Online Poker Forum at Full Tilt Poker

wamplerr · Pair Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 26

I really dislike the payouts here. 2000 entries in the $1500 NL event,
top 200 get paid. I don't mind the top 10% getting paid, and if I were
in charge I would actually pay more spots.

What I don't like is structure of their payout ladder. My guess is
they are doing it for simplicity.

171 through 200 paid the same amount, $1,945
Next 30 spots paid $2,220
Next 30 spots paid $2,500
$2,780 for the next 9
$3,055 for the next 9
$3,470 for the next 9
$4,165 for the next 9
$4,860 for 64-72
$5,555 for 55-63
$6,530 for 46-54
$8,055 for 37-45
$9,725 for 28-36
$13,890 for 19-27

Here's the payout once you make the final two tables:

1 $611,145
2 $329,975
3 $202,790
4 $175,010
5 $147,230
6 $119,450
7 $91,670
8 $63,895
9 $47,225
10 $30,555
11 $30,555
12 $30,555
13 $25,000
14 $25,000
15 $25,000
16 $19,445
17 $19,445
18 $19,445

I think there are three groups of tournament players that can live in
harmony. Dead money, who is here to have fun (or they think they are
here to make money), EV Maximizers (who are here for the money), and
Players who want to win at all-costs (PWWTWAC).

The EV Maximizers gain money (by definition) from the PWWTWAC, who go
broke in situations that hurt their tournament equity in order to
maximize their chance of winning. This is fine for both groups. The
PWWTWAC's want the bracelets, endorsements, and camera time, the EV
maximizers want the money. Both come out ahead due to the Dead Money
group, and everyone is happy.

The structure in place really forces the EV Maximizers to play for the
win at many times throughout the tournament. Once you make the money
(or even if you are 100 spots away from the money), the correct
strategy is usually to gamble, because the ladder doesn't really move
up anyway.

Imagine you make the money with a stack that is about half the average,
but you are still comfortable with the blinds and antes (let's say you
have 20 big blinds). You don't get another pay jump unless you
outlasts 30 people, so you can't let yourself blind away. If you
manage to break even during the level, you will hit a very slight pay
jump, and you will again be at a point where you have to wait another
30 spots for any incentive, so you'll need to gamble there. Once you
make the money, you are really forced to try and build a stack. But in
a tournament, you should only be forced to gamble by the blinds, never
by the payout. The payout should have an incentive built in for
survival, so the grinders gain at the expense of most of the gamblers,
and so that a few of the gamblers can steal their way to the chip lead.
I just don't any incentive here.

It is ok if finisher number 2000 gets paid the same amount as finisher
201, that is a fact of tournament poker. But there is no way that
finisher 171 should get paid as much as 200, and no way spot 100 should
pay in the same neighborhood as spot 200.

Here is the WamplerR modification on this 200 person payout. I'm not
going to put a ton of time into it, so the numbers might not add up
completely, but it's my generality of an ideal payout. There
definately are no blocks of 30 spots getting the same payout. Every
time a player is eliminated, a player that survives should gain (or be
very close to gaining).

Starting from the top:

Old payout:
1 $611,145
2 $329,975
3 $202,790
4 $175,010
5 $147,230
6 $119,450
7 $91,670
8 $63,895
9 $47,225

New payout:
1 $500,000
2 $300,000
3 $185,000
4 $155,000
5 $125,000
6 $100,000
7 $80,000
8 $65,000
9 $50,000

Think about it like this. Imagine all nine players started with even
chips. If ninth gets $50k, and first is about 8 times more difficult
to achieve than last, should first really get paid 13 times as much?
Half the time, I expect to make the top 5, so fifth should pay about
twice as much as 9th.

Old payout:
10 $30,555
11 $30,555
12 $30,555
13 $25,000
14 $25,000
15 $25,000
16 $19,445
17 $19,445
18 $19,445

New payout:
10 $32,000
11 $30,000
12 $28,000
13 $26,000
14 $24,000
15 $22,000
16 $20,000
17 $18,000
18 $16,000

Crazy to be this deep in the tournament, and not to gain each time a
player is eliminated. The top 18 is getting paid about $238k less
under my payout.

Now starting from the bottom.

Old payout:
171 through 200 paid the same amount, $1,945
Next 30 spots paid $2,220
Next 30 spots paid $2,500
$2,780 for the next 9
$3,055 for the next 9
$3,470 for the next 9
$4,165 for the next 9
$4,860 for 64-72
$5,555 for 55-63
$6,530 for 46-54
$8,055 for 37-45
$9,725 for 28-36
$13,890 for 19-27

I don't mind paying a block of 10 people the same amount for 101-200,
but blocks of 30 people are crazy. So I would just take some averages
and make linear increases every 10 spots.

191-200 $2,000
181-190 $2,100
171-180 $2,200
161-170 $2,300
151-160 $2,450
141-150 $2,600
131-140 $2,750
121-130 $3,000
111-120 $3,250
101-110 $3,500

The old system paid $228k out to these 100 spots, my system pays $262k.

Now for 100 up until the final two tables.

Old system:
$3,055 for 100-91
$3,470 for 90-82
$4,165 for 73-81
$4,860 for 64-72
$5,555 for 55-63
$6,530 for 46-54
$8,055 for 37-45
$9,725 for 28-36
$13,890 for 19-27

New system:
100 $3,550
99 $3,600
98 $3,650
97 $3,700
96 $3,750
95 $3,800
94 $3,850
93 $3,900
92 $3,950
91 $4,000
90 $4,050
89 $4,100
88 $4,150
87 $4,200
86 $4,250
85 $4,300
84 $4,350
83 $4,400
82 $4,450
81 $4,500
80 $4,550
79 $4,600
78 $4,650
77 $4,700
76 $4,750
75 $4,800
74 $4,850
73 $4,900
72 $4,950
71 $5,000
70 $5,100
69 $5,200
68 $5,300
67 $5,400
66 $5,500
65 $5,600
64 $5,700
63 $5,800
62 $5,900
61 $6,000
60 $6,100
59 $6,200
58 $6,300
57 $6,400
56 $6,500
55 $6,600
54 $6,700
53 $6,800
52 $6,900
51 $7,000
50 $7,150
49 $7,300
48 $7,450
47 $7,600
46 $7,750
45 $7,900
44 $8,050
43 $8,200
42 $8,350
41 $8,500
40 $8,700
39 $8,900
38 $9,100
37 $9,300
36 $9,500
35 $9,700
34 $9,900
33 $10,100
32 $10,300
31 $10,500
30 $10,700
29 $10,900
28 $11,100
27 $11,400
26 $11,700
25 $12,000
24 $12,400
23 $12,800
22 $13,200
21 $13,700
20 $14,200
19 $15,000

Old system paid out $534k to these spots, my system pays $573k.

My payout still has about $165k to give out, but I don't feel like
changing any numbers. Maybe give it to the top 3, or maybe pay an
extra 50 people with it.

Either way, I'm willing to bet that a random sample of 50 WSOP players
would vote for my payout over the payout that actually occurred. I
should note, that I don't dislike Harrah's payout as badly as I've
disliked many payouts in the past, so I think they are on the right
track.

hdouble · High Card Joined: 22 Jun 2005 Posts: 11

I couldn't agree more, especially since most of the final tables have had the majority of players holding less than 20 big bets. The super top-heavy payouts and relatively short stack sizes make gambling for first the max EV play.

Broadsword · High Card Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 2 Location: Las Vegas

I think that the present payout structure for the top ten percent of the field is correct and flattened enough...

telex0 · High Card Joined: 25 Jun 2005 Posts: 1

It's done by percentages, not dollar amounts. Every tournament does it by percentages because it's not fair any other way to over-analyze dollar amounts and say "well, 600,000 is too much lets cap that at 500,000 and make the losers richer".

It's a pre-set percentage of the total prize pool, and that's how every tournament everyhwere that's done by anyone reputable is done. Sometimes you'll get a weird one that only pays the final table or two tables, and 75 percent will go to the final table, but you're always going to get things dealt with in even percentages.

I don't see how a nice and pretty even dollar amount prize structure is going to change or reward anyone at all. It makes things incomparable to other events (hence, the need for percentages in the first place rather than flat dollar amounts) and that's also bad for comparison from event to event and year to year.

If you didn't come to a tournament to gamble, why come at all?

xjellyfishx · Pair Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 40

Very nice thread wamplerr. I agree with you 100%

rockycatt · Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject:

a tid bit

feihua · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:11 am Post subject:

Imagine playing hand for hand from 100 to the final nine.

How long would that take?!?

francois8 · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject:

I partly agree and partly disagree. Feihua is right that paying in blocks of 9-10 allows for it to not be hand-for-hand very often which is better for overall play. I don't see any reason to award the guy who finished 81st and differently from the guy who finished 85th, lumping them together is fine with me.

I definitely don't think they should pay more than 10% of the field, so I wouldn't give your "extra" to more players.

I do like your idea of escalating a little more quickly from 200->100, but I would structure my spacing so that it accelerated a little more. They way you have it where first three jumps are for 100 more then next 3 for 150 more, then next three for 250 more is a little two flat. Each increase from step to step should be more than the previous increase, imo.

All in all, I do like your idea some. The current structure though is set up to have a big winner and a big headline... after all when people get into a tourney, they ask "what do I get if I win?" not "What does 85th place pay?"

Brunswick298 · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject:

Good post

feihua · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

Age brings wisdom.

Still think it is a bit shortsighted when it comes to hand for hand.

Actually,

more than a bit.

	Full Tilt Poker is licensed by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission. © Copyright 2004 - 2005 FullTiltPoker.com., All Rights Reserved