RealTalk #6 Payout Ratios?

[Theo McNair]

I have heard differing opinions on payouts and payout ratio. So I am putting this out there for the RealBowlers. Is a 1:3 (PBA) or a 1:4 (RBT) payout ratio watering the money down to much to where the top winners are not making the kind of money they should? If so what do you feel is the best payout ratio and why?

For those that may not know the more people you pay the less money you can pay up top. The less money up top, the more people say that "something" is not worth them bowling or traveling to bowl.

I also have seen the scenario where people travel for a $3000 1st place tournament and dont cash because they came in 8th place vs coming to a $1500 1st place and had they come in the same spot they would have almost doubled their money.

This is for singles events of course.

I personally feel that 1:7 and 1:8 and higher ratios are good for those few up top but not really beneficial when you are trying to pay more of the bowlers.

What do you think?

[Isom]

Well I think, and this is just me thinking, that the PBA pays such a ratio, because those guys are out there doing it for a living. They dont have jobs to fall back on and its imperative that they get a pay check from week to week to survive. So 1 in 3 get paid to keep them out there on the road. Most amateurs have jobs/careers and aren't dependent upon bowling winnings to pay their bills. Since that is the case, I feel that higher ratios (1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8) should be used in amateur tournaments. That way, when you win, you actually have some money to look at and be happy about.

In the scenerio used above, you made an example of the guy that came in 8th that could have doubled his money if a lower ratio had been used. But you also have to think that if that same guy would have cashed in 1st or 2nd he would have had less winnings to take home if that same lower ratio was used. So the question that 'guy' has to ask himself, is did he come to bowl to cash or did he come to bowl to win?

Just a few short years ago, bowlers didnt mind risking some money for a good pay day. When you didnt bowl well you tucked your tail between your legs, went home, perhaps practiced a little more, saved some money from your next couple of paychecks and gave it a try again in another tournament But now, it seems that everyone wants to put their money up to play, but even if they bowl so-so or badly, want to walk away with money. You just cant have it both ways.

[Akil Razzak]

Now you know I love you like a brother Isom but I will disagree with you on this. One of the 1st things I do before I bowl in a tournament is add up what the payout ratio is. Handicapped tournaments usually have a higher ratio than scratch because the entry fee is less. There was a recent hadicapped tournament I really shouldn't have bowled in because when I added it up there was a 1:12 payout ratio. To me this means that if there is a $60/ entry then you're paying $720/ spot they are paying out. I understand that it includes linaige but that's rediculus if you're not paying out serious money. I consider that raping the bowler. I do beleive a tournament should be allowed to make a profit but sometimes it's rediculus. ABC suggest that a 1:10 is fair on handicapped tournaments. If you notice there is a much lower ratio on scratch because usually you're paying more money to enter the event. I've found that the more entries you get the more you can pay and spots you can pay. It is always nice to win but everybody else 50% of the rest of the field came to win. What I hate is when you bowl your butt off and finish 2nd or third in a $3000 tournament and end up with $300.

[Akil Razzak]

My suggestion to anyone looking to run a tournament is to sit down and look at your expenses and linaige then figure how many bowler they need to bowl and make a fair profit then set a ratio based on that.

[jonah white]

I really cannot speak from the experience of running a tournament but i look at what i have to pay to enter as to what i can win by acheiving 1st,2nd or 3rd place, from there i know that there will be a definitive dropoff in payouts because of number of entries and other circumstances or expenses. There are some tournaments that i know not to enter but i try to support the locals so that things will get better as they learn the ropes. I like the handicap tournaments right now but i am working my way up to scratch.

[charles c taylor]

I agree there should be more places paid out and less cost for entry.

Akil Razzak said:

Now you know I love you like a brother Isom but I will disagree with you on this. One of the 1st things I do before I bowl in a tournament is add up what the payout ratio is. Handicapped tournaments usually have a higher ratio than scratch because the entry fee is less. There was a recent hadicapped tournament I really shouldn't have bowled in because when I added it up there was a 1:12 payout ratio. To me this means that if there is a $60/ entry then you're paying $720/ spot they are paying out. I understand that it includes linaige but that's rediculus if you're not paying out serious money. I consider that raping the bowler. I do beleive a tournament should be allowed to make a profit but sometimes it's rediculus. ABC suggest that a 1:10 is fair on handicapped tournaments. If you notice there is a much lower ratio on scratch because usually you're paying more money to enter the event. I've found that the more entries you get the more you can pay and spots you can pay. It is always nice to win but everybody else 50% of the rest of the field came to win. What I hate is when you bowl your butt off and finish 2nd or third in a $3000 tournament and end up with $300.

[TIM MCNAIR]

My position on this subject is i am all for lower payout ratios......1:4 at the very lowest. My perspective is from someone that host events. The reality of tournaments is that there can only be one winner and out of a field of 60+ bowlers only maybe 20 of those bowlers feel like they can win. The other 40 just hope to do well enough to cash or make money in side action. My theory whether you agree or not is that the more bowlers cash the better they feel about there experience and the likelihood of them returning increases. We host scratch events every month and the entry is $100.00 with a 1:4 payout ratio. First place is generally $1,500.00 which is a good payout for the entry and it being one day.....thats 15 times your entry. More people cashing to me means more people leave with a feeling of accomplishment. As a bowler, i would much rather leave a tournament that i paid $100.00 bowl with aleast $200.00 in my pocket for finishing 9th versus getting nothing. More people cashing is not watering down the payout its spreading the love. Just my opinion.:)

[Theo McNair]

So, Isom are you telling me that "guy" or any other guy would be mad at making $1500 - $800 from one day of bowling? It may not be $3000 but most people and bowlers I know, have a big smile on their face after making over a thousand dollars in a day.

Isom said:

Well I think, and this is just me thinking, that the PBA pays such a ratio, because those guys are out there doing it for a living. They dont have jobs to fall back on and its imperative that they get a pay check from week to week to survive. So 1 in 3 get paid to keep them out there on the road. Most amateurs have jobs/careers and aren't dependent upon bowling winnings to pay their bills. Since that is the case, I feel that higher ratios (1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8) should be used in amateur tournaments. That way, when you win, you actually have some money to look at and be happy about.

In the scenerio used above, you made an example of the guy that came in 8th that could have doubled his money if a lower ratio had been used. But you also have to think that if that same guy would have cashed in 1st or 2nd he would have had less winnings to take home if that same lower ratio was used. So the question that 'guy' has to ask himself, is did he come to bowl to cash or did he come to bowl to win?

Just a few short years ago, bowlers didnt mind risking some money for a good pay day. When you didnt bowl well you tucked your tail between your legs, went home, perhaps practiced a little more, saved some money from your next couple of paychecks and gave it a try again in another tournament But now, it seems that everyone wants to put their money up to play, but even if they bowl so-so or badly, want to walk away with money. You just cant have it both ways.

[Isom]

Well I guess i look at it from this angle... Ive been bowling for many years and I can remember that over 10 years ago we were bowling for tournaments where first place was 2 or 3 grand and now here it is, 10 years later we are bowling for less than that for first. Im not saying that guy would be unhappy making 1500 bucks in a day bowling, but I guess Im just looking at it from the angle of that 1500 being less today for first than he WOULD have made 10 years ago.

I guess it just seems as if we are bowling for less and less money and eventually in another 10 years there will be no profit at all in it even if you win first place.

Theo McNair said:

So, Isom are you telling me that "guy" or any other guy would be mad at making $1500 - $800 from one day of bowling? It may not be $3000 but most people and bowlers I know, have a big smile on their face after making over a thousand dollars in a day.

Isom said:

Well I think, and this is just me thinking, that the PBA pays such a ratio, because those guys are out there doing it for a living. They dont have jobs to fall back on and its imperative that they get a pay check from week to week to survive. So 1 in 3 get paid to keep them out there on the road. Most amateurs have jobs/careers and aren't dependent upon bowling winnings to pay their bills. Since that is the case, I feel that higher ratios (1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8) should be used in amateur tournaments. That way, when you win, you actually have some money to look at and be happy about.

In the scenerio used above, you made an example of the guy that came in 8th that could have doubled his money if a lower ratio had been used. But you also have to think that if that same guy would have cashed in 1st or 2nd he would have had less winnings to take home if that same lower ratio was used. So the question that 'guy' has to ask himself, is did he come to bowl to cash or did he come to bowl to win?

Just a few short years ago, bowlers didnt mind risking some money for a good pay day. When you didnt bowl well you tucked your tail between your legs, went home, perhaps practiced a little more, saved some money from your next couple of paychecks and gave it a try again in another tournament But now, it seems that everyone wants to put their money up to play, but even if they bowl so-so or badly, want to walk away with money. You just cant have it both ways.

[Isom]

Doesnt that extreme drop off you just described have more to do with a tournament guranteeing too much on top, and then not having enough bowlers show up to pay decently down the list? Isnt it because of the low turnout that it quickly goes from 3000 for first to 350 for 3rd and not the ratio? (forgive me if I spell gurantee incorrectly)

Akil Razzak said:

Now you know I love you like a brother Isom but I will disagree with you on this. One of the 1st things I do before I bowl in a tournament is add up what the payout ratio is. Handicapped tournaments usually have a higher ratio than scratch because the entry fee is less. There was a recent hadicapped tournament I really shouldn't have bowled in because when I added it up there was a 1:12 payout ratio. To me this means that if there is a $60/ entry then you're paying $720/ spot they are paying out. I understand that it includes linaige but that's rediculus if you're not paying out serious money. I consider that raping the bowler. I do beleive a tournament should be allowed to make a profit but sometimes it's rediculus. ABC suggest that a 1:10 is fair on handicapped tournaments. If you notice there is a much lower ratio on scratch because usually you're paying more money to enter the event. I've found that the more entries you get the more you can pay and spots you can pay. It is always nice to win but everybody else 50% of the rest of the field came to win. What I hate is when you bowl your butt off and finish 2nd or third in a $3000 tournament and end up with $300.

[Akil Razzak]

Well I hear what you're saying. In a perfect world you will have the money up top and throughout the payout, but we're in ATL. There are alot of talkers here that don't show up for tournaments. The funny thing is that we can get more people to show up at a tournament in Greensboro, NC which has a population of a little over 500,000 people participate more than here in Atl area. I guess that's why alot of the real serious guys go to vegas because they know the entries and payouts will be there. I would hope that RBT grows to a point where they have enough enties to pay $3000 for 1st. The building has to start somewhere. I would like to see more local bowlers bowling in competition unlike now where most of them are from out of town.

Isom said:

Doesnt that extreme drop off you just described have more to do with a tournament guranteeing too much on top, and then not having enough bowlers show up to pay decently down the list? Isnt it because of the low turnout that it quickly goes from 3000 for first to 350 for 3rd and not the ratio? (forgive me if I spell gurantee incorrectly)

Akil Razzak said:

Now you know I love you like a brother Isom but I will disagree with you on this. One of the 1st things I do before I bowl in a tournament is add up what the payout ratio is. Handicapped tournaments usually have a higher ratio than scratch because the entry fee is less. There was a recent hadicapped tournament I really shouldn't have bowled in because when I added it up there was a 1:12 payout ratio. To me this means that if there is a $60/ entry then you're paying $720/ spot they are paying out. I understand that it includes linaige but that's rediculus if you're not paying out serious money. I consider that raping the bowler. I do beleive a tournament should be allowed to make a profit but sometimes it's rediculus. ABC suggest that a 1:10 is fair on handicapped tournaments. If you notice there is a much lower ratio on scratch because usually you're paying more money to enter the event. I've found that the more entries you get the more you can pay and spots you can pay. It is always nice to win but everybody else 50% of the rest of the field came to win. What I hate is when you bowl your butt off and finish 2nd or third in a $3000 tournament and end up with $300.

[Isom]

Lets face it Akil, bowling is a gamble. We know that going in. Lower ratios make it less of a gamble, and higher ratios make it more of a gamble. I think part of what is ruining bowling is that everyone wants to play but no one wants to lose. But it just cant be that way. Somebody has to lose for others to win. Bowling gets watered down too much when you lower the ratios and try to spread the money so thin that no one really makes any money. When it gets to that point, whats the point of bowling?

[Theo McNair]

Isom,
There are several angles to look at both scenarios. I believe you are answering your own argument with your own example. Tournaments that guarantee more money up top, take the risk of not being able to pay more people because of the possibility of low entries. Trust me Isom, I was around 10 years ago as well and the difference in what you are talking about is the # of entries. Without the bowlers you wont have the money!
Please list to me the tournaments that you are refering to that paid over $2000 in one day on a monthly basis.
It is easier to have a once a year tournament with a large payout because all of the focus and promotion can go into that one weekend. It is easier to get a one time committment from a sponsor to help cover expenses and boost prize funds, and it is easier to get bowlers because everyone is talking about that one event. The complaint 6+ years ago was there were no tournaments except once or twice a year locally for bowlers to bowl. Therefore when that one or two tournaments rolled around, everybody participated that could. So, you cant just throw out the numbers without using the facts that support it.

As Akil mentioned the key is getting more bowlers. I remember back at East Point the better/ older bowlers were always promoting the tournaments to us younger bowlers to participate in. Which gave us younger bowlers a sense of obligation and willingness to participate more. I personally feel that is one thing that is lacking today. The better bowlers really dont interact as much with the avg bowlers therefore the avg or up and coming bowlers dont participate as they should. It all goes hand in hand. So, if we want to see more money we have to see more bowlers, in order to see more bowlers we have to help promote the tournaments and things that we particpate in. And I am not just talking RealBowlers. (RealBowlers was created to fill a void here in the city, we are trying to be a solution)
Most of the time we find the wrong or the fault in things but really never have solutions to make them better. I have always been a solution person. What can WE do to get more bowlers, which in turn is more money for the tournaments as it was "10 years ago"?


Isom said:

Well I guess i look at it from this angle... Ive been bowling for many years and I can remember that over 10 years ago we were bowling for tournaments where first place was 2 or 3 grand and now here it is, 10 years later we are bowling for less than that for first. Im not saying that guy would be unhappy making 1500 bucks in a day bowling, but I guess Im just looking at it from the angle of that 1500 being less today for first than he WOULD have made 10 years ago.

I guess it just seems as if we are bowling for less and less money and eventually in another 10 years there will be no profit at all in it even if you win first place.

Theo McNair said:

So, Isom are you telling me that "guy" or any other guy would be mad at making $1500 - $800 from one day of bowling? It may not be $3000 but most people and bowlers I know, have a big smile on their face after making over a thousand dollars in a day.

Isom said:

Well I think, and this is just me thinking, that the PBA pays such a ratio, because those guys are out there doing it for a living. They dont have jobs to fall back on and its imperative that they get a pay check from week to week to survive. So 1 in 3 get paid to keep them out there on the road. Most amateurs have jobs/careers and aren't dependent upon bowling winnings to pay their bills. Since that is the case, I feel that higher ratios (1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8) should be used in amateur tournaments. That way, when you win, you actually have some money to look at and be happy about.

In the scenerio used above, you made an example of the guy that came in 8th that could have doubled his money if a lower ratio had been used. But you also have to think that if that same guy would have cashed in 1st or 2nd he would have had less winnings to take home if that same lower ratio was used. So the question that 'guy' has to ask himself, is did he come to bowl to cash or did he come to bowl to win?

Just a few short years ago, bowlers didnt mind risking some money for a good pay day. When you didnt bowl well you tucked your tail between your legs, went home, perhaps practiced a little more, saved some money from your next couple of paychecks and gave it a try again in another tournament But now, it seems that everyone wants to put their money up to play, but even if they bowl so-so or badly, want to walk away with money. You just cant have it both ways.