I�ve been fishing tournaments at Fork since 1993. Honey Hole, Angler�s Choice, Media Bass, Irving Bass Club, Platinum Series, along with probably too many of the big-bass/lottery offerings. I love to fish, and the added element of competition just takes it to another level. With 3 kids and a lot less free time (AKA pre-fishing opportunities), I�ve grown pretty selective about my tournament ventures.

This past weekend, my partner and I fished the JC Outdoors Team Tournament. We had a decent bag, but noticed a longer line than usual when we got to weigh-in. This was the first indication that something was different than usual. Long story short, JC Outdoors and Media Bass were using the same scales and weigh-in area. No big deal. The line moved fairly quickly, with very few casualties. It was then that we noticed something else. As some of the teams were announced at the scales, 2 boat numbers were called� one for JC Outdoors and one for Media Bass. The same 5 fish were being counted for both tournaments.

The bottom payout weights were announced, and most of the anglers left before checks were distributed. We stuck around to hear the weights, and noticed that at least some of the teams that won money in the JC Outdoors tournament also earned a check in the Media tournament. I guess that would be expected, if a team is allowed to enter the same 5 fish in multiple tournaments. What we didn�t realize at the time, was that 12 of the top 13 weights in the JC Outdoors tournament were the same bag of fish that finished in the top 13 of the Media tournament.

Here are some interesting numbers:

* Of the 142 paid entrees (76 JC, 66 Media) there were 113 unique teams
(actual bags weighed, including zeros).

* At the 1-in-5 payout ratio (with 113 teams), 22 teams/bags should have cashed.

* 16 stringers cashed (14% instead of 20%) in the 2 tournaments.

We spoke to one of the directors after the tournament. He said that it wasn�t any different than having the same field in two events that were a week apart. That made some sense, until I saw the results and had some time to digest what they meant. There are 2 pretty significant differences. First, none of the teams would be able to weigh the same fish the following weekend. Second, 22 bags would have won money, instead of the 16 that cashed in the combined tournament.

I don�t know if we would have fished this combined tournament, if we knew then what we know now.

For the teams that finished in the top dozen, or so, this was a great investment�For the teams that finished in the top 15-20% and didn�t cash� not so great a weekend.

Just to clarify, I do not believe that JC Outdoors or Media Bass stood to gain anything by combining this tournament in the way they did. Each organization paid their advertised 1-in-5� the money winners lists just happened to be almost identical, leaving teams that would have finished in the money (had the same stringer not been counted twice) going home empty-handed.

I also believe that the teams that took advantage of the combo option did nothing wrong. Had we been on the right fish, and known that option was available, we would have taken it.

I thought this information might be valuable for anglers as they make decisions for future tournaments that allow the same stringer to be weighed in multiple tournaments.

I don't understand. What's the problem. People paid 2 entries and got 2 checks.

If people didn't fish both tournaments then you would have had less payouts and most likely still not got a check. For example the average turnout for JC is usually around 50-60 and Media is around 55 to 60. Both turnouts were greater because of the doubles tournament day.
What if the Media tournament was at Minnow Bucket and JC at Oakridge, people would have still been able to fish both events and the outcome the same. This was at least the same scale was used so the outcomes on weights were the same. We fish multiple tournaments all the time on the same day at Fork this time of year, sometimes we strike out and sometimes we get lucky. I did fish both of these tournaments and I have no clue how you didn't realize they had 2 tournaments going on considering the registration was literally side by side at a small table. They even confirmed with everyone that signed up which tournament you wanted to fish or if you wanted to do both?

By the way they paid out a combined 28 places so I have no clue where your numbers came from. Mark and David run great tournaments and the weigh in line went quickly.

I don't have a problem with it.
I also know to get a check, got to bring a good sack...if guys pay for entries into both and rules allow it....more $ in the pot.

Catch enough fish and you'll cash more $ on a good day

Here are the clues. No one told us at registration that fishing both tournaments was an option. We got in one line, and the lady said are you wanting to sign up for Media or JC. We said JC, and she told us it was the other line.

Clue 2. The combined tournaments paid 28 places, as stated... but to only 16 teams. 16 of the 113 teams that fished the 2 events. You can look at the results, and see this for yourself.

I don't question whether the tournaments were run well. I was stating the facts. Had this been a single tournament with all 113 teams, 22 different teams would have made money. Those are the facts.

My problem is that when dual entrees cash a check in each tournament, 20% of the field doesn't get paid.

Then you should fish these. My point wasn't to tell people not to fish combined tournaments. Only that if you do, you should know that with multiple teams cashing in each event, the payout is less than 1-in-5. That was the point.

You are trying to compare apples to oranges, when all you have is a kumquat.

The people that caught the most weight got paid. Would you have preferred to force them to pay further down the field and skip over those that were fishing in your tournament, and paid to fish in your tournament? It doesn't matter that they also got paid in the other field. At least the same amount of money (actually, I can pretty much guarantee it was more) on a percentage basis was paid out as would have been paid out if they only allowed people to fish in one tournament.

I agree with what was said above, more money was in the pot to be paid because of the situation with double-dipping. Apparently, you saved money by not entering both tournaments, so be thankful for that.

I have no dog in this hunt, but I think you are too focused on how many teams got paid because the ones that won on one side also won on the other. There are only two ways to keep that from happening:
1.) Not allow the double dipping at all. In this case you would have had to bet that you chose to fish with people (without knowing who was fishing where) that you actually beat in the tournament. The numbers of entries wouldn't have been anywhere near the number it was in this instance, and the number of places paid could have been less anyway.
2.) Allow entering both tournaments, but the team can only cash from one of the two. How is this fair? Skipping people who fished better than you in a tournament just to pay people that didn't cash a check in the tournament they were fishing?

There are politically charged schemes that I could bring up here as examples of how
#2 is done all the time in government... (unintended pun discovered after typing, intentionally left in my response) I will leave that to the OT.

.

You weighed in 8.60 and finished in 20th place, 5 spots out in the JC Tournament. Not a bad bag but you most likely wouldn't have gotten a check if it wasn't a double up tournament anyways. Almost all the names in the top 15 are regulars to the JC trail. Thw 1st Media event paid a total of 11 places with 56 total teams. Anyways good luck next time...

No problem. Just letting people know, that with every double entry check, that's one non-double entry that doesn't get paid.

JC Outdoors 76 boats 1 in 5 payout = 15 spots

Media Bass 66 boats 1 in 5 payout = 13 spots

Total places paid 28 spots out of 142 boats

Divide 142 by 28 and you get 5.07142857 or 1 in 5 payout

Please explain how this "system" wasn't fair??


Was it the fact you did not get paid and that is what isn't fair????

Mark and david run great tournaments. That was never in question.

I've been fishing tournaments at Fork for a long time, and just like registration on Saturday, have never been asked if I am fishing "both" tournaments.

You are correct that 28 places were paid in the 2 tournaments. How many teams won those 28 places? The answer is 16. 16 teams won money, out of 113 (these is the total of "real" teams that fished either Media or JC.

I tried to state it very clearly, but the purpose of the post was to let anglers know that double entrees (counting the same fish for multiple tournaments) change the payout percentage of bass tournaments on Lake Fork. Neither the tournaments or the anglers that participated were implicated in any way.

Just stating the facts.

If there were a total of 142 entries paid that is how many "teams or entries" you had, not the 113. The number of paid entries represents the "teams", not the actual number of teams.

I think perhaps the moral of the story is to ask a few questions and when you do not do good enough to get paid then just move on to the next one and try again.


One can always twist figures to make it look like they got the shaft.

We knew we were in the gray zone we came to weigh in. That is not the issue.

You stated that almost all of the names in the top 15 are JC regulars. You should have also noted that almost all of the names in the top 15 are identical to the top 15 in the Media tournament.

My point is this.....113 teams fished in these 2 tournaments (not duplicates, real 2-angler teams). Only 16 of these teams took home money.

So, I think it's fair to let other tournament anglers know how the weighing of 2 fish in a tournament change the payback ratio.