PDA

View Full Version : Why do STTs pay 3 spots?


Mad Genius1
03-25-2005, 02:41 AM
STTs always pay 3 spots, which is either 30% or 33%, depending on whether they start with 9-players or 10-players. By comparison, MTTs only pay ~10% of the entrants. I understand that the sites want to pay out more people so that they don't go broke, but as I said MTTs only pay 10%, 2-table tournies pay out 20%, and 3-table tournies on Party pay out 17%. Why is there a discrepancy across the board? Wouldn't it make sense to pay out 2 places in a 10-person tourney?

calmasahinducow
03-25-2005, 03:08 AM
This is a very good question. One of the reasons I don't play many MTT's is that I simply don't like MTT's payout structures. I don't believe that 1st place deserves such a large portion of the prize pool and significantly more than second place. With the massive amount of variance/luck in MTT's, I think that MTT's need to be changed to a flatter payout scale. When you get to a final table after 2000 people, does 1st really deserve 10-15 times as much as 8th? You're both in the top 1% for God's sake...

UncleDuke
03-25-2005, 04:07 AM
I don't know either, but my guess is that the relatively large percentage of "winners" encourages more people to play. The casual player who doesn't play a ton of these might be discouraged by not placing at all in the handful of them he tries, but with 3 places out 9 or 10, there's a decent chance of him making the money a couple times and being encouraged enough to come back and try some more. Presumably the sites are going for high volume.

shejk
03-25-2005, 07:53 AM
That's funny. My main concern with MTTs is that the payout is way too flat. Too many players get paid sums that they don't care about.

lorinda
03-25-2005, 08:10 AM
Too many players get paid sums that they don't care about.

These people are all welcome to send those sums to me.

Lori

sloth469
03-25-2005, 12:15 PM
I kinda agree. It is very infuriating to make the money and get your buy-in back. I'd prefer they lessen the % of the field that gets paid, to the point where ITM is at least 2x buy-in. I understand why they don't.

proell
03-25-2005, 01:36 PM
As as extreme example, if MTTs were paid out in the exact same structure as SNGs I'm pretty sure we would all agree that they would be more profitable in the short term with far less variance. My biggest problem with MTTs is that it takes years to get a handle on the variance and be confident that you are not on a natural swing in one direction or the other.

For fun here's what payouts would be for a 500 player $100 MTT that pays the exact same as a SNG:

1-50 = $2,500
50-100 = $1,500
100-150 = $1,000

different strategy, and maybe not as much fun, but I would guess a more stable ROI.

rohjoh
03-25-2005, 01:46 PM
[ QUOTE ]


For fun here's what payouts would be for a 500 player $100 MTT that pays the exact same as a SNG:

1-50 = $2,500
50-100 = $1,500
100-150 = $1,000

different strategy, and maybe not as much fun, but I would guess a more stable ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math is way off. Pay out would be as follows:

1-50 = $500
50-100 = $300
100-150 = $200

proell
03-25-2005, 01:57 PM
yes.. flame away.

I was still thinking in groups of 10 rather than 50.
(5000 * .5) / 10 ....OOOPS!
/50 = 500

I'm an idiot this morning.

Voltron87
03-25-2005, 02:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why do SNGs play 3 places?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I said so.

valenzuela
03-25-2005, 03:03 PM
Because some guy said
B:lets pay 2 spots, 1st:7 2nd :3
A:no 2 spots isnt enough to keep ppl happy
B:paying 4 spots is better , a lot of ppl make the money and number 3 and 4 get their money back.
A:Makes sense to me..but third and fourht would lose money cause of the rake, thereby feel unhappy after the tourney.
B: And if we pay 1st:5 2nd:2 3rd: 1,5 4: 1,5
A: Good players wont like it, heads-up is usually a crapshoot.
B: Who cares about them, only like 20% of the ppl have a clue.
A: No everyone beats the game..the ones who dont are just unlucky.
B: The clueless still wont get the payoff structure.
A: So lets favor the good players, they do care about the strcuture.
B: How do we ask?
A: Lets ask Voltron.
B: Voltron what payoff structure do u want?
V: Mmmm...lets c 5 for 1st, 3 for 2nd and 2 for 3rd.

Vetstadium
03-25-2005, 03:28 PM
Or you can be with who I used to play poker with they would run home game tournament six players top 4 get money oh yeah and only a ten buck buy in..............I played there twice (second time just to get drunk). Poker is fun but I am there for the money too!

AtticusFinch
03-25-2005, 06:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]

For fun here's what payouts would be for a 500 player $100 MTT that pays the exact same as a SNG:

1-50 = $2,500
50-100 = $1,500
100-150 = $1,000

different strategy, and maybe not as much fun, but I would guess a more stable ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want a more stable profit play satellites. All ITM get the same amount. They're much shorter, too.

Mad Genius1
03-26-2005, 09:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I kinda agree. It is very infuriating to make the money and get your buy-in back. I'd prefer they lessen the % of the field that gets paid, to the point where ITM is at least 2x buy-in. I understand why they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the same applies to SNGs. I really feel like they shouldn't be rewarding someone for getting 3rd out of 9. Headsup play accounts for only 20% of the total prize pool...I wish it was 30-40%.

Ideally, I would think most good players would prefer a 70-30 payout structure for 1st and 2nd. I don't think any site does this though.