WSOP Main Event Payouts: 2003-2005

[Dynasty]

With more than 6x the number of players in the 2005 WSOP compared to just two years ago, the prize money being won by the champion and all final tablists has increased significantly.

But, the % compared to the overall prize pool is less than half for the champion and has been reduced by 43% for final tablists.

This results in payouts which are flatter at the top with good payouts going much deeper into the field far beyond the final table.

Do you think this reduction is a better way to run the WSOP main event?

2005: 5,619 players; $52,818,600 prize pool

1st: 7,500,000 (14.20%)
2nd: 4,250,000 (8.05%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (4.73%)
4th: 2,000,000 (3.79%)
5th: 1,750,000 (3.31%)
6th: 1,500,000 (2.84%)
7th: 1,300,000 (2.46%)
8th: 1,150,000 (2.18%)
9th: 1,000,000 (1.89%)

<font color="red">2005 Final Table: $22,950,000 (43.45%) </font>


2004: 2,576 players; $24,214,400 prize pool (plus extra $10,00 paid out by Harrah's to bubble players)[/b]

1st: 5,000,000 (20.65%)
2nd: 3,500,000 (14.45%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (10.32%)
4th: 1,500,000 (6.19%)
5th: 1,100,000 (4.54%)
6th: 800,000 (3.30%)
7th: 675,000 (2.79%)
8th: 575,000 (2.37%)
9th: 470,400 (1.94%)

<font color="red">2004 inal Table: $16,120,000 (66.57%) </font>


2003: 839 players; $7,802,700 prize pool

1st: 2,500,000 (32.04%)
2nd: 1,300,000 (16.67%)
3rd: 650,000 (8.33%)
4th: 440,000 (5.64%)
5th: 320,000 (4.10%)
6th: 260,000 (3.33%)
7th: 200,000 (2.56%)
8th: 160,000 (2.05%)
9th: 120,000 (1.54%)

<font color="red">2003 Final Table: 5,950,000 (76.26%) </font>

[Voltron87]

I'm usually a supporter of top heavy payouts, but when we're talking about 56 million dollars you cant treat it like every other tournament. I think a flatter structure is good.

[Nottom]

I like the flatter payout in such a big toureny. Just getting to the final table in a 5600-person field is as much as an acomplishment as winning most tourneys so its nice to see the whole table get a 7 figure prize.

Also in a field made up of mostly satellite winners, a deep payout makes more sence than when most people are ponying up the $10K. For someone who buys in direct getting $15K for 500th place or whatever might not seem like much, but to someone who wins a $100 satellite that's awesome.

[maurile]

A steeper structure makes sense in smaller tourneys because (a) the decreasing marginal utility of money isn't such a big factor, and (b) the players at the final table can generally cut a deal to reduce variance if they want to.

But with ~5600 entrants, the top 10% is ~560 players, and you really can't coordinate cutting a deal with anything close to that number of people. So letting the tourney directors cut a deal on the players' behalves by instituting a flatter payout structure doesn't seem like a bad idea.

[valenzuela]

Does anyone know where the 6 figure paycheck mark is?? I would guess everyone playing on the horseshoe would win 100k.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone know where the 6 figure paycheck mark is?? I would guess everyone playing on the horseshoe would win 100k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accoring to a post in the Day 1C thread:

73rd - 81st: $107,950
82nd - 90th: $91,950

On 27 players will be at the Horseshoe.

[benfranklin]

At least a million bucks for making the final table sure has a nice ring to it. $10 million to the winner would also have a nice ring to it, but that can happen another time. Who is going to quibble over a lousy extra $2.5 mil for first?

The poker world has changed in a big way over the last few years, and the WSOP is changing to reflect that. It used to be a fairly elitist event. (I feel ancient, writing any form of "elite" without numbers and symbols in it.) Poker has become more mainstream, and at least acceptable if not reputable. This year's payout structure reflects that. A deeper, flatter playout turns it into a much more amateur-friendly event. Think of how many hometown heroes will be able to go back home and say, "Yeah, I was in the money in the big one." Glory days.

The new structure is bad for the purists, but it's good for the up-and-coming wannabe pros and the good part-timers, grinding out a second income on Party or at the local B&amp;M. The more you spread the money around, the more it stays in play, and the more new players it attracts.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
With more than 6x the number of players in the 2005 WSOP compared to just two years ago, the prize money being won by the champion and all final tablists has increased significantly.

But, the % compared to the overall prize pool is less than half for the champion and has been reduced by 43% for final tablists.

This results in payouts which are flatter at the top with good payouts going much deeper into the field far beyond the final table.

Do you think this reduction is a better way to run the WSOP main event?

2005: 5,619 players; $52,818,600 prize pool

1st: 7,500,000 (14.20%)
2nd: 4,250,000 (8.05%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (4.73%)
4th: 2,000,000 (3.79%)
5th: 1,750,000 (3.31%)
6th: 1,500,000 (2.84%)
7th: 1,300,000 (2.46%)
8th: 1,150,000 (2.18%)
9th: 1,000,000 (1.89%)

<font color="red">2005 Final Table: $22,950,000 (43.45%) </font>


2004: 2,576 players; $24,214,400 prize pool (plus extra $10,00 paid out by Harrah's to bubble players)[/b]

1st: 5,000,000 (20.65%)
2nd: 3,500,000 (14.45%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (10.32%)
4th: 1,500,000 (6.19%)
5th: 1,100,000 (4.54%)
6th: 800,000 (3.30%)
7th: 675,000 (2.79%)
8th: 575,000 (2.37%)
9th: 470,400 (1.94%)

<font color="red">2004 inal Table: $16,120,000 (66.57%) </font>


2003: 839 players; $7,802,700 prize pool

1st: 2,500,000 (32.04%)
2nd: 1,300,000 (16.67%)
3rd: 650,000 (8.33%)
4th: 440,000 (5.64%)
5th: 320,000 (4.10%)
6th: 260,000 (3.33%)
7th: 200,000 (2.56%)
8th: 160,000 (2.05%)
9th: 120,000 (1.54%)

<font color="red">2003 Final Table: 5,950,000 (76.26%) </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I think Caro makes an excellent point about the winners giving up equity to those below them on the results ladder, and it's made worse by a flatter structure. Not to mention that it would be much, much better for the appeal of the event if the winner won 40% of the $50+ million pool. Just imagine, the $20 million dollar man--that's like a lottery result from a life-changing perspective, even after the 39% tax hit.

Nobody in the audience cares what the 400th place guy gets, so if it's not "good for the game", and also not fair to the people who do better in the event, why do it?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
The event if the winner won 40% of the $50+ million pool. Just imagine, the $20 million dollar man--that's like a lottery result from a life-changing perspective, even after the 39% tax hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
And 7.5 Million isn't life changing?

The 39% tax is one of the biggest reasons I would suggest not playing the ME, and certainly one of the biggest reasons why a flatter payout is correct.

Also, the difference in a person's mind between 7.5 million and 20 million is far less than the difference between 500k and 7.5 million.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody in the audience cares what the 400th place guy gets, so if it's not "good for the game", and also not fair to the people who do better in the event, why do it?

[/ QUOTE ]ppl in the tournament who pay the juice care. jesus. with 5.5K ppl flatter=way better.