High Gun Purses

An ATA member recently wrote the following. Note: the bold emphasis and underlining are mine:

"Members pay dues to become members and stay in the membership. The daily fees are cost of participating in the shoot. No different than when you buy a product. The seller is free to spend the money you gave him. Since the membership does not grant any ownership or voting powers in the organization, the ATA is under no obligation to answer for the money it collects or spends for that matter.

As long as the ATA obeys the laws of the non profit it is charted by as defined by the IRS, no harm, no foul. The ATA is a non profit is one that exists to promote an amateur sporting event. The only choices the members have in all honesty is (1) participate in the events or not, (2) remain a member or not.

If you do not like high gun purses, winner take all, stop playing that option. Market forces are driven by demand. The ATA is responding to what it thinks the shooters want. We have had discussions before about high gun purses vs class and yardage before. The best shooters want high gun, the not so great shooters want class and yardage."

 

The ATA gave shooters access to the large purses that some say they favor.

In offering a guaranteed $60,000 the ATA lost about $7000. That's not so much and I think it was a good offering to test the waters. I also attests to good calculation by the ATA of how many shooters would actually play it, missing by only something over 10%.

I doubt that most of the about 1500 who played the purse had much understanding of how "High Gun" would work out for them. I anticipate that were the High Gun purse to be offered again in 2019, participation would be far lower now that so many would have learned a cheap, but perfectly clear, lesson. I don't expect to see it next year, at least with a High Gun payout.

N1H1

 

The rules were changed in 1955 when the likes of you, TOOK away the rights of the LIFE MEMBERS. If the Life Members were in control of the ATA, it would never have been in Sparta Illinois, the would not have been a 2012PLL
ON 46-48 yard targets and 30 Degree Angles, no 1320 Fps legal targets. No Horse Barn Museum on land not owned by the HOF .,

GB..............................DLS

 

What is the devil does all that have to do with "High Gun Purses," Gary. That's what this thread is about.

...and what made you think that Garry was quoting me? He may have been - the moment I leave this site I try to forget all about it including what I have left here - but it doesn't sound much like my thinking at all, now that I read it.

I, for example, do think the ATA has an obligation to account for its income and expenses and net worth and obligations and future outlook and that's one reason I always attend the annual meeting of the BOD where I pick up the audited financial statement so when I get on here I have some idea what I am talking about in contrast to most who don't have a clue, either in support of, or against, the ATA.

N1H1

 

Neil, you don't seem to get it. The money shooters left the ATA because of the ATA's nearsighted rules that favored professional trapshooters and abandoned the little guy. We went from as many as 50% option players down to 10%-kinda like many former large venues lost around 35% of their shooters in the last 10 years. What's left is a few points chasers and trinketeers like yourself. That does not bode well for our future. By the way, if the money punch was such a great idea how come it was eliminated?

 

Ollie, I'll bet you are right about all of that. I just don't know, that's all. My alternative explanation is that shooters got tired of being skinned by others who were miles and miles better than they were and got tired of betting on an almost-sure-lose proposition. But what the changes in payoff percentages had to do with it I never understood nor am I able to knowledgeably discuss/dispute it. I think we can at least agree that "the money is gone." Why, I have to admit, is not my department. I don't think I ever had the opportunity to influence any of it in any direction other than in my Presidential Year when I steered added money to yardage groups other than things like more places in the GAH. That lasted until about 02 September 2008; my tenure ended 01 September 2008.

The money punch was always a bad idea and I voted against it every chance I had.

N1H1

 

N1H1, I can only speak for myself. Back in the 70's & 80's & 90's. I played most of the money. I shot in PA, MD, DE, NJ & NY as well as the Grand. Some years I went to FL, NV & AZ. Back then it was possible for me to sometimes pay for the shoot (just talking fees) with the winnings from the singles & doubles. 'Caps sometimes made money. I stopped playing the money when the payouts became so small that they barely covered entry fees. This year I played one lewis in 'caps and after looking at the payout I stopped playing all money. My guess is the money would come back if the payouts were larger. That is only possible with fewer high scores.

 

But eb, remember that options are a "zero sum game." That is, winners have to exactly balance losers in terms of money, not in terms of numbers of players.

If you were breaking even with all the expenses, then a lot of people were losing all the time. It's impossible not just that most win, but also that the number of winners is losers (many) is anything like the number of winners (few).

I think that the losers, who were, face it, fools, got wise, that's all. Not as wise as I would have anticipated based of the 1500 that played the Grand purse, but then, they don't have much experience with that kind of (mythical for most) payoff and the front-cover graphic "$60,000 Guaranteed Purse" may have dazzled them and shorted out their judgement.

I think a lot of Grand attendees will not make the same mistake next year if given the chance, but we will have to wait 'til next year to find out, won't we? Were the ATA to ask, which they won't, I'd call this a one-time probe into the seriousness of shooters to invest even trivial money in the chance of winning big, absorb the $7000 loss as a learning experience, and with the money saved hire more good country music artists at C&J's where everyone at least gets his or her money's worth of entertainment as well as a decent meal rather than pissing away that $35,00 on a fool's bet.

N1N1

 

Neil, unfortunately you are right. I talked to several that played the purses. They have been shooting for 40 plus years, refuse all reductions and carry 84% averages. Why did you play the purses, I asked. We didn't understand how it was paid out they said. I think we can get more suckers if they see 50s paying over a $1000 & lone 97 or 98 paying $5000. Back in 1985 at the Grand I won a handicap alone with a 97.

EB

 

It is real simple - NEVER PLAY A HIGH GUN PURSE UNLESS YOU HAVE A 95%OR BETTER HANDICAP AVERAGE. Like Neal said, the folks who played this option have no idea how it was going to pay out.

 

Maybe if we didn't have such a back log of high average handicap shooters standing on the 27 unlike the average book from 1980 I'm comparing, things might be different. Quite frankly, the difficulty from back yardage shooting was significantly watered down.

 

If you don't play the money, you'll never win the money. Kind of like the lottery. Who knows maybe, God will smile on you some day and you'll win like that 15 year old kid did. Only you will have bet the money. Me, I don't waste my money on the options. So, I guess I'll never win the big bucks.....

 

"remember that options are a "zero sum game." ..... NOT any more ...... the ATA has decided to open the ATA accounts up to the top Pro Shooters ...... It NO LONGER has to be funded by a "balance of losers in terms of money" ......

 

Yes,User1, in this case the ATA will have to cough up about seven grand which can be thought of as "added money" if you like that idea better. This is a risk any club takes on with guaranteed purses of any kind and I can think of one Minnesota club that foundered on a miscalculation of its exposure in a guaranteed purse. But the ATA is on a sound-enough financial basis that the money will never be missed. It was an experiment to find out if "Big Money Shooters" were anything more than big talkers, and is seems they weren't.I can't imagine a cheaper way for them to find that out and quit worrying about the lack of big purses and their proven spotty participation.

But though I read about, and hear about, all the money someone remembers winning in the old days I have little luck in finding anyone who will own up to losing that money and way, way, more of them must have in comparison to the winners every weekend, every month, every year. Until they got sick of it either quit the ATA or found another way to make shooting "pay off" for them without the hopeless dream of most of them to "make money at it."

Ground needs fertilizer or rotation or something to keep producing. As do prospective participants in options. I think that the fact that options are so poorly played - and pay off equally poorly, of course - is just that the ground has become barren and that is just the nature of nature.

N1H1

 

I see Sir Neil wasn't around when we shot for new cars, guns and cash. Shoots were well attended and people played the options heavily. Some of us also remember when times were tough an in order to shoot the following weekend we needed a 25 or 50 straight in handicap that paid enough to keep shooting. According to Sir Neil's logic casinos should be shutting down-not expanding because people suddenly started shunning betting. Obviously Sir Neil lives in a world far different from reality.

 

You are clueless and fail to pay attention ...... I have said in several posts that if a "Trapshooter" wins one thousand dollars, they will spend ten thousand more trying to do it again ...... If they win NOTHING because the scores required to win anything are far beyond their best days EVER, you get what you have now ......

How in the Hell can you and the ATA leaders always be right, when thousands stopped doing what they loved to do because they felt you were wrong ???????????????????????????????

 

User 1,
I sure want to see the answer you get for that question. Keep in mind, anyone can make a mistake, but only an intelligent person will admit it, and rectify the error. Roger C.

 

Thanks ...... But the answer I want the most is to ....... Why the need to promote the false narrative that the ATA was under some kind of "time line" to sell and move from Vandalia ???????????

Were the "PULL 2012" wheels already in motion for some to profit from the sale and move ??????

Remember the, "We had no choice other than Sparta, because we had to move" garbage the ATA was promoting ??? People blindly believed there was a "move by date", and never ask for proof or the when ........

 

I have to chuckle at some of the comments about "money". Just as a point of reference I have shot the Golden West Grand at the old club in Reno, The Mile High at Denver, Iowa in the days of the Wolf Purses and others. The majority of shooters never did understand options and purses and how they were paid out. I have the 1986 Grand program in hand and the GAH purse was $30 and paid out 1 money each 5 entries in yardage groups and there were 5 yardage groups. So if you were a 21 yard shooter with an 87 handicap average and thought you could get hot you were at least shooting against others with comparable skill levels that had the same wild dreams. You were not shooting against Gene Sears, Brad Dysinger, Bueford Baily, Ray Stafford and the like. The added money was $3,000 and paid to Champion, RU and 3rd, no ties divide. The Bud money, $8,000 that year was in the Preliminary Hdcp and paid from Champ through 7th place, no ties divide. So there was some money that the big dogs were going to share but there was also some money those further down the food chain had a chance at. So that year, 1986 a 22 yard shooter broke 100 and got $1,500 added money with no out lay on his part. So go to this year's Grand and the 100 gets no added money, none, nada. Now if the $30,000 Guaranteed was paid out like the GAH purse from 1986 I think there would be a lot more interest but then again I do not think most would understand. So User 1 it pains me to say this but you are correct in that the scores required to win any of that are as you say far beyond their best days EVER. I really do not think any of this is Neil's fault but I do think the ATA could have come up with something better than dividing up $30,000 High Gun. My 2 cents. Tom

 

You are all still missing the point, back in 86 the options would pay for your entry fee. If you could break a 25 at caps you'd pay for your event. A 48 would pay for the day, a 49 for 3 0R 4 days, a 50 for the shoot and if you did hit the "NUT" of a 99 it would pay for the year. Today you are behind and a looser the minute you sign up.

When the today's average shooters figures out he is shooting such expensive practice they will quit too. What is the retention rate of today's ATA? In the money years an ATA member lasted about 4 years on the average.

As long as the ATA shoots xxxxx targets there will never be money no matter what scheme the EC cooks up. Brad

 

That's how Vegas pays the light bill -- People just don't understand their odds

 

Come on ol'N1H1 ..... don't run away yet .....

You run away from this mythical move out of Vandalia date ..... So, how about the current value of this 62ish acres the ATA "sold", and was supposed to have walked away with "millions of dollars" after "clean up" .....

If someone paid all that "clean up money" plus millions, that current weed-field should be worth many more millions because of the booming economy ..... correct ???????

Could some of the details of the ATA deals look "odd" to some of the unwashed masses ???????

 

I shot at the Golden Grand back in those days, and I might add, won some cash. Well, enough to pay for the trips anyway, plus some food, drinks, and gambling for my wife. Those were the days. I miss them.

 

Totally agree

 

How many of the "Big Guns" have left trapshooting, because they can't meet their expenses?

 

Probably a lot more than you would think. I could see the writing on the wall and quit traveling in 2005. I'd shot every club and shoot worth going to for 30 years at that time and like Daro Handy said to me at the 2004 grand, he said "Brad you and I are just two old Buffaloes hunters" he and I could see chasing dying animals was no way to make a living so I'm sure a lot of slower learners have figured that out by now. Brad

 

Big Papa, how many shooters have a 95% plus handicap average?

 

I just find it funny someone is complaining about a rule change that took place in 1955! lol. Good grief. I hope it was cleared with President Eisenhower. I played money exactly once. Somehow, I got a check for $20. I have no idea how any of it was calculated. Then, I didn't play any money but won class B singles at a state shoot, and got a check for $50. Again, no clue how any of that happed and I don't really care. It's a sport, I pay a few bucks and try to break as many targets as I can. The rest of this is blah blah blah. Other than a few curmudgeons, no one cares about the minutia of ATA rules or why something happened in Ohio in 1973.

 

You are wrong again.