Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Derulo
Unlikely, I think, since there's a public registration list:
http://millionairechess.com/news/registration-list/
Here's my question: I have an under 1400 rating but am right now approx 1700 OTB strength. That rating is based on a bunch of long time control OTB games, which were not USCF rated. Do you think I should try to enter the u1400 here? My other option is entering the World Open. The prize dropoff in the Millionaire event is pretty ****ty (24k-12k-6k-4k-3k-2k and then 1k for the next 14) compared to the World Open (8k-5k-3k-1.5k-1k-900-800-700-600-500 and also 1.6k-800 for top U1300, which I'd be eligible for). The EF is a bit over 300 for the World Open vs 1k for the Millionaire event. World Open seems like a much better choice, yeah? Think 1700 would have a decent shot at winning the u1400 in the Millionaire? My gut says no.
If the size of the buy-in isn't a factor for risk aversion reasons, and you care entirely about payout structures... then it depends on how many people end up playing the Millionaire Open.
Last year at the World Open there were 108 players in the U1400 section, out of 1321 total players in all sections. 22 of those 108 went home with some share of prize money (but six of those only made $61.67). Total prize payouts in the section, divided by the 108, averaged out to $191.58 per player, or 60% of the $318 entry fee.
If the Millionaire Open got the same 108 entrants in the section, it would be a better bet, since it offers a total of $83,000 in prizes*, paid out to fifty total players. This would mean paying out 76.8% of entry fees as prize money (within the section), with payouts spread among twice as many of the players.
The problem with that analysis is that the Millionaire Chess prize fund isn't "based on" anything, so if more players show up, those payout percentages get worse. The breakeven point on payout percentage is 138 players in the U1400. With 138 players, Millionaire Chess will pay out the same 60% that the World Open did last year. More players, and the payout keeps getting worse.
The other wild card is that the World Open payout structure IS "based on" a certain number of participants. They advertise $8,000 for first place U1400, but last year it was $7,400. The absolute tournament prize fund scales to entry counts, but the relative payouts in each section might not scale perfectly, so you can't count on exactly 60% there either.
Overall, I'd say it's relatively close. Your odds of winning a prize are probably higher at Millionaire - I doubt there will be so many players in the Millionaire U1400 section that paying out 50 places instead of 10 doesn't help on that front. Of course 30 of those 50 prizes are smaller than the entry fee even if you DON'T share them... as far as actual EV, I would probably lean toward the World Open instead. And the World Open, with its lower entry fee and smaller prizes is also more risk averse which could be helpful to some people.
On the other hand, if the Millionaire Chess event ends up totally flopping, which is still possible, and only like 500 total players pony up the grand to play some chess, then it could end up being massively +EV for everyone involved. That's the gamble with early registration for guaranteed prize funds. It does help that after July 31st the registration cost jumps 50% to $1500, and then in the last few days it jumps further to $2000. This makes it less likely that people will use the "wait and see how many others sign up, and register at the last minute only if it actually looks +ev" strategy that so often causes fields to double or more in the last few minutes before registration closes at, say, an online poker tournament with a guaranteed prize fund.
*The $83,000 I quoted for U1400 prizes at the Millionaire Open ignores the additional prizes for top scores U1200 and U1000. I just assumed for the sake of this analysis that those players, who have their own section at the World Open, won't be stealing any of the prizes from players rated 1201-1400 at the Millionaire Open when they're all lumped together. That's probably a bad assumption, and therefore yet another wild card in the analysis.