won't change, but the payouts are just ridiculously top heavy

[NLfool]

Now I don't really know anyone still in the LAPC so I don't personally have anything to gain or lose, just an observation. But I headed down to Commerce around 3pm to catch some of the 3rd day action and side games. There were 6 tables going when I arrived and when I left some 4+ hours later there 5 tables going and bubble time had just arrived.

As a perspective I played in one the smallest buyin events and I stand to make basically as much for 1 day as some of the 37th-45th place entrants which is really sad for them.

Deep stacks, slow moving blind structure, competition against some of the best for 3 longs days and some still lose money or barely finish ahead of breakeven.

It's just opinion but I really don't think the 1st place player played anywhere near ~120 times better than the 40th place player. I don't travel too far and my expenses are low but such events and payout structures don't seem to foster a growing poker industry (not that we can see currently as the growth seems exponential with no end in sight).

I don't see how even a good player, can without being extremely wealthy or lucky, continually be profitable in the current payout structure. It's just too much of a feast or famine environment currently. Ok well my beer has run out that's the end of my late night babbling.

[italianstang]

Commerce structures are always stupid like that. $160,000 for first and $5000 for ninth? Ridiculous.

[ismisus]

Should be winner take all

[PokerPaul]

yes ia gree with you, but for marketing purposes the bigger the top prize is the bettter they can advertise and market their event.

Nobody cares to hear what 9th place gets when they see the posters or ads, they get lured by the top prize

[Lottery Larry]

why, so that one bad hand or unlucky break can leave you with zilch?

Won't that make collusion even more of a danger?

[whiskeytown]

old debate - is a top heavy structure better or a flatter one...

personally, I want the top heavy one.....make it worth my while to win.

RB

[brokedickrooster]

I want the top heavy structure as well. I don't want to play for 12th, I want to play to win.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I want the top heavy structure as well. I don't want to play for 12th, I want to play to win.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know why if the structure is not top heavy then you desire to win change.

It's more of a macho thing for all these people that like top heavy payouts. If you're a pro poker player and unsderstand the variance and the nature of poker, top heavy payouts are a ridiculous thing.

David

[scarr]

I was just reading these articles on this subject from Cardplayer recently:

And Justice for All: Should Tournament Payout Structures be Flattened?
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=13740

Poll Results: The Verdict on Tournament Payout Structures
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=13795&m_id=84

I was complaining about my 13th place finish in a 800 person tournament playing the same about as winning a 10 person S&G and ran across those articles. I can see the allure of the big prize money attracting more people, however, I like one guy's response which said places should offer a variety tournaments with different payout structures. People should be able choose. Maybe the market will find a happy median which attracts the most people.

I also think large payouts to a single winner is bad for poker. A flatter system will more likely keep the winnings within poker. I doubt these winners of these big online tourneys will re-invest thoses winnings back into the host site. But it is a minor point. I think many people shy away from these steep payout stucture tournaments. I suspect most people feel this way as more people finish out of the big money than finish in the big money.

-Bill

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
was complaining about my 13th place finish in a 800 person tournament playing the same about as winning a 10 person S&G and ran across those articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your sng wasn't so top heavy, that wouldn't happen would it?

[italianstang]

[ QUOTE ]
People should be able choose. Maybe the market will find a happy median which attracts the most people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wish this would become true. Introductory economics courses discuss free markets and market failures. One of these failures is lack of information, which is exactly whats going on now. LOTS of new players are getting in to the tournament poker scene and they don't know that there is anything different than VERY top heavy structures, they dont know that the payout percentages don't have to be how they are. This will allow the casinos (especially Commerce) to pimp their tournaments by promising gigantic first prizes (as mentioned above) and screw the player who plays great poker for even two or three days and ends up with almost nothing.

[scarr]

[ QUOTE ]
If your sng wasn't so top heavy, that wouldn't happen would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The 10 person sit&gos I play give 50%, 30% and 20% to 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Yes, 50% is more "top heavy" than the normal %20 going to the winner of the standard multi-table.

However, 30% of the players get money on an S&G where, only 10% get money in a MTT. Also, the distribution at the high end of the MTT is much more logrithmic than my S&G example. I would classify S&Gs as having a flatter structure than standard MTTs.

[RowdyZ]

[ QUOTE ]

I also think large payouts to a single winner is bad for poker. A flatter system will more likely keep the winnings within poker. I doubt these winners of these big online tourneys will re-invest thoses winnings back into the host site. But it is a minor point. I think many people shy away from these steep payout stucture tournaments. I suspect most people feel this way as more people finish out of the big money than finish in the big money.

-Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah people are shying away in records numbers online and in B&M . How many played in the WSOP Main Event?
I think that the payout should be top heavy for the winner if you want to flatten it out after that maybe thats okay but I think there should be a preminum for actually WINNING.

[sfwusc]

Should 11th get more than 12th? That isnt always the case either.

I would like to see a flatter payout with 1st getting 2x second, but each place getting say X% more than the place in front of them.

SWUSC

[Ulysses]

There are so many big buyin tourneys now this seems like a minor concern. The UB and Stars WPT tourneys had significantly flatter than normal (for big buyin MTTs) payout schedules. The LAPC WPT seems to be pretty top-heavy, while Shooting Star WPT seems to be somewhere in the middle. With multiple 10k buyin events every month, you can just play the ones with payout structures you like.

[brokedickrooster]

I think that a flatter payout will lead to even more deal making than there is now. If the difference between the top 5 places is only $5,000 each, then no one is going to play, they're just going to make a deal.

[nsj]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that a flatter payout will lead to even more deal making than there is now. If the difference between the top 5 places is only $5,000 each, then no one is going to play, they're just going to make a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would make the exact opposite case. If the final table in a huge MTT saw a more reasonable payout structure, players would simply fight it out to the end, instead of talking about a chop the second they reach the final table.

Dealmaking online seems to occur because players have come so far, and assuming a realtively equal chip balance and really high blinds relative to stacks, it becomes a crapshoot. Flatten the payouts -- at the final table and espeically at the final three tables (I think it's absurd that 18th pays the same as 10th on Stars) and I think you'd be more likely to see tourneys played out to their proper end.

[David]

uh.......I tink u got dis backwards maybe?

Why deal if there is little difference in payouts? You deal because there are very large differences in payouts.

[swarm]

"I think that a flatter payout will lead to even more deal making than there is now. If the difference between the top 5 places is only $5,000 each, then no one is going to play, they're just going to make a deal."

This is why tournaments work, they provide the drama of being busted out... whether you get busted out on the bubble or in 15th or 3rd place you lose considerable amounts of money if you had made it a few more spots.

If Poker is going to continue to have a large market it needs big, steep, payouts for TV audiences to provide the necessary drama. You want the players at the final tables to be at each other's throats.