The splendid UKBGF website has been sadly lacking in controversy since the five pre-election questions were provocatively posed late last year so it is a good time to raise the following divisive discussion. I encourage anyone who has a strong view either way on the following motion to get involved in what I hope will become a lively debate.
Variable pools favour the stronger, cash-rich player but penalise and
act as a disincentive to the weaker cash-poor player.
So what is meant by a variable pool? To answer that question, we will first look at traditional optional pools.
Originally, when a tournament or competition was big enough to justify it, there would be a choice of optional stand-alone pools set at two (or occasionally three) levels. Without talking values, let’s give our two optional pool levels names: High-Roller and Low-Roller. Generally speaking the better players (and a few with more money than sense) would go into the high-roller pool and the intermediate or weaker players would enter the low-roller pool. The players who travelled furthest in the main competition would collect from their respective pools.
This gave the weaker, intermediate players a modest but valid financial stake in the tournament even if they did not have a cat in hell’s chance of winning the main event.
Now a few years back, some bright spark with long hair came up with the notion of a variable pool.
A variable pool allows you to enter the main pool for whatever stake you are happy with. In essence, this means that there is just one pool and you can only win a proportion of the pool corresponding to your stake.
A simple example is that in a sixteen player tournament, 8 players choose to pay £5 into the pool, 4 players choose to pay £10 into the pool and the remaining 4 players pay £20. This puts a total of £160 into the pool. For simplicity, we will say that this is a Winner-Takes-All pool; there are no prizes for coming second.
- If a £20 player wins the tournament, he collects the full amount of £160.
- If a £10 player wins the tournament, he collects £120. This comprises £10 x 8 (from the £10 and £20 players) plus £5 x 8 (from all the £5 players). The remaining £40 goes to the furthest advanced £20 player.
- If a £5 player wins the tournament, he collects £80 (£5 x 16). The balance of £80 is collected by the furthest progressing £20 player, unless a £10 player progresses further in which case it is shared pro-rata.
When this idea was first put forward, it was well received by most. It meant for a bigger, more attractive prize pool as opposed to two lesser stand-alone prize pools. By lumping all the pool money together, it rewarded the players who risked more money and offered a smaller reward for those who risked less. This innovative idea was eagerly adopted.
But who is actually better off with variable pools and who is worse off?
High-rollers now can pick up the whole prize fund by winning the tournament, whereas before with traditional pools they could only pick up the high-roller pool and nothing from the low-roller pool. Even if they don’t win the tournament, but travel further than anyone else at their level, they still cash. This is a very favourable position for a strong player with a healthy bankroll. I am sure that for this reason stronger players will happily argue the case for variable pools to protect their advantageous position. It would be foolish for them to do otherwise.
Now let’s look at this from the perspective of a typical £5 intermediate player. Previously, this Intermediate, who was unlikely to win the main tournament, had a chance to cash by advancing further than all the other low rollers. With a variable pool, a low roller now has to actually win the tournament – an unlikely event – in order to cash. Is this really an incentive for a weak player to enter the variable pool?
Bearing in mind that this low roller is proportionally less likely to win the tournament than the better players around him; the low roller may perceive his variable pool entry as more of a tax collected for the benefit of stronger players than as a viable prospect of getting a return himself.
It can be argued that everyone is playing for a bigger prize fund if they do win, which is correct, but this is not much consolation to the weak player who is unlikely to win the main tournament. Backgammon players like to play the odds. Statistically, the weaker player is actually better off not entering the variable pool at all, whereas the strong player is better off entering the pool at the top rate. But weaker players have no choice if this is the only pool arrangement on offer. Pay up or play for nothing.
I feel strongly enough about this now that I will not enter a variable pool, and seeing that many local clubs are adopting variable pools de facto, many prize funds are missing out on what I would otherwise be contributing.
It is great that we have so many strong players in the UK willing to step forward and give up their time for running backgammon events and federations. My concern is that strong players in charge sometimes forget what it is like to not be a strong player. Their view of prize funds is coloured by their own realistic desire to win big. There may be a danger that the rest of us intermediates then become fodder.
My big fear is that the UKBGF is looking to adopt a form of variable entry system for the UK Open. I trust that the UKBGF Board and other Backgammon Organisers will take note of this article and more importantly the following comments for and against variable pools. In certain situations, variable pools work to the benefit of everyone but they should not be used as standard. I may be a lone voice on this, in which case I will put up and shut up. I just wonder whether there are any other intermediate players out there who feel the way I do about paying the “variable pool tax.”
We have, IMHO, a worse situation in Sydney. Every tournament has buy-backs! Entry into the upcoming Sydney/NSW Open is $100 (early bird) $120 otherwise.
The monthly club’s entry is less at $25 but again with buy-backs.
This has had one positive; I’ve joined Richard Biddle’s campaign and just started a similar league to his, in Sydney. Unfortunately, the players that support the above situation have boycotted it so far. I get the feeling they see it as a threat which is a pity. Everything that can be done to increase the number of players should be tried. We all love the game.
My2cs
John Hedge
Hi John, what’s wrong with buy backs???
Here’s a thought. If you have variable entry fees at a tournament, then why have several divisions? Isn’t it better to just put everybody into one draw?
Here’s how it might work. 10 players in the $10 pool, 30 players in the $50 pool and 60 players in the $250 pool. You can of course have more pools and differing cash amounts. The standard of the players is irrelevant. The draw for the first round is not however random. Each pool is grouped together, as far as is possible and each group is assigned a proportion of the necessary 28 byes, say 2 for the $10 group, 8 for the $50 group and 18 for the $250 group. Match numbers 1-6 are then in the $10 pool, matches 7-25 are in the $50 group and the remaining 39 matches are in the $250 group. Then the tournament continues as normal, with the prize pool in each section going to the last player standing.
This arrangement of the draw means that you are guaranteed at least one match (and usually more) at your own level before being required to step up or down a notch. It would also guarantee at least one $10 in the fourth round and at least one, possibly two, lower level players in the semi-final, which I admit you may or may not think desirable! The advantage though, is that so far as is possible, you are playing against your peers in the early rounds. The organisation is simplified (a single draw sheet and unified start times for rounds) and matches with the potential for an arranged result are easily spotted.
Two other suggestions. Firstly, if the tournament is double elimination then it should in my opinion be true double elimination throughout, with two defeats needed before you are eliminated. Secondly, can I suggest name badges for all players, perhaps even colour coded to indicate your pool? This would largely eliminate the need for “Please call Rufus Monktrouser for me, I don’t know what he looks like”, which is irritating for all.
Any thoughts on this one?
My two cents’ worth. As a player who has had a modicum of success at intermediate level I think this new entry structure is great. For me, the flight I enter is a financial decision. I have been hounded to play at masters level but am not prepared to fork out £300 for the privilege. If the rating system comes in and I was bizarrely found to be some points over the cusp into the masters bracket and thus barred from intermediate, then I would just not play in flighted tournaments.
I think it is ideal to allow players to enter at whatever price level they feel comfortable with. It was revealing to read how variable pools advantage the stronger players and how they can effectively just hoover up all our lowly minions contributions, however if I was forced to enter at £300 isn’t the result the same?
Congrats to the committee for re-thinking things and trying something new.
Alan – what then, do you think is the point of a Beginners category if it’s not for Beginners?
How does it create a “good atmosphere” when someone who is not a Beginner enters a match for Beginners?
I have a genuine question – if I’ve “highlighted” it – Great! If players think it’s acceptable why would they feel uncomfortable?
Richard has asked an interesting question and, in my opinion, this question can’t be properly explored until the question of what makes someone a Beginner is answered.
Hi Anna.
While your point is fair , I myself showed up late at this particular event The tournament director knows I am no beginner as I am in league 4 of the London BG league he runs and have won 2 RAC 32 s and also run the backgammon leagues and cups at Cumberland In the absence of anything else I was a whisker away from accepting Richard s offer to join the same beginners Swiss that Danny won , but decided to wait for the super jackpot which I did win, beating one or two of London s better players. Had I known that Danny Cohen, Michael Ireland and Vicky Sargent , all very decent and experienced players, were in it, I definitely would have joined them . The point is that there are a whole bunch of timing , logistical, financial and opportunistic reasons whty players end up where they end up at these events And actually in my experience many beginners relish the opportunity to play with some of London s , if not the world s , best players at small informal mixed ability events , which richards clearly is, without risking having to give away the keys to their car I feel that this context is necessary in relation to how that particular event panned out , but you make a fair point in relation to some beginners who would be more comfortable playing with fellow beginners. The point is , this was not really a beginners Swiss
Welcome back Anna – I remember you beating me in a final in some outpost in South West London some years ago.
regarding variable pools – I think Chris Purchase at St Albans has the right balance. All entrants can play for what ever amount they chose but the only prize money level they qualify for is up to the pool level they play for so there are pools winners for levels above where the winner did not enter at the highest level.
This method also means that weaker players play stronger players.
Where you have a very high level entry Camden Auction event you may have an entry of say £100 per player minimum and some players may only want to play for say £40 – so those players may be forced to enter a £10 / £20 event because there are not enough players at the c £40 level. You cannot blame players for not wanting to play for higher stakes regardless of their ability. For example, there is at least one very good player who plays at St Albans who enters for a mid range stake and no one questions that they dont enter a higher amount.
Richard, interesting…… I like Brendan’s idea but agree that ‘policing’ it could be tricky. I was baffled 🙂 to see that Danny Cohen had won the Beginners Swiss at the Clissold Arms some weeks back. Is this the same Danny Cohen who has been on the backgammon circuit for over 25 years?
From my perspective, I played backgammon for a few years in the early 90’s then had a break of about 20 years. Last year I reappeared at Ealing feeling like a complete beginner – was I a Beginner?
I have to say, though, that the atmosphere at clubs and tournaments is so much better than ‘back in the day’. In my opinion, this change is entirely due to people like you, who love the game and want it to be the fairest that it can be. At the end of the day, win or lose, the most important thing is that players feel that it was ‘fair’. I’m not sure which of the options discussed is fairest, but, hopefully, with more debate, we’ll get there.
Well, I’ve had a belly laugh here! First you put a little smiley in, mid sentence, straight after the word ‘baffled’. Yes, I get it! Richard will love that!
Then you paint Richard thus: “In my opinion, this change is entirely due to people like you, who love the game and want it to be the fairest that it can be. At the end of the day, win or lose, the most important thing is that players feel that it was ‘fair’.”
Sorry that I can’t quite share your perspective!
Glad I made you laugh 🙂 Hope to meet you at Croydon – I gather you may be joining us?
Anna, while I m sure we all appreciate your return, and indeed anyone else s , to BG after a lengthy break, I feel it is important that any individual player of any standard , should feel comfortable about entering any tournament at any level, beginner or advanced, without this being highlighted as publicly as you chose to do with Danny Cohen . this is all part of the good atmosphere we should continue to generate at events for the benefit of all participants.
If my posts have given the impression that cheating is rife in backgammon, then let me correct that. It certainly isn’t true and my experience in all backgammon, reinforced at the 2014 open, is that the unpleasant and unscrupulous opponent is as rare as a Bugatti in Bognor. One reason that we don’t have cheats is that the rules are very carefully framed to make it difficult for them to do so. I just wanted to point out that when there are considerable amounts of money at stake, side pools create an opportunity and a temptation to collude to produce a result.
If players want to enter the championship flight but can’t afford the entry fee, then the problem is easily solved by running pre-tournament satellites. You could give away an entry as a prize for the warm-up. You could raffle one. It is my view though, that variable entry fees are inherently bad for the game at your flagship event, not that that will stop me entering!
The problem of expert players stepping down a level to a flight where their equity is higher is also as old as tournaments. At my first international tournament I entered at the intermediate level and lost in the first round to a player who had a long run in the super jackpot! I had forgotten until this moment, but at 15-15 to 17, he asked if I would like to turn the score back to 12-12! I had just enough nous to refuse this, but another minor example of attempted collusion. At the next tournament a super jackpot player appropriately called Mr Schitz won the beginners and its 1,000 pounds added money. It’s an almost insoluble problem, because the player who is Championship level at one tournament can quite reasonably be intermediate at another larger and stronger event.
Thanks are due to Richard for his provocative article which has engendered a lot of response, some of it going off subject onto areas such as collusion and cheating. I would like to address three topics, 1) strong/rich weak/poor players, 2) the positive aspects of variable pools, and 3) the prevalence of cheating in the game today.
1) Richard makes an assumption in his post, that a strong player is one who likes to play for a lot of money, and conversely, someone who doesn’t want to play for a lot of money must be a weak one. As Peter has pointed out in this thread, there were a number of players in the Intermediate flight at last year’s UK Open who would not have been out of their depth playing in the Championship flight, but simply did not want to pay the sizeable entry fee. It could be argued that there were some players who had forked out £250 for the Championship flight who would not have been refused entry to the Intermediate, but just like playing for a lot of money. It therefore follows that a high entry fee does not guarantee a similar playing standard and not all players are finding the flight that is right for them. The variable entry system that is going to be introduced at this year’s UK Open will hopefully go a long way to solving that problem, enabling “strong” but “cash-poor” players to enter at the right level. To those who fear that this will diminish the prize fund, it should be pointed out two things; that the number of these players is relatively small, and that in any case they are likely to be additional players in the flight and therefore will actually be enhancing the prize fund. If it is a “turn off” for some, it remains to be seen if this will prevent them from entering at all or whether this is just a grumble.
2) A lot has been made of the unfairness of variable pools in that the richer player can scoop the lot, but imagine for a moment this scenario. In a sixteen player tournament, 8 enter a £20 pool, and 8 a £10 pool. In a fixed pool, the £10 entrant can win £80. In the variable pool, she can win £160! Of course, she may have to beat some stronger players along the way (according to Richard’s assumption that rich equals strong) but her winning potential has actually been enhanced. Let us assume that A is a strong but poor player who has entered the £10 pool, and that B is a weak but rich player who has entered the £20 pool. Who is the benefice in a variable pool? Clearly the entrant at £10.
3) I am sorry that there has been so much postulating on this thread about possible cheating. The last thing I would want the casual viewer of this thread to take away is the idea that collusion and cheating is rife within the game in the UK. In my sixteen years of playing tournament backgammon, I have come across one case of a player cheating me (you know who you are) and most of the time players are falling over themselves to make sure that fair play is done. When compared to professional football, cycling and athletics, cheating is extremely rare. As John Terry said only yesterday, cheating in football is “part of the game”. (As a football fan that makes me very sad, but this is not the place to debate that). It is certainly not accepted as “part of the game” in backgammon, and we in the UKBGF will do all in our power to stamp it out where it does occur, and to introduce not only a comprehensive set of rules to empower tournament directors but also a code of conduct that expect all our members to abide by.
Why do you feel that the subject of collusion in monetary pools is going off subject? I can’t comprehend that. It is totally ON topic, and we should be grateful to Paul for sharing his experiences. Of course, we hope that such practices are very much rarer now, but we don’t know that, and we should certainly take the possibility of collusion in to account when considering what type of staking system is best for any given event. I wrote (of collusion):
“If it is true, is it not better for players to be made aware that such things can happen?”
As a TD, you seem to feel that it is not.
I would also like to remind you that I personally clearly stated that I feel that the game is NOT rife with cheats.
My analogy with dice manipulation was to show how it is better, for all honest players, to have consistent application following the rules of random rolls, ie to reduce the OPPORTUNITY for any dishonest players to benefit. Likewise, it is with regard to reducing the OPPORTUNITY for dishonest practices that Paul expressed his reservations about deviating from equal stakes for all. I’m sorry if my analogy was inappropriate for you.
You say that, in 16 years, you have come across only one case of you personally being cheated. Unless we are aware of just how cheats might operate we have no way of knowing that it is not higher than the extent of our own detection. You also imply that the player got away with it, which is sadly IMHO normally the case, contrary to what others might like to think.
Talking to players at my local club a few days ago led me to believe that having two distinct pools there would likely have a negative impact upon attendance, although I suspect it would be small. If people want to play, they will. But, upon reflection, it does seem wrong to me now to allow distinct pools. If weaker and/or cash poor players don’t want their money to be in the mix with stronger/cash rich ones, then they should compete separately, and have a distinct tournament.
The subject of the post is the debate about the relative value of variable pools compared to fixed pools. The matter of collusion applies to both variable and fixed pools and does not apply to one more than the other. There was no suggestion in either your reply or Paul’s that variable pools are more prone to collusion than fixed pools. That is why I said the questions of collusion or more general cheating is off topic.
I do think that collusion and cheating are themselves topics worth discussing, I merely thought that this thread was not the place to do it. There is nothing inappropriate about your position, and I welcome any debate. As a TD I would always do my utmost to prevent collusion and cheating of any kind, I hope that makes my position clear.
Interesting and informative debate as usual. As an intermediate ‘social’ player relatively new to playing large live events, I’ve tended to avoid ‘investing’ in any side pools, be it at club nights or the larger tournaments for several of the reasons stated above but at last years UK Open I decided to have a flutter and entered in to the lower £20 side pool as the £50 option was too much for me and I had noticed several ‘non’ intermediate players registered ( cough ). Actually it could have been £10, I dont recall as I was fairly drunk at the time and proceeded to get more so as the event gathered pace ( I blame two, possibly three people for this, at certain stages of the weekend but certainly not myself ). Anyway I reached the semis unbeaten on the Saturday evening and then unfortunately, just when I was on the way up to my room for a good nights R & R, went off on a ‘tangent’ that night which involved a nice meal, the casino nightclub, drinking and ‘dancing’, several revolving participants and absolutely no sleep whatsoever ! Needless to say, the next morning I missed Mochys test feedback session and rather stylishly crashed and burned in my next match (11-0), so actually went out in the revised quarters, with no second chance as the double elimination had ended and missed the other freebie tournament going on due to timing. So having lost everything, including the will to live by this stage, I was shuffling out of the playing area with some much needed sleep on my mind, what was left of it, when a friend tapped me on the shoulder and said the TD was looking for me as I’d won the pool ! I had totally forgotten about it. This made up for all my shennanigans and ‘self implosion’ because the £100 I received covered the £35 +£15 entry, the £20 side pool investment and several jackpot events I had lost in. Having perked up somewhat I then ‘accidentally’ stayed an extra night, which went much the same as the previous two, and ‘crawled’ back to London on the Monday. Point being, sorry for digressing, was that investing and winning the optional lesser side pool was, apart from my mini winning streak and a lot of fun, the only positive ‘BG’ outcome for me all weekend !
There are two problems to solve.
1) Intermediate players want to play for a small stake and want to have some chance of winning, so they need a segregated pool with a small stake. It must be segregated in that the the top players should not be allowed to enter that pool.
2) Some good players who don’t have much money would like to play in the “big pool”but can’t afford £100.
So the solution is two pools – a £20 pool and a variable pool.
Players can enter only one pool. Top players would be encouraged to enter the variable pool.
Brendan
Richard,
I tend to agree with you. But it is not something I have ever felt that strongly about.
I think that two separate pools, as you describe, would generally be more equitable for more people. I certainly think that’s true in theory. What worries me is some of the issues around how it would operate in practice. Above all, I am not clear how two separate pools would be ‘policed’ (if that’s the right word). Do we just rely on self-selection and common sense? We assume that the stronger players will be the high-rollers and would gravitate towards the bigger pool, with the intermediates gravitating towards the smaller one. In most cases such a process of natural selection would work out and we’d all be happy. But what if a strong player decided he wanted to enter the smaller pool instead? Would you be able to stop him? On what criteria – ELO ranking, tournament wins so far? And, if you want stronger players in the top pool, whose job is to tap an improving player on the shoulder and tell him he’s being promoted and now has to stump up for the higher pool?
At a regular, friendly gathering like St Albans, I could well imagine a strong player calculating that he’d win the lesser pool far more often, sufficient actually to make more money over, say, a year (winning £80 ten times as opposed to winning £160 just three or four times). But then, if participation in the pools is voluntary, the weaker players might wise up to this and all start playing for £0! It could all get very messy and sour the atmosphere.
I’m not in it for the money (just as well, in my case!!) At St Albans, the number of players – and the number of strong players – have increased in recent years. For me that’s a big draw. Like Sean, I enjoy pitting my wits against some of the top players. It’s also why I now put in £5 every week rather than the £10 I used to. That’s my choice. If you could guarantee me a pool with say 8, 9 or 10 players of roughly my standard, I would happily up my stake back to £10. But I fear that an attempt to ‘guarantee’ such an arrangement would be too complicated, lead to occasional arguments and all place an intolerable burden on our excellent TD.
John
The fundamental weakness of optional prize pools, calcuttas and the like is that they present an opportunity for cheating by collusion, an opportunity that on many occasions in the past has been eagerly grasped! Given that we are playing to win money, it’s hard to blame the offenders, but it can and does happen at all levels of the game. Where two players are playing in the later stages of a tournament and the result is disproportionately valuable, then the player who stands to win the greater amount can buy a result. It has happened many times in the past to my certain knowledge and will continue to happen in the future. This has to be bad for the game and bad for its image.
Paul, many thanks for taking the time to give us your knowledgeable views on pools. I am aware that, in the past, you have played much high-level backgammon and I don’t doubt for a minute that you may have witnessed foul-play.
I am sure my level of experience on the BG circuit is a fraction of yours, however, I have to say that in my experience of playing tournament backgammon, collusion does not happen “at all levels of the game”. In fact, I would go so far as to say, I have never seen it occur here in the UK this century. However, I play mostly at Intermediate level. This may have been the behaviour of high-rollers in the past but this does not happen “at all levels.”
I am disappointed with your comment:
“It has happened many times in the past to my certain knowledge and will continue to happen in the future. This has to be bad for the game and bad for its image.”
Please can you give me an example of where this has happened in the UK in the last fifteen years and where you expect it to happen in the future. Like you, I feel a great affinity for the game and wish to see it grow but I fear sweeping statements on a public forum will do more damage to the game than a handful of individuals who once tried to fix a match sometime in the distant past.
I don’t know that what Paul says is true but, sadly, I suspect that it is. For one thing, I just don’t believe that he would make these claims unless he knew they were true. I can understand any reluctance he may have to name names too, other than in private.
If it is true, is it not better for players to be made aware that such things can happen? Like, if players knew, say, that there were players who tried to cheat with the dice – however few they might be, and however lacking in finesse were their attempts – then they might be more insistent that, on principle ALL players should follow the rules on generating random rolls. They might be less cowed by players who tried to make them feel uncomfortable in their efforts to get them to conform to the rules. And they might be desirous to make the rules on random rolls less nebulous in the first place (including, I’m sorry to say, the newly written rules of the UKBGF). All these things would help to protect the innocent vast majority, and for very little effort.
Going back to pools, there is no doubt that, if everyone played for the same stake, there would be vastly less opportunity to collude: but it would also clearly reduce attendance. Your suggestion of reverting to two (or three) pools would be very much better than one pool in that respect, but the opportunity to collude would still exist, and may be more so than with a variable pool.
A key practical question is surely this: which would likely result in greater attendance – variable pools or two (or three) pools? (I don’t profess to know!)
Yes, variable pools ‘tax’ weaker players, but this is a game of fine edges – and diminishing returns. There is a lot of luck in any given tournament. And if we work on our game, we are rewarded less and less as we improve. We can learn from stronger players; should we begrudge them something for this? They ‘paid their dues’ when they were less good.
I decline to name names but I can think of several examples, all of which resulted in gains for those who colluded and of course losses for those who had equity in the pools concerned. Side pools and calcuttas create the opportunity for that collusion and being human, some of us will be tempted and fail to play the match honestly. I remember a final where the “wrong” player was leading 9-2 to 11, when it was put to him (in the gents) that if he won he would get a trophy and the loser would get nothing, whereas if he lost they would share a 600 quid pool! What would you or I do? It isn’t a victimless crime. The other player(s) in the pool would lose, players who have bought in a calcutta would lose. I once bought a player in a calcutta who then threw the match so that he could share in a much larger pool! I once went into the final round of a swiss where a win would get me at least a one third share of a large pool, 800 quid from memory. Sadly I had an unbribable opponent (not even I have the nerve to corupt a ten year old) and duly lost, much to the amusement of the player who had ensured his share with a discreet 50 pound note. Want more? There are lots of them right up to and including world championship finals.
I agree it is hardly likely to be a big factor on a Tuesday night in your local club, but if rules are framed that create the opportunity for it to happen on a larger stage, then it will inevitably happen at some point. Drawing attention to it now when UKBGF is in its infancy may in Richard’s view be damaging, but now is the time when we are setting up the framework which will govern the game during a time when (we hope) it will gain the wider popularity that it deserves. A pious hope that cheating (for that is what it is) is all in the past and won’t happen in the future doesn’t cut it.
Paul, did these events happen within the last fifteen years and in the UK? Please can you give us dates and tournaments if you are not willing to name names. I’m not interested in the World Championships as you could write a whole chapter on what is wrong with that event, plus the fact it is not in the UK and does not concern the majority of UK players.
I suspect these events happened in the last century and the dishonest players you refer to will have moved over to Poker by now where the pickings are richer.
I’m afraid I have not seen enough of you at UK events in recent years to give me 100% confidence that you are a leading authority on the UK game today; maybe yesteryear, but not today. I failed to attend the UKBGF Open in 2014 so if you were there, I am very sorry to have missed you. However, with your superior playing experience, you have far more to add to the game than I have so I welcome your solutions to prevent any conspiracy in future UKBGF and other tournaments. Your help in this area would be invaluable to all of us.
The simple answer for anyone with a major concern about the opportunity for collusion and complicity in optional pools, variable or otherwise, is don’t enter them. In fact, you are probably best off not entering any prize fund tournaments at all, as by the same token a strong player and a weak player meeting in a semi-final may come to an arrangement where the stronger player goes through to the final as they have a better chance of winning outright. However, many matches are videoed now so the opportunities to cheat are becoming increasing limited. But as with all financial transactions – buyer beware. As in life, the bigger the transaction, the warier you need to be.
A quick note to anyone reading this thread that is considering taking up Backgammon or coming along to a UKBGF or other club event. You do not have to play for money, there are of plenty of clubs now where you do not need to pay to play.
The game is not rife with cheats. Anyone that does cheat gets found out very quickly and is alienated out of the game. Rule 1.4 (i) of the UKBGF rules allow for this.
The majority of UK players are open, warm and trusting; those that aren’t are certainly not made to feel welcome at any of my events. I trust the other club organisers & the UKBGF board feel the same about their events.
Paul, I hope the UKBGF board welcome your input on “setting up a framework which will govern the game”. You probably have more experience than the whole of the board put together so I will look forward to the day that there won’t be someone, somewhere trying to rip me off. Until then, I guess, we will need to select our tournament entries with care.
I’m not in any sense a “leading authority”, nor is my experience any greater than the board. The points that I try to make should be addressed on their own merits, regardless of who makes them.
I don’t intend to give any further information that might help to identify individuals. When these things happened is also immaterial. The point of my post is that the object of framing rules is to close existing loopholes and avoid creating new ones. If you construct an entry system that permits matches between players who stand to win widely different amounts, then there is an obvious opportunity for an arranged result. You can construct likely scenarios for yourself.
Of course unsavoury characters and obvious cheats can be barred, one hopes that they will, but the people in the three incidents that I have referred to weren’t criminals, they were well-known and well-liked players, welcome in any chouette. If however somebody says to you, “Hey, win this match and you win 20 quid, lose it and you win 300” (insert your own figures to suit), you don’t have to be wildly immoral to take the money. If there hadn’t been side pools, the situation wouldn’t have arisen. Personally I’ve never settled a match in a tournament and I’ve refused several offers, but I do have to say that perhaps the incentive wasn’t large enough!
It’s true that greater supervision makes it more difficult to throw a match, but it doesn’t make it impossible and it also creates the opportunity to accuse somebody wrongly. Ever taken a big pass and then made a checker blunder on the next roll? Everybody has. Deliberate? If there isn’t an incentive to do it in the first place, the accusation wouldn’t arise.
One other point. In my view there is no evidence to support the view that playing against better players improves your game. Watching them and studying their annotated matches yes, but playing them? Where’s the evidence for that? If you want to put up the money and play at the top level, go for it. It’s easier than you might imagine for an intermediate to run through a strong field, particularly if you are fairly fearless with the cube, but at the end of the day, you won’t be a better player for the experience!
Richard wrote:
“The game is not rife with cheats. Anyone that does cheat gets found out very quickly and is alienated out of the game.”
I agree with the first statement, that is, I confidently believe it is true – in this country, at least.
I think that the second may be wishful thinking. Cases of players being caught cheating are very rare. Is this because cheating occurs so rarely or, rather, because it can be so difficult to establish? Of course, if a player is caught using dice with the same number on opposite sides, as has happened on the continent, they will be persona non grata. But other forms of cheating – collusion, dice manipulation, reading match equity and other such tables during a toilet break for example – can be extremely difficult to establish.
If we lock up our bicycle (in a legitimate place), and return to find it missing, we know we have been the victim of a crime. If a player – at a key moment in a match, and for the first time – shakes their dice very minimally or not at all, and one of the dice plops out onto the required number, we may or may not have been cheated: we don’t know. Most probably, we will say nothing, whatever we actually feel. We could, of course, query the roll with the TD. They might warn the opponent, but it’s unlikely they would annul the roll. Whether or not the player was consciously (or unconsciously!) influencing the roll, what is clear is that we HAVE been cheated out of one thing: peace of mind.
I find it refreshing when a TD is more open to this reality, instead of fostering an atmosphere where everyone is required to be ‘trusting’. I would also disagree with the notion that anyone – other than a visually impaired player – who expects their opponent to use their opaque dice, is behaving in an ‘open’ manner.
One can always rely on Richard (aka Dicky, aka the Chelsea Muffin) to come up with interesting and thought-provoking ideas which get people talking about how we run backgammon events in the UK, which in itself is commendable. Richard has done more backgammon organising than most for the benefit of all players: as well as running regular Bucksgammon tournaments, and the well-attended events at the new North London club hosted by the Clissold Arms, he is the founder and organiser of the hugely successful London Backgammon Players’ League which is now reaching out across the country in the form of the Champions League.
I do have some sympathy with Richard’s views on variable pools. If one always wants to ensure that a player has a realistic chance of winning something even if he or she is a relatively inexperienced player then adopting isolated, stand-alone, pools at different levels is the way to go. Providing, of course, that there are enough players to make this viable. This isn’t always so – the Ealing club being a case in point. Looking back over the main Thursday evening tournament at Ealing over the last six months there have always been between one and five players entering the variable pool at the £5 level. The remainder (and usually a big majority) have entered for either £10 or £20 or, occasionally, £0. I should mention here that the player who, when he comes to Ealing, always enters for £0 does so because it is against his principles to play for money, and not because he is deterred by the variable pool system.
In a stand-alone £5 pool, had one existed in Ealing during the last six months, a £5 player could therefore have won, at most, £25….or £20 profit if you deduct the £5 entry fee. Now I know that Richard will say that this player’s expected return is better this way as he doesn’t have to get further than the £10 or £20 players in order to cash. He is probably right, and if a clear majority of the players who usually enter for £5 in Ealing would prefer a separate £5 pool then I would be happy to accommodate them. I suspect, from discussions which I have had with several of them since the Ealing club began, that they would prefer to leave things as they are. However maybe Richard’s carefully explained arguments will change their minds and I am grateful to him for starting this debate – now everyone can consider where they stand on the issue and have their say.
In the old days of course – and the old days for me means the 70s and 80s – before any kind of side pools became common, you paid your entry fee and that was that. If you couldn’t afford it, or if you didn’t think you had enough chance of winning to justify the cost, you didn’t play. Running tournaments with a very low minimum entry level means that most players don’t have to think twice before shelling out the price of a couple of drinks to enter, and it enables the newer, less experienced players to play, and learn from, the stronger players. Sean Clennell has commented (below) that there is nothing which excites him more than being drawn against a stronger player. Sean has not been playing live backgammon for very long and he could, if he wanted, enter the tournament in Ealing for zero entry fee and get this experience for nothing. He chooses not to, and he also chooses to enter for more than £5. This has actually worked in his favour: Sean has won all seven matches which he has played at the Ealing club this year. But Sean, and every other Ealing player, has a choice of how much to play for and the variable pool system allows them to play for whatever stake they are comfortable with.
Moving on to Richard’s “big fear” he seems to forget that, at the UK Open, players are already segregated according to ability (whether that means ‘paying’ ability or ‘playing’ ability, but I shall come to that in a moment!). So for example in the Intermediate Flight (which is being renamed ‘Advanced’ for 2015), players should not have to worry that their prize fund is being targeted by ‘sharks’ playing in the same flight. However several quite strong players last year weren’t comfortable about paying £250 to play in the Championship (now ‘Masters’) flight, and were allowed to enter the Intermediates. There will always be players who don’t clearly fall into one or other category, and affordability for the individual player was taken into consideration by us last year. Richard himself was unable to attend the 2014 UK Open because he preferred the delights which Rome had to offer, but he commented that £50 was too much for some Intermediates to be expected to pay.
Our entry fee structure for the 2015 UK Open, about to be announced, hopefully addresses the above concerns. It will be possible, by means of a tailored variable entry system, for all strong players to enter the Masters flight for as little as £75 (plus registration) and Advanced players may, if they wish, play for nothing and pay registration fee only. Full details of the 2015 UK Open will appear on this website very soon.
Far from being “a tax on the poor and the weak”, I think that this arrangement will allow all players: strong, weak, rich, poor….and maybe even Richard himself, to find the flight, and entry level, which suits them best, without feeling that they are being used as “fodder” for hi-rollers. I only hope that, in Richard’s case, the “flight” which he chooses this year is not, once again, an easyJet flight to a conflicting overseas tournament!
‘Our entry fee structure for the 2015 UK Open, about to be announced, hopefully addresses the above concerns. It will be possible, by means of a tailored variable entry system, for all strong players to enter the Masters flight for as little as £75 (plus registration)’
This would be a big turn off for me.
Well written and quite thought provoking, Richard. A very nice read.
Another great article Richard and will surely start a huge healthy debate. I had never looked at a Variable Pool from this angle before and being quite a new player did not know what went before. I just took it as the norm ! Anyhow it started my mind ticking and after giving it much thought during a long hot bath, getting ready to dine my wife who says she has become a “Backgammon Widow” ! Why I don’t know, Lol ! Hopefully she will be dancing on The Bar later ! I have to look at it from another angle………Personally, my aim in Backgammon is constant and steady improvement which I feel I am achieving. A large part of this involves me being able to play the Top Players which I can do frequently due to the Variable Pool. There is nothing I get more excited about than being drawn against a superior player. Yes I do lose most but I always come away with gained knowledge. These little units of knowledge are gold to me and the more I get, the better I become.
Now let’s presume Variable Pools did not exist. I would walk into my local St.Albans club each Tuesday and no doubt there would be 2 competitions to enter. 1 for the Top Players and 1 for the rest of us. For me I would want to play against the best players to improve my game. So here’s my problem ! They would up the stakes to I guess about a £50 buy in. I normally pay £10 to enter our Variable Pool format. You know what’s coming ! I would be Taxed £40 to now enter !!! And this would be a weekly Tax ! Quite a lot of money !
I feel the Variable Pool system does allow the players with less ability to play the very best at a price they are happy to pay. They can even enter for free ! It also allows everyone to get involved and does not create division as I guess 2 classes of tournaments might do.
I personally feel extremely privileged to be able to play against high end players for little money. I know of no other game or sport I would have this opportunity. I use to love playing football. Can you imagine me turning up at the Chelsea Training Ground and saying ” Hi, any chance of a game ” !
Got to go now. Dinner, Red Wine, Candles, Log Fire Ablaze, What next !!!
Sean, thanks for the response. Just to clarify, optional stand alone pools are used in the same tournamment, not in different tournaments, so you would still be able to play the same top players.
As one of the cash-poor-but-enthusiastic (getting multiple kids to university doesn’t come cheap) I do feel that some tournaments focus too much on the big-money players, and while I haven’t played at one with a variable pool I can see the issue with them. They are equivalent to a tournament with multiple pools in which you have an extra rule – if you enter one pool you’re automatically in all the ones below. The only reason for anyone to enter at any level is because they believe they have a decent shot at winning outright (certainly no worse than average).
What can be done to provide for “weaker” players? Well, for a start, offer multiple flights at your tournament and enforce the boundaries – so that the hard up intermediates are playing other genuine intermediates. (If they choose to enter the top division, then they ought to know what they are letting themselves in for!) I think that’s important anyway, noone likes to be a perpetual loser at big events!
If there aren’t enough attendees at a particular event to arrange different flights in the actual tournament, then at least flight the pools – have a cheap pool and restrict it to people who really are intermediate. Ideally a recognised ranking system would provide an unambiguous cutoff, but even without this a good TD ought to be familiar with the sharks and keep them in the big pond where they belong.