Is it still OK to sponsor tournaments and not charge an entry fee? Is it possible to sponsor part of the tournament and have an entry fee too? Who determines the payouts? I assume the tournament creator.

As for the gambling aspect of charging entry fees. In California it depends on a few things. What game or sport is being played and if the money collected from the entry fees is lessthan the amount paid out. If more money is paid out than collected or exactly the amount collected is paid out it is generally not considered gambling. Of course if the game is a game of chance as defined in the California Penal code, this doesn't matter and it is gambling. Which may or may not be against the law because some forms of gambling are legal in California. If less money is paid out than collected and it doesn't cover expenses then it works differently too, but it's not necessarily gambling either. Compare playing darts, pool, cribbage, or blackjack for prize money. There's all sorts of legal things that have to be decided in this crazy state that I live in to determine the legality of each. Plus, believe it or not, the location of the event! This makes a big difference in California. I know, I know, our legislature obviously has had too much time on its hands. Betting in a place that has a license to sell alcohol for onsite consumption is almost always against the law and yet some tournaments are legal even in that case. And of course some bars sell California Lottery tickets. And there's also charitible types of gambling like some Bingo games or drawings.

As for this site, even if it is illegal it be hard to imagine anyone getting busted for it. It's not like the site itself is set up for taking bets on a game or running a sportsbook. Collecting fees and paying them out to the participants in games that require more skill then luck is a far cry from being an online casino. If you take a cut in any of the tournaments Fencer, it might be construed as running a casino, though I feel that's a stretch. And if I have my own turnament and award all money collected, or if I do it like I did the only time I have so far and just put the prize myself and let all that want to join for free, that certainly should not run afoul of the law. Are any of the games offered on this site considered games of chance within California? I sincerely doubt it, but even if one is, your site is outside of California. Other states might have different laws. There's a few left that don't allow most forms of betting whether or not it's a game of skill. Wagering is wagering and they consider it gambling. How's Czech Republic view it? Anybody you know betting on the Super Bowl's outcome tomorrow? That's one of the biggest betting days of the year in the United States. You'd never know that betting on sports is illegal in almost every state from the amount of money that's being laid down on the game.

Ok... So, I guess what stops alot from being is created is that there aren't alot of brains out there yet, which means not many will even sign up for it.. I bet somewhere down the line there will be alot more brains and most tournaments will involve brains.. not that that is a bad thing.. I was just thinking "out loud". :-)

It costs nothing to set up as far as i understand. However tpo participate you have to pay the brain entry fee that the user defines! Lowest starts at 50 brains i believe.

What is the "cost" of setting up a brain prize tournament??? The link on the server news doesn't mention this (unless I missed it!) I'm sure it must cost something, otherwise everyone would probably make all tournaments this type? no?

MANAJA * for winning the tournament..Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Hyper Backgammon)

nobody25.. for winning the tournament: Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Hyper Backgammon)

Please join my tournament titled Stoned Pluckers : )!

Just noticed that in a recent started random gammon tournament, that each game within the tournament is random. (for my 4 games, 2 are race, 1 nack, and 1 crowded) I was thinking that it would be 1 random picked game for everyone to play. Not that I'm complaing, but found it an interesting surprise.

beach, Doris, neznalek, Josuliatko, TiikeriWe are all winners of: Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Backgammon)

MrDelete... for winning the tournament:
Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Hyper Backgammon)

eagle eye: Well, looks like in the brain-system "the bank" wins a lot more than with membership-prices.

Honestly, I don't see much difference between buying brain and buying pocker/roullete chips.

You use both of them to play and get back then back if you win. Later on, you exchange them back to money/service.

On BK:
memberhips = money
brains = money

So membership is money valued service which and since you use brains to purchase something brains can be considered as money
and then you can go to another discussion of gambling.

So I don't think using brains as an entry fee completely eliminates possibility for gambling opportunities.
It depends on country and lawyers opinion. In addition, good lawyer can convince the jury ...
So why not just have is as before: give membership as a prize?
Comments are more then welcome :)

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13530&tri=86177&trnst=0

KotDB: You have expressed this most eloquently. And if it's a draw in a single game, then the best (ie the higher-ranked) player should proceed to the next round. Thankyou for your excellent contribution.

WOMBAT'S Triple Celebration BACKGAMMON OPEN

PRIZE TOURNAMENT!
The winner will receive a t-shirt of his/her choice from the BrainKing Store.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13518&trnst=0

Fencer: Yes, that is a good solution to be used by those who create tournaments. But it doesn't address the point I'm making, which perhaps I can clarify with a hypothetical situation.

Suppose there is a single-elimination chess tournament which uses normal games. Suppose it's a prize tournament, with a one-year Rook membership at stake. Player A is playing against player B in a semifinal round, and A's rating is slightly higher than B's. Their game reaches a position in which a draw is likely, and A becomes worried, because a draw would eliminate him from the tournament.

Now suppose that at the same time, A is also playing a game of chess against player C. This is just a regular game, not part of any tournament. Suppose A and C have both played well, and have reached a very interesting middlegame position in which any result is possible. Maybe A has a slight advantage.

But then A realizes that if C wins, it will cause A's rating to drop below B's, which would mean that in the event of a draw in the game between A and B, A would advance to the final round of the tournament. A considers the possibilities, and decides that he'll gladly give up a few ratings points to have a better chance at winning a valuable prize. He therefore begins to play poorly in his game against C. Maybe he even resigns prematurely.

Some might say that C should be pleased by this; after all, he won! But if C is like me, he will be upset, because a win isn't worth much if the opponent was trying to lose. C doesn't play games for such meaningless wins; he plays for the experience of trying always to find the best move, the best strategy, against a strong opponent who is doing the same. And C feels that he has been deprived of what could have been an excellent game, simply because the structure of a tournament (in which C was not participating!) gave A an incentive to throw away a game.

In my view, it's best if the rules of a tournament or other competition never give players an incentive to lose. Therefore I would prefer that the higher-rated player advance in the case of a draw.

Granted, situations like the one I've described probably will not occur very often, so I'm not inclined to worry about this much more. But I wanted to make this concern clear so that it could be considered for whatever it's worth.

KotDB: The solution is to play tournaments with multi-win matches. 1-win match is almost equivalent to a normal game but draws are not counted to the result.

Fencer: Agreed, but the point is that if the lower-rated player has the advantage in a tournament game, this creates an incentive for players to intentionally lose non-tournament games in order to improve their chances in the tournament.

KotDB: Generally said, when you play in an elimination tournament, you should play to win, not to draw. Yes, it requires a more risky way of playing but that's just an attribute of this system.

KotDB: But that would be harder to keep track of, harder to verify, & harder to code. ;-)

Fencer: In light of Andre Faria's comment, I think it would be better to use the value from the start of the game. Otherwise there may be a strong incentive for players to lose games.

Thad: The BKR value at the moment of accepting the draw is always used.

Just thinking here. If the lower seated player is to advance in the case of a draw, what happens if Al & Bob are playing a tournament match and Al is higher at the start, but then Al loses a regular game to Carl and his rating goes down to below what Bob's is. Al's was higher at the start of the match, but Bob's was higher at the end. So who advances?

Sorry, I don't have a good solution to this, just thought it should be brought up.

Single Elimination Backgammon #2

6 players still needed - Tourney starts 1 day 19 hours from now.

*added* but I will start it earlier when it fills up.

Very fast 4 players elimination tournament here

Coudy for winning the tournament Backgammon & Hyper 2100+ First 8 (Hyper Backgammon)

furbster: If it would be in a final, I could even lose a game on purpose, just to put my BKR lower, so I could win that tournament... :(

It seems to be that this is not a solution... Imagine a prize tourney being dependent of player's BKR...

furbster: Do not let them play against eachother in the first round. The player who beats the strongest player in the first round wins.

rabbitoid: but what happens if the ratings are so close or even the same eg, 1501 : 1502

rabbitoid: Yes, that's a good idea.

I played last month such a tournament and indeed if a low rated player draws a higher rated player, then the latter on losts. In the first rounds the rating differences were big, but the semi-final was close. (I was knocked out in the quarter final)

Thad: This isn't a problem that only occurs at single elimination unless you play 2 game matches in a normal tournament. By the way, if a game is too unfair (which Chess is certainly not) I wouldn't play it ;-)

rabbitoid: That still leaves a problem in games line Pente where P1 enjoys a strong advantage. For average players, this doesn't really matter, but just as in Chess where strong play on both sides results in a draw, strong play by both sides will produce a win for P1.

Fencer: instead of a "no draw" rule, which impossible to impose in chess, why not fix that in case of a draw the lower rated player stays?

J.T. single elim.I

Luke Skywalker:
I would expect only one, or possibly two if a single-elimination tournament can be defined with two games between each pair of opponents.

But I've observed that the number of slots they tell you to need often has little or nothing to do with the number of slots you actually need. Caveat emptor.

i believe it will be unwise to make single elimination tourney for games boards(chess or checkers) because the possibilities to have draws are high especially on the final rounds unless is used the bkr :)

Luke Skywalker: Game slots are not used for single elimination tournaments. Because you'll never play more than 1 game at the same moment.

Lambik: I might change it.

how many game slots will pawns and knights need for this kind of tournament?

Fencer: With single elimination, it is not possible to "draw" a game. But how about games that could not be won? For example a chess game with not enough material (K+N+N against K for example) or what about the fifty moves rule? Some time ago I had a game with three times the same position, but no automatic draw. Is this doable?

The Sunshine Club has lots of new tournaments, and some Ponds, for anyone interested!


http://brainking.com/en/ShowFellowship?fid=41

Fencer: oh cool!

I didn't realize that they will start as filled! That is awesome!!!!

Luke Skywalker: Yes, this is a known issue. A side effect of new features :-)

I have 2 tourneys set up. Lets try them out!


Single Elimination Backgammon
(set up for 4 players each....)
# Backgammon
# Nackgammon
# Crowded Backgammon
# Hyper Backgammon

Single Elimination Backgammon #2
16 players needed

Luke Skywalker: very good point, in fact i've just been looking for it, adn i decided it'd been deleted since my lunchbreak.

this tourney
http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13412&trnst=0
has already started, but not enough people have singed up for some of the games. When the tourn was still in the "signed" state, it stated a deadline of 29 days until those would be deleted.
2 problems:
- the deadline is not stated now
- the tourn is not listed in the "signed" category anymore, so people probably won't find it and won't know that they still can sign up for it.

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?trg=13452&trnst=0

Who wants a free membership?

Fencer: aha! you clever devil! (and excellent coder, i might add! ;)