourney.
>
>Craig
>
number of slots were help for people who did well in a local qualifying
tournament. This would also be a way for new blood to get into the pro-ranks.
Craig Sivils
>>I think they should ALWAYS have a qualafier tourney the day before at
>>the same location, that way if your in a DC deserted area (HELLO
>>HOUSTON) you at least have a long shot. I don't agree that DC rank
>>should be the only way to EARN the right to be in the pro-tourney.
>>
>>Craig
>>
>It doesn't even have to be the day before, but it would be nice if a fixed
>number of slots were help for people who did well in a local qualifying
>tournament. This would also be a way for new blood to get into the pro-ranks.
>
Craig
DeAnn Iwan
> rbl...@panix.com (5) wrote:
>
> >What *I* personally don't see is, besides lack of space, why this Gosh Dang
> >Tournament wasn't Completely open registration, seeing as how it was
> >SWISS and all...
>
> I think the right to be in the pro-tourney should be earned, BUT
> I think they should ALWAYS have a qualafier tourney the day before at
> the same location, that way if your in a DC deserted area (HELLO
> HOUSTON) you at least have a long shot. I don't agree that DC rank
> should be the only way to EARN the right to be in the pro-tourney.
>
It's probably a matter of space and time limitations. I understand they
sold out of "available" seats in a couple of hours, and the event was
already scheduled to take the entire weekend. It would be desirable for
them to publish ahead of time how one gets a reserved seat. For example, if the
winner and runner up of the US regionals, the winner and runnerup of each
national tournament and so forth gets invited, then say so ahead of time.
Then
you, for example, could play in the nearest regional--or whatever--that gave
you a shot at a seat.
Wized
>
> Does anyone care about a bunch of SELECTED players playing each other? I
> find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
> excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
> qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
> be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
> entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
> will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
> mutual admiration society to me.
>
> WotC & DC have a lot to learn about running tournaments. They could
> learn a lot from the people that put on large Backgammon, Chess and
> Bridge tournaments.
>
> Just because the rest of us have not won a previous major tournament does
> not mean that we should be excluded from the chance to win the big $$.
>
> Bill
Personnally being one of the invited, even though I only made it half way to New York because of
the snow storm, I could careless what YOU think about US playing.
While you've been sitting at home for the last couple of years, probably becuase there was no
money in it, many of us have been driving to tournaments 250 to 350 miles away to try and get a
ranking just for the fun of it. I'm insulted with your attitude that those of us who earned the
right to participate shouldn't because not everyone can. On the contrary everyone could have
competed just like we have the last two years and earned the right to play in these events. All
you have to do is get started playing in sanctioned tournaments and be willing to put out a
little if you can. Granted if your a teenager, or younger, then your options are limited but any
local game store or local area player can get a sanctioning package and run events so you can get
ranked and potentially qualify.
No, what you want is instant gratification without having earned the right to participate in
these major events. Remember, there were qualifying tournaments for the Nationals and Worlds last
year? Are you saying those events weren't good qualifiers to determine who should participate in
the first years pro events?
As for admiration that has nothing to do with it. Earning a spot through ability and playing had
everything to do with it. Maybe if you played more and whined less...?
As for the other games mentioned, a rank amatuer does not compete with a grandmaster for the
world title in chess, go, backgammon or boxing (maybe in bridge?). Check out the facts if you
don't believe that. MAGIC has been one of the the only games that allows new players to compete
for National and World titles as soon as they open a deck of cards and that is one of the great
aspects and appeal of MAGIC. Of course there's no money there.
Don't worry though Bill, I'm sure there will be qualifying events in the future for those of you
who are in it..."just for the money"...and not for the competition and fun.
Ed Willis (DC# 1023)
Top 25 Player-'94,'95
Mark Rosewater
Here's how it works. There are three ways to get invited to a professional
tournament:
1) Do well in previous professional tournaments. (For the first
tournament, we used Regionals, Nationals, and World.) The second Pro
tournament is inviting the top 64 finishers from the first tournament.
2) Become a top 25 DC member. (The Los Angeles tournament will be using
the new rating system.) The highest 25 DC members that aren't already on
the invite list will be invited.
3) Win one of the "feeder" tournaments which will be held around the
world. The only ones that have been announced are three in New York
(Call Neytral Gorund for info), but many more will be announced soon (and
yes, they will be announced on the Net.)
Sincerely,
Mark Rosewater
Peter C Grauer
I agree fully with your point. I recently found out that the winner of an
upcoming tournament in my area will recieve a bid to enter the professional
tournament in August (Seattle). As one of the better players here, I have a
good shot at winning the right to play at the professional tournament. There
are thousands of tournaments every week across the States and here in Canada,
the professional tournament is an invitation-only event, and if I fail to
qualify, then there are many more that I can play in, including the NW
regionals and the Canadian Finals. Professional Tournaments are for the elite
players and are thus not open to the public. If you want to be a professional,
you have to do just that - make your life Magic. I am not prepared to commit this
much to what is after all, a card game, but I will do my best to qualify as best I
can.
Pete Grauer
Vancouver, BC
Charles T. Schwope
>Here's how it works. There are three ways to get invited to a professional
>tournament:
>1) Do well in previous professional tournaments. (For the first
>tournament, we used Regionals, Nationals, and World.) The second Pro
>tournament is inviting the top 64 finishers from the first tournament.
>2) Become a top 25 DC member. (The Los Angeles tournament will be using
>the new rating system.) The highest 25 DC members that aren't already on
>the invite list will be invited.
>3) Win one of the "feeder" tournaments which will be held around the
>world. The only ones that have been announced are three in New York
>(Call Neytral Gorund for info), but many more will be announced soon (and
>yes, they will be announced on the Net.)
1. Some of us couldn't make the trip to NY for reasons (stupidity
being the main one I have... also the fact my raise came in Feb, not
Jan.)
2. Become a top 25 DC member = play in DC tourneys. In Dallas (and
the nearby region) there have been a total of 2 that I had the
opportunity to attend in the past 8 months. Meanwhile there's at
least one a week in some regions. While I'm trying to convice people
to run sanctioned tourneys, from a numbers aspect it just isn't equal.
3. The only feeder tournament I've heard of down here is that
Regionals will be a qualifier for the 3rd pro tourney. I doubt that
there will be any for PT2 (though if someone wants people to call I'll
give numbers).
The fact that the PT being held in Dallas could have _no one_ in it
from the Dallas area bothers me. Heck, that's really the only one I'd
want to go to anyway (unless there's another Type II constructed PT).
Craig Sivils
>Wized <wi...@micron.net> wrote:
>I agree fully with your point. I recently found out that the winner of an
>upcoming tournament in my area will recieve a bid to enter the professional
>tournament in August (Seattle). As one of the better players here, I have a
>good shot at winning the right to play at the professional tournament. There
>are thousands of tournaments every week across the States and here in Canada,
>the professional tournament is an invitation-only event, and if I fail to
>qualify, then there are many more that I can play in, including the NW
>regionals and the Canadian Finals. Professional Tournaments are for the elite
>players and are thus not open to the public. If you want to be a professional,
>you have to do just that - make your life Magic. I am not prepared to commit this
>much to what is after all, a card game, but I will do my best to qualify as best I
>can.
I don't think its unresonable to ask that at least some of the
qualifier tournies take place wherever the next PT is to be located
at. I do understand that the right to compete has to be earned, and I
think allowing people in non-DC rich areas to have at least a long
shot is not unresonable.
And quite frankly, although I do agree that people in it just for the
money can deal with it I do think Peter came off quite snotty.
From my understanding which may be wrong, the pro tourney was NOT a dc
event. So your precious DC rankings you've been getting for a while
may be noble, doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the pro
tourney. I don't have a problem with allowing the top 25 dc ranked
in, but I wouldn't have a problem with leaving them out and making
them earn their positions in the exact same fassion as everyone else
either.
Craig
Bruce G Strang
>The Dragon Reborn wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone care about a bunch of SELECTED players playing each other? I
>> find it insulting to the overall world of Magic players that they are
>> excluded from a big money tournament. There should be some sort of
>> qualifying tournament series to get into this tournament. There should
>> be some sort of US or World Open championship that allows ANYONE with an
>> entry fee to compete. I suppose that next year the only people invited
>> will be the people that were in this years tournament. Sounds like a
>> mutual admiration society to me.
>Personnally being one of the invited, even though I only made it half way to New York because of
>the snow storm, I could careless what YOU think about US playing.
>
>While you've been sitting at home for the last couple of years, probably becuase there was no
>money in it, many of us have been driving to tournaments 250 to 350 miles away to try and get a
>ranking just for the fun of it. I'm insulted with your attitude that those of us who earned the
>right to participate shouldn't because not everyone can. On the contrary everyone could have
>competed just like we have the last two years and earned the right to play in these events. All
>you have to do is get started playing in sanctioned tournaments and be willing to put out a
>little if you can. Granted if your a teenager, or younger, then your options are limited but any
>local game store or local area player can get a sanctioning package and run events so you can get
>ranked and potentially qualify.
>No, what you want is instant gratification without having earned the right to participate in
>these major events. Remember, there were qualifying tournaments for the Nationals and Worlds last
>year? Are you saying those events weren't good qualifiers to determine who should participate in
>the first years pro events?
[some of follow-up deleted owing to retetitious nature]
>Ed Willis (DC# 1023)
>Top 25 Player-'94,'95
These two posts show us much of what is wrong with the usenet. The first
post, while it does raise an important issue regarding WOTC, its
monopolistic practices, and the appearance of an insiders clique, does so
in a pretty petulant manner.
The second post is even worse. The author makes several unsupported
personal attacks. Of course, if someone disagrees with his
Weltanschauung, then they must be in Magic only for the money, choosing
deliberately to sit counting their ducats instead of being a *real* Magic
player like the poster. That this ad hominem attack is based entirely on
the attribution of motive, and thus has no validity whatsoever seems to
escape Mr. Willis.
He doesn't seem to consider that some people, even those who do live in
urban agglomerations do *not* have access to DC-sanctioned tournaments.
He does not seem to consider that some people might have have
philosophical objections to supporting a DC which has a rather incestuous
relationship with WOTC. He does not seem to consider that some people
might not be able to afford to travel hundreds of miles to participate in
tournaments in order to establish a record satisfactory to WOTC.
No, instead, Mr. Willis decides, for what reason one can only speculate,
that the reason that the previous poster hadn't built a WOTC ranking was
owing to that person's greed. Speaking frankly, Mr. Willis, you may or
may not be a good Magic player, but your ability to debate and to
communicate ideas is seriously lacking.
I strongly suggest that you learn to understand the danger of false
attributions of motive before you go airing your own lack of insight
regarding the views of other posters.
Cheers,
GBS
Derek Owen
The subject header says it all. I read about people talking about this
tournment type often on the net, but no one has every said just what is
is! Thanks alot.
PS. The only tournment type in this area is the normal type 1: 2 out of
3 matches tournment.
Derek
do...@plato.ucs.mun.ca
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada
Bsch Geography/Earth science
AKA:
----
Alt.StarFleet.rpg Alt.Holoworld.rpg
----------------- -----------------
Lt./Dr. Glenn Avalon * Lt.Jg Randell OakTree * Ens. Robert Jacobs
CMO Uss Clark * CMO Uss Stonewall * CNS SB Omega
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ " Release your self from the darkness, +
+ come to know your true inner self . +
+ Then you shall be free of the bonds that +
+ hold you down " +
+ Falcon +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mongoose
A swiss style tournie is you play all day. Play against someone with the
same win lose record. If you are 2-3 for the day that round you play
another person that is 2-3. Usually play until a time limit.
Mario Robaina
>
>1. Some of us couldn't make the trip to NY for reasons (stupidity
>being the main one I have... also the fact my raise came in Feb, not
>Jan.)
Well, then maybe you don't really want to be a pro player. How many top
tennis players miss the US Open because of stupidity?
>2. Become a top 25 DC member = play in DC tourneys. In Dallas (and
>the nearby region) there have been a total of 2 that I had the
>opportunity to attend in the past 8 months. Meanwhile there's at
>least one a week in some regions. While I'm trying to convice people
>to run sanctioned tourneys, from a numbers aspect it just isn't equal.
All it takes is three or four people to run sanctioned tournys on a
weekly/monthly basis. You are telling me that in all the city of Dallas
no one wants to run sanctioned tournys? All it takes is filling out a
few forms before and after the tournament. Geesh, you'd think this was
the hardest thing to do. The fact is that some areas have weekly
sanctioned tournys because those people in that area take the time and
energy to put them on.
>3. The only feeder tournament I've heard of down here is that
>Regionals will be a qualifier for the 3rd pro tourney. I doubt that
>there will be any for PT2 (though if someone wants people to call I'll
>give numbers).
>
> The fact that the PT being held in Dallas could have _no one_ in it
>from the Dallas area bothers me. Heck, that's really the only one I'd
>want to go to anyway (unless there's another Type II constructed PT).
Well apparently you don't really want to be a pro player then. If the
only tournament you want to enter is the one in your area, then that's
not what WotC is building up to. They actually are trying to build a
proffesional Magic tour, not just a few big money tournaments. The goal
is to actually have players that make it to the majority of events.
I'd love to be a part of this kind of a tour. Maybe I'm not good enough,
and maybe I am. We'll see. I finished 55th in New York playing a deck
that 5 of us spent hundreds of man hours developing and playtesting. All
of us finished in the top 64 and will be attending the Long Beach
tourny. I think that is what WotC is aiming at with the pro tour.
People who spend the time to make Magic an intellectual endevor, not
people who just want a shot at $30,000 when the tournament happens to be
a 20 minute drive from their house. I could be completely wrong here,
but then again I have been before :) and will be again.
Later,
Mario.
David Bedno
->2. Become a top 25 DC member = play in DC tourneys. In Dallas (and
->the nearby region) there have been a total of 2 that I had the
->opportunity to attend in the past 8 months. Meanwhile there's at
->least one a week in some regions. While I'm trying to convice people
->to run sanctioned tourneys, from a numbers aspect it just isn't equal.
-
-All it takes is three or four people to run sanctioned tournys on a
-weekly/monthly basis. You are telling me that in all the city of Dallas
-no one wants to run sanctioned tournys? All it takes is filling out a
-few forms before and after the tournament. Geesh, you'd think this was
-the hardest thing to do. The fact is that some areas have weekly
-sanctioned tournys because those people in that area take the time and
-energy to put them on.
The first thing you need to run sanctioned tourneys is a list of the
rules for getting sanctioned, and the forms to report the results
with.
It's been over a week since I've mailed d...@wizards.com (*supposedly*
the Convocation email address) and haven't even got a form letter back.
(Likewise with mail I sent to custserv, but that's a different story.)
Dallas isn't the only area where people just *aren't* putting on
sanctioned tourneys. Many places have that lack.
--
David Bedno, Minister of Truth, DNRC | Visualize world peace.
drs...@crl.com | - Neville Chamberlin
<URL: http://klinzhai.evolve.com/~drseuss/> |
Bruce G Strang
Mario Robaina <sprm...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <4gsdvk$s...@superb.csc.ti.com> c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes:
>>
>>1. Some of us couldn't make the trip to NY for reasons (stupidity
>>being the main one I have... also the fact my raise came in Feb, not
>>Jan.)
>
>Well, then maybe you don't really want to be a pro player. How many top
>tennis players miss the US Open because of stupidity?
Some of them get expelled, actually, for stupidity. :) Sports analogies
are, of course, rather suspect in any event.
>
>>2. Become a top 25 DC member = play in DC tourneys. In Dallas (and
>>the nearby region) there have been a total of 2 that I had the
>>opportunity to attend in the past 8 months. Meanwhile there's at
>>least one a week in some regions. While I'm trying to convice people
>>to run sanctioned tourneys, from a numbers aspect it just isn't equal.
>
>All it takes is three or four people to run sanctioned tournys on a
>weekly/monthly basis. You are telling me that in all the city of Dallas
>no one wants to run sanctioned tournys? All it takes is filling out a
>few forms before and after the tournament. Geesh, you'd think this was
>the hardest thing to do. The fact is that some areas have weekly
>sanctioned tournys because those people in that area take the time and
>energy to put them on.
Perhaps this claim is true. Still, it should be obvious by now that the
DC is a very small part of Magic tournament gaming. It sets the rules, in
whole or in part for most of it, but there are some twenty or thirty times
more tournaments played outside DC sanctioning than within the DC in this
neck of the woods. DC tournament rules have, at least until now,
effectively precluded most stores from running effective DC tournaments.
Running tournaments in rented space represents a serious risk for
organizers. Our last game day lost money big time, as the expected turn
out was low. It's unlikely that our university game club will take that
risk again. In short, you drammatically underestimate the ease with which
people can run tournaments. In the last year or so, I've seen less than
five tournaments sanctioned in this urban wasteland of about 4 million
people.Just because there are such individuals in
your area willing to run tournaments regularly, does not mean that that
condition is universal. Nor does it mean that players who live in such
areas are somehow less committed than you are to the play of the game.
>
>>3. The only feeder tournament I've heard of down here is that
>>Regionals will be a qualifier for the 3rd pro tourney. I doubt that
>>there will be any for PT2 (though if someone wants people to call I'll
>>give numbers).
>>
>> The fact that the PT being held in Dallas could have _no one_ in it
>>from the Dallas area bothers me. Heck, that's really the only one I'd
>>want to go to anyway (unless there's another Type II constructed PT).
>
>Well apparently you don't really want to be a pro player then. If the
>only tournament you want to enter is the one in your area, then that's
>not what WotC is building up to. They actually are trying to build a
>proffesional Magic tour, not just a few big money tournaments. The goal
>is to actually have players that make it to the majority of events.
Again, you are substantially off the mark here. I'd love to be a pro
player. The problem is that I don't have a spare minimum of $500 to travel
to every pro tournament. I don't have the money to be able to travel to
SCal or NYC to play there in tournaments. It would cost me, I expect, an
average of $400.00 minimum to attend DC sanctioned tournaments in order
to establish a rating. Why should these things mean that any person in
similar circumstances doesn't "really want to be a pro player?" I might
see a layout of a few hundred dollars to attend each individual pro
tournament, but even that is unrealistic for a lot of people. It would be
stupid to spend thousands of dollars in an effort to establish the
credentials that you seem to think appropriate. This decision for me has
absolutely nothing to do with my ability to play the game, but for me it
is a determining factor.
>I'd love to be a part of this kind of a tour. Maybe I'm not good enough,
>and maybe I am. We'll see. I finished 55th in New York playing a deck
>that 5 of us spent hundreds of man hours developing and playtesting. All
>of us finished in the top 64 and will be attending the Long Beach
>tourny. I think that is what WotC is aiming at with the pro tour.
>People who spend the time to make Magic an intellectual endevor, not
>people who just want a shot at $30,000 when the tournament happens to be
>a 20 minute drive from their house. I could be completely wrong here,
>but then again I have been before :) and will be again.
>
>Later,
>
>Mario.
>
I would have to say that, although I'm obviously not disinterested, that
I make Magic an intellectual endeavour. I tested my current T2 tourny deck
against decks that sound incredibly suspiciously familiar to the ones
that dominated play at the pro tourny, and won more than 70% of those test
games. Of course, there might be some differences from my test decks to
the pro decks, there might be differences in my play skill or my tester's
skill to those in the pro tournament - I don't know in detail what
occurred there and exactly what decks people played there. I am one of
the most successful players in this area. I think that I'd do well,
though, of course, I might be deluded. The problem is that I'll never
find out, as I can't foresee that I'll ever play in a pro tourny; under
the current rules, I'm effectively excluded. Whether or not that is a
good or bad thing, I'll leave to others to decide. The point that I'm
trying to get across is that instead of your usually well argued posts,
this one is rather glib and superficial.
Ultimately, I suppose what bothers me most about this tournament set-up
is that WOTC trumpetted the fairness issue around the creation of T2 and
the exclusion of T1 from the last round of national championships. It
just wasn't "fair" that people had "to spend thousands of dollars to
compete on an even basis." So, they ditched T1 in favour of T2. Now, that
position seems to me to be grossly hypocritical, as they are creating a
clique of players for the pro tournament, which, either by design or
accident, effectively excludes the vast majority of Magic tournament
players. It doesn't seem to me that WOTC is demonstrating very wise
decision-making here, and it completely undermines their claims of
concern for the little guy.
Be that as it may, there are a few more issues in play than I think you've
considered here Mario, so perhaps you might want to consider some other
factors before you write so dismissively of the previous poster.
Cheers,
Bruce
Mario Robaina
>sprm...@netcom.com (Mario Robaina) wrote:
>
>>In article <4gsdvk$s...@superb.csc.ti.com> c-sc...@ti.com (Charles T. Schwope) writes:
>>>
>>>1. Some of us couldn't make the trip to NY for reasons (stupidity
>>>being the main one I have... also the fact my raise came in Feb, not
>>>Jan.)
>
>>Well, then maybe you don't really want to be a pro player. How many top
>>tennis players miss the US Open because of stupidity?
>
>they have a _long_ way to go. To cover expenses to play in the NY
>tourney you had to (I believe) finish in the quarters. I'm quite sure
>that quite a few more than 16 of the players at the US Open cover
>expenses. Plus I can't picture there being enough money in smaller
>tourneys to support someone trying to live off MtG. Plus, I can't
>picture endorsements ever being given to the winner of a protourney.
>Unless you can follow this tour and make money on it, no one will want
>to be part of it. Heck, has to be more money then I make now. And
>with 6 PT's a year, I'd have to do damn well to equal what I make now,
>and I'm only a year out of college.
>
>>>2. Become a top 25 DC member = play in DC tourneys. In Dallas (and
>>>the nearby region) there have been a total of 2 that I had the
>>>opportunity to attend in the past 8 months. Meanwhile there's at
>>>least one a week in some regions. While I'm trying to convice people
>>>to run sanctioned tourneys, from a numbers aspect it just isn't equal.
>
>>All it takes is three or four people to run sanctioned tournys on a
>>weekly/monthly basis. You are telling me that in all the city of Dallas
>>no one wants to run sanctioned tournys? All it takes is filling out a
>>few forms before and after the tournament. Geesh, you'd think this was
>>the hardest thing to do. The fact is that some areas have weekly
>>sanctioned tournys because those people in that area take the time and
>>energy to put them on.
>
>other than store owners want to run tournaments? Most players don't
>want to run tournaments, we want to play in them. If I don't care
>about DC points, would I rather run a DC tourney, or play in a non DC
>tourney. Even if I want to run a DC tourney, do I want to compete
>with the games stores who are running their own tourneys and who are
>(probably) going to be giving away better prizes, and who would
>probably get their own clientel to go to their tourneys anyway?
> Granted, I've started to talk to the people who run our weekly tourney
>about sanctioning it (at least occasionally). Hopefully I'll be able
>to compete in at least every other one (since they'll probably need at
>least one judge to alternate with the current judge, who will want to
>play as well).
> But the truth of the matter is, no, no one wanted to run a sanctioned
>tourney b/c : a. it couldn't be in a store, and b. being sanctioned
>doesn't mean jack to the average MtG player. Now if the standard is
>sanctioned tourneys, then being non-sanctioned is a disagvantage. But
>if the standard is non-sanctioned then there was practically no reason
>to bother sanctioning.
>
>>>3. The only feeder tournament I've heard of down here is that
>>>Regionals will be a qualifier for the 3rd pro tourney. I doubt that
>>>there will be any for PT2 (though if someone wants people to call I'll
>>>give numbers).
>>>
>>> The fact that the PT being held in Dallas could have _no one_ in it
>>>from the Dallas area bothers me. Heck, that's really the only one I'd
>>>want to go to anyway (unless there's another Type II constructed PT).
>
>>Well apparently you don't really want to be a pro player then. If the
>>only tournament you want to enter is the one in your area, then that's
>>not what WotC is building up to. They actually are trying to build a
>>proffesional Magic tour, not just a few big money tournaments. The goal
>>is to actually have players that make it to the majority of events.
>
>Atlanta if I win a qualifier tourney? Are they going to fix it with
>my employer that I can leave my job for a weekend easily, so that I
>won't be continually on call? Are they going to reimburse me for the
>one day (at least) I'll have to take off from work? Are the prizes
>going to be large enough that I can figure I'll make money at least
>some of the time on these trips? And am I crazy enough to spend the
>money to go to a tourney that is a glorified version of
>"rock-paper-scissors." ?
>>I'd love to be a part of this kind of a tour. Maybe I'm not good enough,
>>and maybe I am. We'll see. I finished 55th in New York playing a deck
>>that 5 of us spent hundreds of man hours developing and playtesting. All
>>of us finished in the top 64 and will be attending the Long Beach
>>tourny. I think that is what WotC is aiming at with the pro tour.
>>People who spend the time to make Magic an intellectual endevor, not
>>people who just want a shot at $30,000 when the tournament happens to be
>>a 20 minute drive from their house. I could be completely wrong here,
>>but then again I have been before :) and will be again.
>
>hours... which would be $2500 minimum wage. And all five of you did
>well? Did you clear $2500 on the tourney? And of course thats b4
>travel and hotel. If not, I'd suggest you take up another profession.
>Btw... my point here is that the prizes (at least for the NY tourney)
>didn't warrant "pro" status. I know that there's supposed to be more
>at the PT2, but I can't picture it ever being worth the expense for
>just about any player. Thats unless they can make MtG into a
>spectators even, so they can charge for the right to spectate.
>(Picture stadium seating for the finals. :) )
>
> I don't think WotC will be able to give out enough money at these
>tourneys to make it into a fully pro concept. I think the
>rock-paper-scissors thing will kill enough people that they won't want
>to compete in one that's half a nation away. However, you might want
>to go to one that was... say 6 hours drive away.
>
> I'd like to see a system with atleast half the entires in a PT being
>assigned (based on previous PT, DC ranking, and/or qual tourneys).
>But I think there should be some portion of the slots thats open sign
>up. The open sign-up slots will (mostly likely) have a large local
>percentage. I think that many people now realize that you have to be
>_really_ good to make money at these tourneys. Plus, I don't think
>booster draft is as desirable a tourny format as Type II is for most
>players, so many people will not want to travel to PT2, or others of
>that type.
Jonathan Paxman
: > True... but if they really expect this to be as "Pro" as Tennis...
: A better comparison might be Chess. And there is a professional chess
: circuit. Then you have to look at just how many people manage to make a
: living off of professional chess. Maybe the top 10 or 20 players in the
: world. Maybe (I could be really wrong though).
Yup, you're really very wrong on this point. I think you will find that
there are several hundred professional chess players (nearly all of the
active Grandmasters, and many of the up and coming International
Masters). There are actually several chess millionaires out there..
(the Fischer-Spassky rematch had a prize fund of US$5 million!!- and
neither of those are in the top twenty!)
Jon P
--
==========================================================================
"And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord,
bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to
tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast
upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutangs, and
breakfast cereals, and fruit bats..."
--The Book of Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One
(Monty Python and the Holy Grail)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Paxman | Mathematics and Electrical Engineering at
jpa...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au | The University of Western Australia
==========================================================================
Hotrod
>mentioned...Sanctioning. I've seen all of 3 sanctioned tournaments within
>13 hours of Winnipeg in the past 6 months, and that simply isn't enough
>to keep up a ranking. One reason I didn't join the DC until VERY recently.
Let me echo that sentiment. I joined the DC in late November (though
they didn't process it until January ...so no free subscription :-))
after debating myself for a year and a half over whether it would be
worth it. I live an hour from Toronto, Ontario, and I think I've seen 2
sanctioned tournaments in that 1 1/2 years. One of those, of course, was
the Canadian Nationals, which coincided with the Ice Age World Premiere.
>Hopefully, there will soon be weekly tournaments here in Winnipeg. When
>that happens (and they are sanctioned), great. The Canadian Prairies can
>have an opportunity to participate in the pro tour. Add another few
>thousand wild cards to the draw, and watch the chances of any one
>individual pro making a living off the tour dwindle that much more.
There are lots of tournaments to play in around here (weeklies, plus
special tourneys, but no one want to do all the paperwork involved in
getting sanctioning.
>Great point. I don't want to run events through the store much myself,
>since that would mean I couldn't play in them. I run a Magic League
>through the store, and it attracts a LOT of people, but there really
>isn't much I can do in the way of DC sanctioning and such...after all, if
>I list myself as the co-ordinator, I can't participate, and then what good
>is my DC membership going to do me?
Exactly my dilemma. I'd do it if I could still play in it.
>Yup...I certainly can't afford the risk to try and become a 'Pro
>Tournament Player', as much as I think it would be cool. Too much time
>off work, too many costs, not enough return to justify the risk. I'd LOVE
>to participate in one or two, or even all of them, just to be 'a member
>of the tour', but it is simply cost prohibitive...at this point. Who is
>to say that won't change in the future.
Jeff, I wish they had posted your view instead of the Chip Hogan article
in the Duellist. Maybe you should submit one to them, and see what they
say.
Brian Walsh
hot...@wchat.on.ca
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Yup, you're really very wrong on this point. I think you will find that
|there are several hundred professional chess players (nearly all of the
|active Grandmasters, and many of the up and coming International
|Masters). There are actually several chess millionaires out there..
|(the Fischer-Spassky rematch had a prize fund of US$5 million!!- and
|neither of those are in the top twenty!)
Several hundred professional players out of the entire world is still
nothing to shoot for -- the lottery gives you better odds.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"I guess my work around here has all been done."
-- The Devil, in "The Garden of Allah", Don Henley
David J Low
>Just for the record, the prizes at PT2 will be significantly more than at
>PT1. For example, PT1 had $30,000 in prizes for the seniors. PT2 has
>$100,000. First place at PT2 will be $22,000. Also, the payouts will be
>much deeper. Players as far out as 64th place will, at minimum, make
>enough to pay for their trip out.
Oh, goody. So if I reckon I can make top-64, I should visit from Oz (or
Japan, as it will be then!)? :-)
Or were you referring simply to continental US players, hmmmm? Just
wondering :-)
David J Low
>Yes, I was being a wee bit ethnocentric. The lowest pay-outs will be
>about $400 so that won't cover expenses from overseas (although placing a
>bit higher in the tournament definitely will.)
Ah well - qualifying would have been the problem anyway :-)
Regards,
David (Grand Master Plan: qualify for the Worlds/Pro while in
Japan for a couple of years....after persuading all the
local competition that Merfolk decks kick a$$ :-) )
Canticle
> Just for the record, the prizes at PT2 will be significantly more than at
> PT1. For example, PT1 had $30,000 in prizes for the seniors. PT2 has
> $100,000. First place at PT2 will be $22,000. Also, the payouts will be
> much deeper. Players as far out as 64th place will, at minimum, make
> enough to pay for their trip out.
*whistle*
I take back some of the things I said about the Pro Tourney. With these
kinds of purses available, there may well be room for certain individuals
to make, if not a living, a whole lot of spending money out of the Pro
Tournament Circuit.
One question though: How consistent are these kinds of purses going to
be? Can the Circuit be self sustaining in terms of Prize Money, is WotC
losing money on these events, or is this just an experimental, one year
deal to see how smoothly and efficiently things can run?
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Franzmann {} Turning to go {}
{}Internet Representative {} Heard you call out my name {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Like a bird in a cage {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Spreading its wings to fly {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Campaign Outfitters Home Page & Orders:http://www.aratar.mb.ca/aratar
Opinions expressed above are mine, and may not reflect those of my employer.
GothCode1.1 GoSS+ T3(4) B11Bk@ c1z++ P1(3,4) M++ a22 n---- b+:- H5'7" g m--#
w++ r+ D+ h+P(3,4) s9 k+++ R+ Ssy LcaMB+
Michael Jason Lewis
Dennis F. Hefferman <heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
}In <4il1ob$5...@elaine25.Stanford.EDU> tr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Jason Lewis) writes:
}
}|30 qualifying tournaments times 100 entrants times $25 is $75,000.
}
}|(I may be low on the number of tournaments or entrants--I'll let you know
}|in a few weeks.)
}
}|You may have been a bit too hasty with your cheap shot.
}
}
} WoTC isn't running the qualifiers themselves. They're being run by
}local organizers, like NY Magic over here.
Yes, I know. I'm one of the local organizers.
}Now I notice that NY Magic's
}qualifier has a higher price tag than their usual, so I assume that WoTC is
}getting a piece of the action, but I very much doubt that they're walking away
}with the whole thing or even a majority portion of it.
WotC is getting the whole thing, and they are requiring a $25 entry fee.
}The qualifiers are also not run for free and have expenses, so it's quite
}questionable that they are subsidizing the Pros with the qualifiers.
This is true, although they're not _that_ expensive. WotC is paying me about
$400, giving me a couple prizes other than tourney slots to award, and paying
for the site. Approx. $600 total, I'd say.
} Even if they are picking up $75K off the qualifiers, that's only
}roughly $100K, which barely covers the purse. It's _still_ not a profitable
}operation.
Oh, I'm sure it's not in and of itself profitable, but the value of the
publicity has to be worth something...
- Mike
--
"To put it bluntly," Hayashi said, "I think Stanford and institutions like
Stanford produce a lot of the people who go on to screw up the world."
-- Stanford Daily, Feb. 16, 1996
Adam Maysonet
>In <4il1ob$5...@elaine25.Stanford.EDU> tr...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Michael Jason Lewis) writes:
>|30 qualifying tournaments times 100 entrants times $25 is $75,000.
>|(I may be low on the number of tournaments or entrants--I'll let you know
>|in a few weeks.)
>|You may have been a bit too hasty with your cheap shot.
> WoTC isn't running the qualifiers themselves. They're being run by
>local organizers, like NY Magic over here. Now I notice that NY Magic's
>qualifier has a higher price tag than their usual, so I assume that WoTC is
>getting a piece of the action, but I very much doubt that they're walking away
>with the whole thing or even a majority portion of it. The qualifiers are also
>not run for free and have expenses, so it's quite questionable that they are
>subsidizing the Pros with the qualifiers.
> Even if they are picking up $75K off the qualifiers, that's only
>roughly $100K, which barely covers the purse. It's _still_ not a profitable
WotC has all the people running the qualifiers charging $25. WotC gets
all this money. However, they are paying the people to run the
tournaments (but not that much).
I see the lost money as advertisement. I can only imagine the number
of people who are now much more interested in the game than before.
Not only that, but the stores down here have made a fortune from us
practicing booster draft for the next Pro Tourney.
Adam Maysonet
>operation.
Michael Jason Lewis
Dennis F. Hefferman <heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu> wrote:
}
}|One question though: How consistent are these kinds of purses going to
}|be? Can the Circuit be self sustaining in terms of Prize Money, is WotC
}|losing money on these events, or is this just an experimental, one year
}|deal to see how smoothly and efficiently things can run?
}
}tickets are what, $10? Figure we get ten times as many spectators as
}participants (seems like a lot to me), that's another $25,600. That's $38,400.
}Given the additional expenses over and above the prize money itself, even if
}that's off by a factor of ten it's not going to be enough to turn a profit.
}
} Take a good look at it: that's where Everway and Ars Magical and all
}the paychecks for those axed people are going.
30 qualifying tournaments times 100 entrants times $25 is $75,000.
(I may be low on the number of tournaments or entrants--I'll let you know
in a few weeks.)
You may have been a bit too hasty with your cheap shot.
- Mike
Dennis F. Hefferman
|30 qualifying tournaments times 100 entrants times $25 is $75,000.
|(I may be low on the number of tournaments or entrants--I'll let you know
|in a few weeks.)
|You may have been a bit too hasty with your cheap shot.
WoTC isn't running the qualifiers themselves. They're being run by
local organizers, like NY Magic over here. Now I notice that NY Magic's
qualifier has a higher price tag than their usual, so I assume that WoTC is
getting a piece of the action, but I very much doubt that they're walking away
with the whole thing or even a majority portion of it. The qualifiers are also
not run for free and have expenses, so it's quite questionable that they are
subsidizing the Pros with the qualifiers.
Even if they are picking up $75K off the qualifiers, that's only
roughly $100K, which barely covers the purse. It's _still_ not a profitable
Michael John Falkner
: Just for the record, the prizes at PT2 will be significantly more than at
: PT1. For example, PT1 had $30,000 in prizes for the seniors. PT2 has
: $100,000. First place at PT2 will be $22,000. Also, the payouts will be
: much deeper. Players as far out as 64th place will, at minimum, make
: enough to pay for their trip out.
This is what I envisioned Magic coming to when I saw $200 Loti and $100
Moxen.
Question: How much is the World Champ going to win??
==========================================================================
Mike Falkner, mfal...@csd.uwm.edu Milwaukee, Wisconsin
"The Electric Youth Renegade" D.G.I.F. #10769
WWW: http://www.uwm.edu/~mfalkner No quotes. (No room!! =))
==========================================================================
Preston Poulter
On 18 Mar 1996, Dennis F. Hefferman wrote:
> In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960310...@access.mbnet.mb.ca> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes:
>
> |One question though: How consistent are these kinds of purses going to
> |be? Can the Circuit be self sustaining in terms of Prize Money, is WotC
> |losing money on these events, or is this just an experimental, one year
> |deal to see how smoothly and efficiently things can run?
>
> Do the math, Jeff. 256 entrants times $50 is $12,800. Spectator
> tickets are what, $10? Figure we get ten times as many spectators as
> participants (seems like a lot to me), that's another $25,600. That's $38,400.
> Given the additional expenses over and above the prize money itself, even if
> that's off by a factor of ten it's not going to be enough to turn a profit.
>
> Take a good look at it: that's where Everway and Ars Magical and all
> the paychecks for those axed people are going.
No it's not. I can't recall a company trying to continually run and
support a venture so that they could lose money. Entry into the
por-tournament is now free to all participants- the trick is to qualify,
and that's where the money comes from. There are God knows how many
Magic qualifier tournaments around the country right now, let's say
12-15. Each participant must pay $25 entry fee and the top what, 4 get
to go to the Pro Tour. That's a lot of revenue to pay for the event
itself and you can be assured that the paychecks of the people in the
roleplaying division are not going into my pocket.
Cheers,
Preston
Jamie Wakefield
1. People debate about the ability to make money off
it is a good thing or not.
2. Being a top ranked player means nothing to some
people (Well, his opinion doesn't count just
because he has won the world championships and
is the number one DC sanctioned player. Just means
he played in the right tournaments.) That's like
saying Mike Jordan doesn't know basketball, he
just went to the right schools, picked the right
agent, and played his cards right. He doesn't really
know basketball like "I" do.
3. A huge advertising campaign like the Pro tour is
debated about what the purpose is. Is pepsi gonna
see any return on the millions they spent during
the superbowl? Well, if a pepsi costs x and the ad
costs y, and the number of ads = z how are they
gonna make money? Must have been a huge waste.
Good thing all you net people know WoTC business
better than they do who spend 40 hrs a week doing
what a lot of silent people think is the best job
possible.
4. It's debated about banning cards that produce an
"I win" situation 90% of the time they are drawn.
Don't ban vises I play with those!
Don't ban mind twist I like to crush people
who don't know its power yet.
Don't ban channel, I like to win before my opponent
draws a card.
later
jamie
Canticle
> In <Pine.SUN.3.91.960310...@access.mbnet.mb.ca> Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> writes:
>
> |One question though: How consistent are these kinds of purses going to
> |be? Can the Circuit be self sustaining in terms of Prize Money, is WotC
> |losing money on these events, or is this just an experimental, one year
|deal to see how smoothly and efficiently things can run?
>
> Do the math, Jeff. 256 entrants times $50 is $12,800. Spectator
> tickets are what, $10? Figure we get ten times as many spectators as
> participants (seems like a lot to me), that's another $25,600. That's $38,400.
> Given the additional expenses over and above the prize money itself, even if
> that's off by a factor of ten it's not going to be enough to turn a profit.
It doesn't have to turn a profit in order for it to benefit Wizards of
the Coast. Exposure, advertising, interest in the game, people purchasing
product in order to 'practise'. All of it is tied to the Pro Tourney. I
know for a fact (working in a gaming store) that some people have
purchased Magic solely to practise the booster draft. They could be
holding the Pro Tourney for the same reason we hold non profit Magic
leagues, tournaments which cost us money, and likewise with promotions.
Promote the game, promote the playing of the game and promote (in our
case, the store) the business.
As long as the Pro Tourney is beneficial for Wizards, they'll keep it
running.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Franzmann {} Turning to go {}
{}Internet Representative {} Heard you call out my name {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Like a bird in a cage {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Spreading its wings to fly {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Campaign Outfitters Home Page & Orders: http://www.aratar.mb.ca/aratar
http://www.aratar.mb.ca/~campaign