Why Masterpoints Deserve Care

Principles of Masterpoint Administration

Teams Versus Pairs
Changing the massive discrepancy between team and pair events

Building a Better Formula
Criteria for a good formula, problems with the current formulas, and a better formula.

What You Can Do

Other Information

Messageboard, email


The zero-tolerance rule doesn't apply here. No one cares if the formulas are slightly discrepant. The only issue is defining "slightly".

Consider the difference between team and pair events. I doubt that anyone will react to or care about a discrepancy of 5%. A difference of 10% is probably safe, but if 5% can be achieved, that would be better. A difference of 20% will be noticeable, and I think people will respond to it.

Tolerance Across Field Size

I think the same numbers apply to doubling the field size -- 5% would be good and 10% would be acceptable. Across the usual range of the size of a field, a 10% discrepancy would be excellent.

For example, using my formula for club games, the 5-table game awards .244 masterpoints per person, and the 20 table game awards .261 masterpoints per person. That is a percentage increase of 7%. Even a 50-table field yields only .264 masterpoints per person, an increase of only 1% over the 20-table field.

For my tournament formula, a field of 10 awards .581 masterpoints per person, and a field of 200 awards .654 masterpoints per person. This is a 13% increase. However, much of the increase (6%) is from 10 to 20 competitors. A field of 20 yields .618 masterpoints per person, and the increase from 20 to 200 is only 6%.