Payout Structure Discussion
Over the past week, and even before that since Brook Lyter took 2nd at the PokerStars Carribean Adventure, and now recently when Roger won the Dead Money Open, I have had some discussions concerning the payouts each place should get when it comes to these major tournaments.
It is my opinion that the difference between the top 5 or 6 spots should be a 50% increase. Typically first should be right around 30% of the prizepool - depending on the size of the tournament. In the PCA, it was just under 25% with 724 entrants, and the last WSOP, it was only around 12%.
Typically, it was the accepted to practice to pay about 10% of the field for major tournaments, however, with the boom in satellite play, that number has grown for some of the recent events. The PCA and recently complete Borgata Winter Open paid about 25% of the field. The WSOP, however, stuck with the 10% of the field rule, which actually was more than they paid out the year before, as the year before they took 10% of the tables that started, and paid that amount of tables x 9 per table.
My opinion, would be that if you are to pay 25% of the field, the bottom half of the cashes shouldn't necessarily get the amount of the buy-in back. This is obvioulsy done for qualifiers through satellites, and even if you pay in completely, you are getting something back for your efforts, where in the past you would have received nothing.
There should be larger jumps at certain points of the payout. At the 10% of the field mark, at the final 2 tables, and making the final table. Each one of those accomplishments should be rewarded more than say moving from 9th to 8th place at the final table - percentage of payout increase at least.
The large discrepancies between first, second, etc. lead to more dealmaking on chopping pots than there should be. Playing for an extra $2000 when you already have won $4000 seems a lot better than having to play for an extra $4400 when you have won $3300. As anybody who was played heads up for a tournament knows, this, of all places is the most determined by luck. Both players had to have luck to get here, don't get me wrong, but playing heads up at this point is usually a crap shoot, and you the 2nd place person should not feel as if they were screwed out of so much money.
I think the WSOP this past year had it about as fair as I've seen ... the payouts seemed to reflect the large amount of luck and skill it takes just to get the final table and didn't overly reward 1st place by such a large amount compared to the rest of the final table.
It is my opinion that the difference between the top 5 or 6 spots should be a 50% increase. Typically first should be right around 30% of the prizepool - depending on the size of the tournament. In the PCA, it was just under 25% with 724 entrants, and the last WSOP, it was only around 12%.
Typically, it was the accepted to practice to pay about 10% of the field for major tournaments, however, with the boom in satellite play, that number has grown for some of the recent events. The PCA and recently complete Borgata Winter Open paid about 25% of the field. The WSOP, however, stuck with the 10% of the field rule, which actually was more than they paid out the year before, as the year before they took 10% of the tables that started, and paid that amount of tables x 9 per table.
My opinion, would be that if you are to pay 25% of the field, the bottom half of the cashes shouldn't necessarily get the amount of the buy-in back. This is obvioulsy done for qualifiers through satellites, and even if you pay in completely, you are getting something back for your efforts, where in the past you would have received nothing.
There should be larger jumps at certain points of the payout. At the 10% of the field mark, at the final 2 tables, and making the final table. Each one of those accomplishments should be rewarded more than say moving from 9th to 8th place at the final table - percentage of payout increase at least.
The large discrepancies between first, second, etc. lead to more dealmaking on chopping pots than there should be. Playing for an extra $2000 when you already have won $4000 seems a lot better than having to play for an extra $4400 when you have won $3300. As anybody who was played heads up for a tournament knows, this, of all places is the most determined by luck. Both players had to have luck to get here, don't get me wrong, but playing heads up at this point is usually a crap shoot, and you the 2nd place person should not feel as if they were screwed out of so much money.
I think the WSOP this past year had it about as fair as I've seen ... the payouts seemed to reflect the large amount of luck and skill it takes just to get the final table and didn't overly reward 1st place by such a large amount compared to the rest of the final table.
posted by Corey Eslinger at 10:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home