Luxury Tax / Salary Cap / Money for small fields

[Robyklebt]

Actually it isn't only about big fields- small fields here, hence the part about Luxury tax/Salary cap. And notice the "money for big fields" is missing from the title.

[Gipfelstuermer]

do you really think a dominant team with super strong climber should earn double the money
let's say stevens would win maybe 7 stages with Velasco instead of 10 and get the GC
that is 7 times 300k for the stages at 2.1M total + 2.5M in GC
so 4.6M just for having a dominant climber at a GT

doyou really think that is healthy for the game? no way it is

and before you come with the argument that more active teams means more very strong climbers:
there are currently 3 89+ mountain riders, so if we scale it up lineary thatis 6 at double our current active teams, so 1.5 per timeslot if we assume all of them ride a GT

Think you still misunderstand my proposal. All I am saying is, every team, every rider (Velasco included) should have the same chance to win money independent from field size. So that it makes no difference whether you ride in small fields or big fields. You assume Velasco will win any race in any field, ok, but then nothing makes a difference anyway. So you want to talk about training luck or manager skill maybe.

[Hansa]

you just throw out money to the winning teams in big fields (they dont need it) because if you win in a big field you actually dont earn less money than winner of a small field.

But it would go to rank 1-40, not only the winner. Or you mean prize money should be for more than 40 riders? Or rather x% of the field than a fixed number ?

that actually is my idea but also needs to be way more thought than its currently put into.

in just giving x percent more you ony increase the gap between winning team in big races vs the non winning team in big races. and that gap is already pretty big between a team winning a GT and finishing p20 in GC not sure we want to increase that gap further.

so the better idea would be to pay out more in middle position or pay more middle positions money. then you still adress the avg money problem but you also dont increase tha gap between the teams in big fields.

But like i said no easy solution will fix that we need to put much more thought into this.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Or you mean prize money should be for more than 40 riders? Or rather x% of the field than a fixed number ?

that actually is my idea but also needs to be way more thought than its currently put into.

in just giving x percent more you ony increase the gap between winning team in big races vs the non winning team in big races. and that gap is already pretty big between a team winning a GT and finishing p20 in GC not sure we want to increase that gap further.

Ok, I like this idea ! I had it as well, just thought it's maybe too complicated to have x% of riders receive money but it would certainly be more fair and balanced, so I like the idea to do that instead of always giving money to rank 1-40.

Maybe combined with the same profit independent from fields size it can be a good solution.

The only downside would be that we kind of "complicate" the whole prize money. On the other hand it is already "complicated" with the number of teams, race category, etc. all influencing the prize money.

[lennylenny]

assuming 40 riders is based on 10 teams that would mean 4 less riders with prize money for every team below that, but what does happen to the prize money of the riders? is it just cutting of the money from the last positions?

[Hansa]

assuming 40 riders is based on 10 teams that would mean 4 less riders with prize money for every team below that, but what does happen to the prize money of the riders? is it just cutting of the money from the last positions?

thats the thing that needs more thought and a bit of math simply cutting the last positions wont really fix it its mor like cut some in the middle and also change the money splits between the position that.

its really not an easy solution to do this and keep it fair but yeah

[Quick]

I'm not really sure I can still follow you. Why never easy solutions? Because the problem is easy: more money in small fields than big ones.

Gip has the perfect easy fix already: just don't adjust salary. That sounds like it would work. That also makes sense and that definitely doesn't break anything, neither the game, nor it's balance.

Salary cap or Luxury tax: please whatever you do, do it only in cat 1+2 races.
For cat 3 upwards, it makes sense to bring a top team. And that shouldn't be punished.

Also be aware that with the high starting budget and the relatively bad team building of the average beginner, that that's another hidden trap. So need to start carefully when the luxury tax would activate.

There's also the point where a Luxury tax is completely useless anyway because - I DONT CARE ABOUR REG OR TT. My 450k team would be far more devastating than the average Hansa 550k team for example. But that's just food for thought, once this discussion goes off.

[Gipfelstuermer]

assuming 40 riders is based on 10 teams that would mean 4 less riders with prize money for every team below that, but what does happen to the prize money of the riders? is it just cutting of the money from the last positions?

thats the thing that needs more thought and a bit of math simply cutting the last positions wont really fix it its mor like cut some in the middle and also change the money splits between the position that.

its really not an easy solution to do this and keep it fair but yeah

The math-solution would be that in the case of 9 teams (as an example) the total prize money should still be 90% but as only 36 instead of 40 riders get money, for each position it would be slightly more than 90%, so something like 91% or so.

If you want to distribute the money differently from the beginning (also for 10 teams), like Hansa mentions more for the middle and less for top/bottom(?), we can think about it, but should probably be discussed on the normal 40 positions.

[Pokemon Club]

To put the discussion from the chat to the forum, here's the current situation:

[*]in one-day races (esp. hilly ones), strong classic teams like free team or Alkworld sometimes go very expensive, siebing early, getting easy wins and lots of good positions making the race boring, and even earning lots of money with it
[*]in tours, sometimes ridiculously strong "superteams" (e.g. AGF in the Vuelta, in parts stevens as well, but different situation there) dominate for three weeks, rest of the teams can pick up the crumbs

Btw if the main point is that big team make the race boring the problem isn't money IMO, but the size of teams during big races, how people use their riders and how we can use the riders (energy lose by attack/tempo, help, etc..).
We can have all the rules you want about money ingame, you will always have teams with more money than other and that can bring better teams than others.

[Chense]

Well about the salary cap i would still like some system that penalises more the EXTREMELY expensive teams.
I would make a solution containing of 3 parts:

1) Salary Capping / Penalisation of overly expensive teams
Step 1:

Different "payed salary" for categories e.g.:
- Cat. 1: 335k
- Cat. 2: 355k
- Cat. 3: 375k
- Cat. 4: 400k
- Cat. 5 and 6: 450 or 475k

Step 2:

10% over the max. salary are penalty-free e.g.:
- Cat. 4: You pay until 440k exactly 440k

Step 3:

Penalty-Factor 1,0x e.g. 1,05

Means every cent you are over the penalty-free salary will be penalised with the factor ^1,05
e.g. a 500k team pays then 440k + 60k^1,05 = 513k
e.g. a 600k team pays then 440k + 160k^1,05 = 706k
That would make it less likely to bring an overly expensive team

2) "Penalty funds"

I would not take that "penalty-money" out of the game totally but i would take it into a funds that is used to stack up the total prize money.
So if the 600k team attends 106k go into that funds and will be distributed equally by the % of total money of money given away.
So just a little example if P15 was 1% of total price money it would get 106k/100 = 1,06k more.
Like this the penalisation would be a little lower but still the money is distributed between all teams getting money

3) Money according to the number of teams

I like the 10 teams give full money thing indeed for the better places (Top 3 to Top 5 ... cant decide mostly) ... but what i like less is the distribution for the places behind. Imo here in a small field often also helpers that were used much reach top 20 and gain money they would never gain in bigger races with more teams. So i would do 2 things:

- 10 teams is the base for total price money
- Dont change anything for smaller races
- BUT: In races with over 10 teams raise the money for places 10 to 40 very slightly and give money for more places ... Now its (Cat. 4):

P1(150k) = 100%, P5(43,75k) = 29,2%, P10(27,5k) = 18,3%, P20(13,75k) = 9,2%, P30(1,25k) = 0,83%, P40(0,125k) = 0,08%

Give away more money with 15 teams then but mostly for the lower or better middle places ... Here i didnt think it really through but i could imagine sth like with 10 teams 9 riders now 40 get money ... slightly less then 50% ... make that the same for bigger races ... and do something to then decrease the money between 1 and x so like 1^(x-reversed number of position / riders) ... so the lower places get the bigger benefit

*edit* Corrected misstype in the salary cap point

[Radunion]

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Covered Salary by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)

I think this would be enough. Big Teams in small fields will no longer earn lots of money and the main problem is solved. I do not believe it is a good idea to force teams to play the game a certain way, just make it less profitable.

[Robyklebt]

Most agree that the finance part actually is working quite well, right? Do we really need to change this system into a system of "patchwork" finance, where we change little things here and there, to address a perceived crisis? Of course there has always been some "patchwork" additions, some are necessary, but these now?

The opening post here. It already gives the impression that part of the reason for this being a topic now is AGF and his superteam at the Vuelta. Of course there were superteams before. Stevens was mentioned, but different topic, so Alk gives the impression that this is less of a problem? We had Coroncina with a 700+k team winning a Giro (or Tour?) Plus a multi to help him, if I understood it correctly. Poke bought a Giro with a team way over 600k too. ETc etc. It's not a new phenomenon, why is it a problem now? Now I agree that we have become too expensive, but a lot of this too expensive has to do with the lower number of users. Now the question is: Do we accept that this low number of users is the reality and won't change in the foreseeable future, and treat the situation as it is now as the standard, or do we stay optimistic and assume that we will gain back users year by year and be back at a decent number in 2-3 years? or 4-5? IMO a fundamental question, that should basically decide what is implemented and what not. As an optimist I'm for the second option, if this is the c4f we have for the next 20 years... then I might actually stop too at some point. c4f for +/-10 team fields is different from c4f for +/-15 team groups. It can be guided, if we decide this is the standard, develop c4f for this number of managers in a race, we can then just offer more editions faster in case more managers are in the game, to keep the average number of teams per race low. So which is it?

The other problem is the super expensive teams in 1 day races. If free has fun like that... it was definitely fun when he first started this and had no clue how to ride effectively, often doing the siebs in the wrong places and then sometimes managed to get beaten (and blame others). By now he has figured it out, so most often he wins. Ok. But do we really need rules just for free? Can't we just finally ban this cancer? And since Alk is accusing himself ban him until I reach 1 million points? Or keep him busy programming for a while? (I was actually getting closer for a while...) And here too, with more participation it will become more difficult again, same question about what we regard as standard.

The solutions?
With back to how it was, only 3 heavily cheapened riders, the AGF type expensive GT team problem is solved. The Coroncina-Hansa-Poke-Stevens etc etc not. But are they a problem too? Here I disagree with Stevens, this change (back to how it was) doesn't make other team building strategies impossible, the low number of riders, high turnover, keep your tax low strategy still works. Buy 3 cheapened riders, Fazi, Perisic and Classico for the Andes, cheapened, buy the remaining 6 from the normal market, and you still have a super team. (Ok, maybe not for the Andes, but for a normal GT yes)

Salary cap for races: Can I get some well thought out arguments for it? As Quick said, it's partly covered by prize money. My feeling is we don't need it, but maybe I'm missing something and can be convinced that it's a good idea.


20 millions for reset: It never made sense from a game play point of view. It always was very easy to build a very strong team from scratch, if you knew what you are doing. 15 millions enough. Maybe it made sense from a marketing point of view, but never made sense from a game play point of view.
But this was a change that favored exactly what now your trying to contain. Is that the most effective way to do things, have a rope and pull on it from both sides, wouldn't it be easier to just drop the rope where you want it to be?

The Gipfel idea is exactly the same:
250k for a category 1 win if it's a 20 team group? (According to Hansa) What does that promote, what does that encourage? Right, super expensive teams. Wasn't that the thing you're trying to reign in? So introduce an encouragement, then heavy restrictions...
So why try to introduce contradictory measures to achieve... fairness? Fun? Now who knows, it might actually work, but before I believe that I'd like to see some analyses on the effects all these measures actually have.

Now the one thing that Gipfel actually shows well is that the "patchwork" introduction of less money for small groups didn't really have the desired effect. And yes, that should be corrected.
Why is it at 10? Because we use the decimal system in mathematics mostly I guess. At the time it was noticed that in small groups it's too easy to make money (and points), so it was decided to introduce the system as it is now, 10 was chosen as the limit because, see above. And because the feeling was that from there on it really became too easy. Or maybe it was from 11 or 9, 8 or 12, but 10 is just a nice number.

The solution for that can be the first part of Gipfel's proposal, although Hansa seems to have some doubts, would be nice to hear more of these doubts, (I haven't looked at it that closely) and maybe Gipfel can overcome his pride and answer with stuff slightly more relevant than this.

If you want to beat up small fields with 500k Salary and make easy money while doing that, yes, leave everything as it is.

The second part of the proposal of course is mindboggling.

If we assume like I do, that the number of players is still not the standard, but will keep growing, long term this will just be a measure to flood the game with more money. But see the bolded question above. 10% more money payed out for every team over 10. Which fits with the opening post here how exactly? More money, the list of negative effects that has is long, but relevant in this thread I'll just mention that it encourages more expensive teams. Which was something this thread started with the aim to prevent? Or what did I miss?

Oh, then just make 22 the bases, and give less money for every team under that? Then there's not enough money in the game... 54k for a cat 1 win in a 10 team field?

What's the great advantage to tie the prize money to the number of teams? Fairness? But is it fair? If in group a with 15 teams there's only 2 climbers with 86+ while in a group with 10 teams there's 5? No it isn't. Then if you want this fairness, you have to make a formula that takes that into account too. Average salary, then different payouts for different kind of stages, 15 climbers in a flat race in Chiapas shouldn't put the prize money up.

And of course number of editions. I mean, what gives you more money, a stage race or a one day race? Right, the stage race. Does every time get the same amount? No. Aha, if we really want this financial superfairness, then really we need to offer EVERY race at EVERY HOUR from 5am (or 4 if the game is ready then) to midnight or if the race is short enough 1 am)
You want fairness or the appearance of fairness? And of course no more race cancellations if only 1 team at the start. Fairness you know.

This 10% more or less according to field size for every single team there in the end doesn't achieve fairness. See above, composition of groups (my second place in the Giro xxx behind Neuman in a 10+ group (I think, Covid lockdown, many teams on, few with climbers(I finally got Covid now and after sleeping lots for 2 days now awake in the middle of the night) was way easier than my second place in the Vuelta 23 in a smaller group), group strength is not the same as group size, opportunities to ride races (calendar) etc.

Alk and Gipfel and AAD have access to the database. Just check the finances of teams that were active during the lowest times of c4f. I'm actually pretty confident that it won't show that evening teams in general did that much worse than teams from the morning/afternoon/early evening. Or now, I doubt that on average the evening teams with their generally bigger fields but more opportunities to ride do financially that much worse than the smaller times. And if there's even a difference, it will disappear mostly when we're back to decent numbers, 19 teams for the evening Giro and 12 for the others. Oh, but we can't start with 550k teams otherwise we don't make money? Isn't that sort of the goal of the opening post? Perfect.

Donkey's advice:

-Look for a solution that actually works for small groups. The one now indeed doesn't.
-Ignore AGF when looking at super teams in GTS, with only 3 cheapened that's not possible in that manner anymore. Concentrate on Stevens-Poke-Coroncina-Hansa etc. And decide based on that if it's a problem. And then look for a solution
-Ignore free when looking at high salary classic teams in cat 1 races. free is an extreme outlier in everything, mostly in negative things of course.
-Reset for old teams 15 millions. More was never needed except possibly for marketing reasons.

For the rest. The current system actually works mostly. It hasn't been broken, except maybe by free. Give him a monthly 2 million fine for multi accounting or something if you think that helps. Or ignore him. Most of the proposed solutions risk not achieving the goal (which more money, no less money, no more, but cheaper teams... something like that) but creating new problems instead.

[Quick]

1.) DO NOT adjust Salary and Covered Salary by # of Teams. (There is really no reason to adjust that, so we could just stop those subsidies.)

I think this would be enough. Big Teams in small fields will no longer earn lots of money and the main problem is solved. I do not believe it is a good idea to force teams to play the game a certain way, just make it less profitable.

I'm pro Radunion - quick, easy, logical and definitely better than now.

Anything that adds money to the game, is bad imo. Personal tendency is that there's too much money in the game already.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Do we accept that this low number of users is the reality and won't change in the foreseeable future, and treat the situation as it is now as the standard, or do we stay optimistic and assume that we will gain back users year by year and be back at a decent number in 2-3 years? or 4-5?

Just a few numbers:
Year / Avg. Teams per Race
2012: 13.8668
2013: 12.3858
2014: 11.2832
2015: 11.0223
2016: 10.2616
2017: 8.9699
2018: 8.0524
2019: 7.9977
2020: 8.6297
2021: 6.0841
2022: 6.0353
2023: 8.8639

I see a long downward trend and then a turnaround this year thanks to the new version and the changes that came with it.

So I think we can agree on a few things:

As an optimist I'm for the second option [...] c4f for +/-15 team groups.

[...]the "patchwork" introduction of less money for small groups didn't really have the desired effect. And yes, that should be corrected.

-Look for a solution that actually works for small groups. The one now indeed doesn't.

The solution for that can be the first part of Gipfel's proposal

Fully d'accord so far. Radunion and Quick also in favor. Good. Because taking this first step is better than taking no step.

On the second step, ok, more explanations are needed. I can understand that the willingness to read through pages and pages of old threads is low. So let's pick it up from your main questions:

What's the great advantage to tie the prize money to the number of teams?
[...]
And of course number of editions. I mean, what gives you more money, a stage race or a one day race? Right, the stage race.

Good questions. I think they deserve an extra post from me. A short one instead of the pages and pages of old threads. Or as Goethe said:

"If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter."

So I will come back later with a shorter letter.

[Robyklebt]

I see a long downward trend and then a turnaround this year thanks to the new version and the changes that came with it.

Main reason for downward trend is money, reason for a better 20 is Covid, reason of further downward 2021 is the end of flash, reason for upward is react and still for free.

Fully d'accord so far. Radunion and Quick also in favor. Good. Because taking this first step is better than taking no step.

I said "CAN BE". So it's not full support for that step one yet, as I said Hansa had his doubts, personnaly want to hear more about his doubts.

But some correction there for sure is needed.

On the second step, ok, more explanations are needed. I can understand that the willingness to read through pages and pages of old threads is low. So let's pick it up from your main questions:

Not really, I read the thread, didn't contribute at the time because it was a) clear that Luques wouldn't have the time and b) despite your highly interpretative appeal to a former authority somewhere up in this thread, he didn't seem convinced by it. Or opposed. He had an open mind and wanted to know more. Completely normal reaction btw.

But I read the thread, got the point, I see no positive in it whatsoever. It leads to an appearance of fairness, and even the equal earning opportunity is only appearance to some degree. Because it widens the gap between winners and placements in those groups where 50, 60, 80, 100, 120% more money is handed out. It promotes pure money riding in big groups, after all you have to cover your more expensive teams, if you decide to go for one. Yes, it promotes expensive teams, it's basically and insurance scheme absolving the manager of his responsability to try to get to the start with a team that has the right balance between maximising their chances to win and minimizing the monetary loss.

[Robyklebt]

Just an example with my team:

Vuelta 23
8 teams

I earned 2’276’989 according to the finance log, stages and GC, (if I didn't make any calculation mistakes)
I payed 427'291 salary. 300'000 was covered.

With step one, my salary goes to 534'113,75... so probably 534'114. 375'000 covered. I pay 159'114 per day salary, like this I only payed 127'291 per day. So I save 31'823 per day, so 668'283 for 21 days, so my profit would have been 1'608'706. Which actually still seems awefully high, are we sure my calculation is correct? Ah, of course I earned shitloads thanks to the buggy intermediates as well, normally should be shitloads lower. Anyway, put in step 1 and it seems better than what it was. Would have expected it lower... hm, somebody check my calculation. IMO actually lower here would be ok.

Giro 2020
15 teams.
Actually VERY similar results, 2nd +7th in GC, 4 stages, team classification, exactly same as in the Vuelta 23, but won white and better lower placements at the Vuelta. Plus generally probably better stage placements.
Money that month, according to my press center: 675'069 Seem to have done pretty well before the Giro, 3-2-12-3-6-1 so let's just say the Giro was 0, possibly slight minus.
Salary: Very high, but didn't write it down anywhere it seems. Seem to remember something like 577'000 once? But maybe that was the year after? OH, wrote that in the 2021 thread: Big Donkey rather unhappy with himself. 570k, too much. He wants to become cheaper every year, think more expensive than 20 again?
So let's say it was 560? then?
So payed 185'00 per day, earned 185'000 per day including the GC,
With step 2 that's 277'500 per day, that's 92'500 per day more, times 21, I make a profit of 1'942'500.
Sorry, that's completely idiotic. Yes it was a special Giro, due to many "new" teams, comebackers due to Covid, that didn't have the climbers etc to compete with the big teams.
I find my 0 (or minimal plus, minimal minus) completely absolutely ok, if I start with a 560(?)k team, I never ever should make that much profit in a 15 team race. 0 was fully ok.

But in my 8 team race now I made more, would make more even with step 1 only? Yes. But I still was around 30k cheaper, 26k let's say, that's 546k, another shitload due to the intermediate crazyness. So compared 1-1 it's probably 800k or so? And if anything that is too much, not the +/- 0 from the 2020 Giro. Nobody forces me to start with such an expensive team, with this step 2 insurance money though I have very little reason NOT to start with such a team anymore, even in a stronger 15 team group. Even if I earn a million less (money now) I earned 3'885'000 in that Giro, so 2'885'000 but then +50% and I still earn 4'327'000 in that Giro. I can go down to 123'000 earnings per day (system now) to come up at 0. Like now while paying 185'000 per day.

Yes, you can say my team there was made possible by the high earnings before that. But that's step 1. And step 2 offers the possibilities of even higher earnings in the build up to the Giro. Plus actually I can afford a team like that almost every year, regardless of my savings, but risk having to sell riders after it. With the system now. With step 2? No sales necessary, the risk is gone basically. But, Donkey, others then can start with much more expensive teams too! Yes, true, didn't think of that (just joking) And that's good for c4f how? A bunch of overprized 550+k teams? Does anybody think the World Championships at c4f are enormously exciting, when there are x teams with enormously strong riders? Not me. Good races are races with teams with weaknesses, where the favorite is attackable, the challenger doesn't have the perfect attacking team either. Vuelta 23 was more interesting than the Giro 23, simply because every team had weaknesses. AAD no second climber. Steiner lower mountain than others. Hill starting with a deficit. Baer having BW setting his form Made for a more interesting race than the Giro with at least 2 overprized teams (AAD and Donkey, forgot if there were others) By giving this step 2 guarantee you simply ask managers to come with more expensive teams, and the race won't be more exciting because of it. On the contrary, the chances that the favorite on paper wins it becomes bigger, because the race often will simply be blocked by too many teams with similarly strong riders. Sometimes the favorite will be toppled, but that will mostly happen if we have teams in the race that in the end have this idea that the favorite shouldn't win, no matter what, sort of Samurai/Recien type of riding, in the end don't even care if they profit, but the favorite can't be allowed to win.

That's not a positive development for c4f.
Forget this step 2 insurance money scheme, I still fail to see a single positive thing about it.

All my calculations better be taken with a grain of salt, or 2. ... might be off.

Edit: A fast probably not correct counting of my sprint points during the Vuelta at intermediates gave me 269. At 1000 per point that 269'000. 80%=215'000. With the sensible, normal correct 6000-4000-2000 (or whatever that becomes at cat 5) it would be way less, let's guess 150k? So the Vuelta winnings should would be down to around 1'450'000 with step 1. ETc etc., but 0 guarantee that I counted that correctly, could be off by quite a bit (at times wasn't sure if the number I remembered was the Km the IS was or the points already counted.. )

Edit 2: Had the brilliant idea of checking the Giro 20 again. 132 riders finished, assumed with 14.6 that 15 teams started. Turns out stage 1 there were 144 riders, so that's 16 teams.
So make that 296'000 per day, 111'000 more than now, so over 21 days an estimated profit of 2'331'000. Which as you might guess, I don't think makes it better than 1'942'500. Feel free to check my exact salary and winnings for that Giro, since this is only an estimate.
But as I said I found my +/-0 for that Giro entirely appropriate.

[Gipfelstuermer]

An attempt to summarize.

RKL example
You picked Vuelta 2023 and Giro 2020 because you had "VERY similar results" and your finances were:

Giro 2020 / 15 Teams: +/- 0.0M
Vuelta 2023 / 8 Teams: +2.2M

With my suggestions it would have been (according to your own calculations) roughly

Giro 2020 / 15 Teams: + 1.9M
Vuelta 2023 / 8 Teams: + 1.4M

Which proposal is fairer?
I find the second combination much fairer. If you achieve "VERY similar results" vs. 14 opponents, you should earn more, not less, than if you had only 7 opponents. For example, if you earned +/-0 in that Vuelta 2023, and 2.2M in that Giro 2020, that would be fairer. In my point of view. Can you agree to that? If not, we can probably just agree to disagree.

Would be good to understand that, but I have some hope as it sounds like at least you agree Vuelta 2023 profit was too high. Because you seem to be in agreement with my proposal step 1, maybe despite some remaining reservations? So I hope, all you criticize is that in the second combination there seems to be more money in total? And more money = Bad? Then: Be my guest. I agree!

Which proposal distributes more money?
Just before I continue, have to mention, my proposal does not systematically distribute more money. In your example it's due to the fact, which you point out, too, that the Giro 2020 was very successful for you because of the relatively weak opponents (including me, yes, that's true I was cannon fodder in GC and I tell you my finances later down here), so it's partially just a result of that. The other Giro teams in your example would certainly not jump from 0 to 1.9M. The increase would be much smaller for them. And of course the other Vuelta teams in your example would also have less money in my example. The math is, that in your example the average group size is 11.5 = (8+15)/2, but in reality it is lower (see data in other post). That's why your claim, that I systematically distribute more money, is wrong. My proposal reduces money for group sizes <10 (which is the large majority of races in the game in the last couple of years). But anyway, this point is not too important because I am happy to agree that the total profit there for was too high and should be lower! Because I agree less money would be good for the game.

What would be the correct base?
I think almost everyone here agrees there is too much and not too little money in the game currently. That's why I say the base does not need to be 10 Teams. It could even be 22, but you said then there would be too little money. I probably agree even though I could live with it. Less money = good for the game. Anyway, then if 22 is too extreme, the ideal would be somewhere between 10 and 22. Maybe the base should be 15 teams, as you mentioned that number for target peloton size in an ealier post? It could also be 12 Teams to throw in another number. Why 12? You were mentioning that 10 was chosen for the nice decimal calculations. As the base case win (Cat 2 one day race) actually gives 120k, if we take 12 Teams as the base case, it would be 100k for a win in a 10 Team group (instead of the 120k now). Nice round numbers. Just an example. 10, 12, 15, 22. I would probably agree to any of those. All of that is better than making everyone adjust their team 2 minutes before race start because they have to check out how many teams are inscribed to see whether they can afford a more/less expensive team. Or even worse, people switching from one race to another because they will be financially better off in the smaller group.

RKL example not bad, here a similar Gipfel example
But ok, coming back to your Giro 2020. It was one of 4 Grand Tours where I started with very similar hill sprinter teams and very similar success (points jersey plus a few stages, cannon fodder in GC). But there were very different peloton sizes and so very different financial results:

Giro 2019 / 19 Teams: -1.9M
TDF 2019 / 12 Teams: +0.8M
Giro 2020 / 15 Teams: -1.1M
TDF 2020 / 9 Teams: +2.1M

I find it bizarre and unintuitive. You can argue it equals out over time. Maybe it did for me. But it doesn't always equal out. Not everyone can switch from evening to afternoon to ride in smaller groups. Not everyone likes to switch races just because of group size. Some are Masters in that, but most people dont like to do that. Some might be riding their first Grand Tour and get destroyed financially because they didn't expect this financial result. So I prefer if it was a fairer distribution to begin with.

Some more thoughts on the solution
The exact amounts, exact distribution, base case 10, 12, 15, 22 or [pick a number] Teams, it needs to be calibrated a bit, true. But the principle should be, in my point of view: Less teams, smaller prize money pool. More teams, bigger prize money pool. From 1-10 Teams we even have that. For 10-22 Teams, we don't have it. That's inconsistent. Especially as you say we shouldn't target 10 Teams per race, but more like ~15 Teams per race.

Then, I would like to add Hansa's idea. If there are more (less) teams, then more (less) placements get something out of the prize money pool. It's like when you meet your friends for a round of poker and everyone pays in 10 EUR. If it's just 3 of you, you might decide "The winner takes it all." But if it's 5 of you, you might give something to the 2nd place. If it's 10 of you, the 3rd place should probably also get something. Etc. Etc. The same concept here in C4F depending on whether there are 50, 100 or 150 riders in a race would be nice. By the way, the Prize money pool would also adjust obviously in this metaphor. With 3 friends, there are 30 Euro in total. With 5 friends 50 Euro. With 10 friends 100 Euro etc. etc.

[Robyklebt]

Still to many questions in your posts. Rhetorical ones mostly, Stick to statements and real questions.

Already the first questions makes no sense.

And you think the first combination is better, fairer?

How exactly did you come up with that question?
Because now you have to show me where I said or implied the first combination is fairer, better.
Of course I know you can't, so I'm definitely not holding my breath, and will still answer the question that makes no sense without expecting you to provide me with a quote. But not before giving you an example of a question that would have made sense: "Do you think the first one is fairer, better?". Or even better: "Which one do you think is fairer, better". Not the "And you think"which implies that this is what I've said or implied at some point. And you thought you were clever with these questions? Or was it rhetorical? Or was it an introduction to some great point? Or or or... see the point? Those oh so clever pointless question.. yes.. ah no, you didn't get it? Or did you?

And before the answer, let's analyze the second question:

Really?

Really? That's your second question? You thought the first one wasn't good enough?

The answer:
If I have to chose between those too... the first answer is I hadn't thought about it. I thought about if 2.2+ for the Vuelta is better, (fairer?) than 1.6, and pretty clearly said that 1.6 already was much better, even if it still seemed higher than I had expected.
And said that I thought 0 was much better than +1.9 millions (since then upgraded to 2.3)

I would really like to understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

What conclusion? The one you put in my mouth without me having said it? Really? I really would like to understand how you arrive at that conclusion. Oh, we had that already... back to the program.

If you force me to chose between too way too much for my Vuelta and way too much for my Giro... the answer is way to much for my Vuelta. So you were right. Even if you have no clue why.

The reason is simple:

Parallel program 1 day races in May 2020 in the afternoon: 13-16h 5 5 11 11 7 9 10 8 10 7 8 10 3 5 1 6 9 7 6 8 5 7. With a parallel stage race with 10 teams. (no guarantee the list above is complete) With step 1 and step 2 implemented, despite the 2 races with 10% more income, the earnings for the parallel boys would be lower than they were now. A bit.
I get to ride the Giro, I get to chase glory, even if I ultimately fail (where you got "particularly successful" from is another mystery, but don't bother). AND I get to earn 1.9 millions? (2.3 now, but question was about 1.9, 2.3 of course makes it worse).
You lose 1.1 million (no info on how much it would have been with step 2 base 10) but get ciclamino, you get glory.
The side program, one day races gets no glory, rightly so. But then with the harder step 1 (which principle I support, no need to keep up a whole series of more rhetorical questions, it doesn't make you sound philosophical either, I assure you) they earn less than they would now, while you presumably don't lose 1.1 millions anymore.
So riding the Giro, potential glory AND most likely more money (I would expect to earn around 1 million in the 1 day race side program, other teams might have higher expectations, but that's more or less what I usually do, 50k per race downgrade to 45k with step 1, fuck it, just make it a million in 23 days and 1.1 without step 1)
So 0 vs 1.1 million Giro vs side program or 1.9 million vs 1 million, Giro vs sideprogram?
2.2. Vuelta? 8 7 9 9 7 8 8 7 9 8 9 8 9 9 9 9 7 8 8 9 8 9 8. Bigger groups parallel on average. The system now, so higher earnings than with step 1 introduced. Since this is under the current system, the earnings for the parallel one day racers (and not all of them chose not to ride the GT, some simply can't) should be a bit higher than with step 1 introduction. 1.1 I said, but more high cat, 1.4 millions! (number out of my ass, yes) and some glory in Canada? 2.2. vs 1.4 is not especially good, 1.4 and 1.2 (ass number again) by itself would be better.

But In total:

So:
0 Giro and 2.2. Vuelta twice potential glory vs 2.4 millions parallel program with more limited glory?
1.9 Giro and 1.4 Vuelta vs 2.2 millions parallel program?
The first please.

Or said in another way:
Slightly lower earnings but more potential glory more interesting race vs decisively higher earnings and more potential glory and interesting race?
Trade earnings for glory, fully ok. Or fail at it while trying. Better solution that giving all to the GT riders.

But the question still is nonsense since I've made it pretty damn clear that the Vuelta earnings lower would be preferable.

Lots of text without great new insights now? (Although there is the insight that the game doesn't only consist of GTs, and that fairness, even financial one, can't be only looked at by comparing 2 editions of the same race) I think so too. So maybe try to ask more sensible questions next time.

So. I think almost everyone here agrees there is too much and not too little money in the game currently. That's why I say the base does not need to be 10 Teams.

After a number of people pointed that out. Your first mention of this in this thread was:

This is the solution

This thread shows how to implement the solution:

And all you talked about in the other thread was base 10...
But good, opposition to that money flood made you reconsider the base 10 nonsense. Progress, we're slowly getting there. You finally start to understand.

So maybe all you criticize is that in the second combination there is more money in total? And more money = Bad? Then: Be my guest. I agree!

You might agree in words, but your proposals seldom show that, base 10, the infamous proposal to change the tax system to 70% tax at 50 millions. Make sure your proposals are actually effective, and not counter productive, as both step 2 base 10 and the tax thing would be. I agree with your goals, your ideas how to reach them unfortunately are generally misquided.

base 12 now?
I calculated base 15 a while ago, seemed to be somewhat ok for GTs, making it tighter, much tighter, (minimal minus for my vuelta 23 200k plus for Giro 20, if I remember correctly, no idea if that would be fair for you then) the problem was that I didn't like it for 1 day races.

108'000 for a cat 1 race, with 5 teams that's 54k for a win. With step 1. With base 15 it's 36k Base 12 45k And yes, lots of placements. But in an 8 rider race 335'000 salary covered, you actually are above the limit pretty fast. If it's a hilly race, very fast. If you have a top classic, ok, bring him and 7 sausages, that's what I do and stay under 335000. And still get a decent placement. If you have just some 68-75? Hm, let's see, who has those riders? Do you know who has them? Can you guess who has them? Have you thought about who has them? Do I need to ask more questions? Am I really clever now with all these questions? Wait, could it be newcomers? Yes, newcomers! Really? Newcomers? YES, newcomers! End up in a cat 1 5 team race, are over the limit (if I remember correctly you opposed obligatory 10 riders for 17 millions too), even if they are only 10 k over the limit, normally they won't win the race, will end up with minimal profit, if any. Second place with just step 1 31500, base 12 26'250, base 15 21. For me for newcomers that's simply too low. Maybe even step 1, but that should still be ok, especially since we hope to have fewer and fewer of these low participation 1 day races (not too many stage races parallel helps) Oh, I think I find an appropriate quote from your post for that too!

Not everyone likes to switch races just because of group size. Some are Masters in that, but most people dont like to do that. Some might be riding their first Grand Tour and get destroyed financially because they didn't expect this financial result. So I prefer if it was a fairer distribution to begin with.

And some might not be riding the GC but the parallel program, and get destroyed financially because they didn't realize their freedom to buy few riders for lots of money meant they wouldn't earn any in 23 days in small groups. They won't even reach the GTs!


Reduce income in races with less than 10 teams, leave the rest as it is. Step 1 as proposed? Let Hansa have his say, haven't really figured out exactly what he tries to say so far, for me right now step 1 by itself doesn't really seem to present big problems (unless we create them with some rope pulling in the other direction with money for newcomers)

Then, I would like to add Hansa's idea. If there are more (less) teams, then more (less) placements get something out of the prize money pool. It's like when you meet your friends for a round of poker and everyone pays in 10 EUR. If it's just 3 of you, you might decide "The winner takes it all." But if it's 5 of you, you might give something to the 2nd place. If it's 10 of you, the 3rd place should probably also get something. Etc. Etc. Same concept here depending on whether there are 50, 100 or 150 riders in a race would be nice. Prize money pool would also adjust obviously in this metaphor. With 3 friends, there are 30 Euro in total. With 5 friends 50 Euro. With 10 friends 100 Euro etc. Very normal procedure.

Patchwork finances. And unnecessary if we leave all the step 2 bases where they belong. On the drawing board. But preferably on a drawing board that is hidden in a drawer underneath lots of other discarded silly ideas.

[Gipfelstuermer]

I proposed something. You defend the Status Quo. Others gave opinions, too. Good to have the discussion. I think that's what the thread opener wanted to encourage. A discussion.

I'm still for step 1 and I see potential to optimize step 2. Optimization could include

- Define the base: Currently 10 Teams (but only in effect for races <10 Teams). Should probably be between 10 and 22 then if we would apply it for all group sizes. 12 or 15 have been mentioned as possibilities.
- Define Nr. or % of placements: Currently a Number. 40 Riders. Could be higher or lower. Could be a % (Hansa's idea). If %, this could be done by defining the base, too. For example, base 10 with 9 riders/team meant 40/90 riders receive money (44%). Now, if we move to base 12, would be 40/108 = 37%. Or base 15 would mean 40/135 = 30% It can also be derived differently. Maybe we prefer a round number (40%) or think there should generally be more/less placements with money (20%, 30%, 50%, pick a number).
- Define relation between stage races and one day races: Good point mentioned by some in the discussion. Should they be treated differently or the same? A stage race of same category currently gives ~50% more prize money than a one day race. Would a higher/smaller/no discrepancy be better?

[Robyklebt]

I proposed something. You defend the Status Quo

I write something. You dishonestly misrepresent it.

[Quick]

To help with balance my Vuelta numbers

Teams: 14
Salary: 480k
Results: GC 1.+18., green P3
Stagewins: 2

Profit: 1,7m

I think that's a good balance already. Winning a big tour should bring in the money. My salary was slightly under average with 480k I'd say. Or average at best. I think I was around the lower middle of our 14 teams. (BTW if I ride side program, I average around 70k/day, tendency more). So around 2,1m profit for 3 weeks side program... already better than winning a Vuelta. Not sure how that matters but to keep or create a balance we need to look at everything and it's possible consequences.

If I bring 550k, I have 70k more per day, so 1,47m less profit(with same results, results would obviously be a bit better then but ok...) so around 200k profit. - for winning a GT. That's sounds reasonable to me. 550k isn't even outrageous either for a cat 5GT. Free riders cat 1 day races for that and makes profit in his small groups...

So base 14 is a good number. Maybe even 15 BUT I'd be wary of cutting off too much money.

Team building is a fun aspect of RSF and if there's less money, that's ok. If there's much less money, I'm not sure it's super good. If I have to save 2 months to buy a 2m rider, I'm not sure if that wouldn't even be game killing for me.

All I do lately is ride cheap and try to find the balance between easy profit and results.

[lennylenny]

my Vuelta numbers:

Teams: 8
salary: 635k
adjusted salary: 508k adjusted salary coverage:300k
Results: GC 2 + 3 + 11 + 20 + 23 + 1 in team classification + 3 in red and green i believe
Stagewins: 2 but also many top3 finishes

Profit: 470k

yes i started pretty expensive, but i also got very good stage results due to many teams starting without a climber or freshly bought 85 climber in a mountaintop heavy GT while i had 2 self grown climbers only spoiled by Velasco

[Quick]

I'm having such fun spoiling fields with my über team and still netting easy 100k/profit per race. It is addicting so for the greater good of the game, up this thread.