[Proofrock]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is a fairly easy conclusion to draw... players arent just buying in anymore directly, so many of them profit greatly just getting the buyin back.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

But this involves a few other assumptions, including the following:

(1) The players in the tournament have a say in the structure. Will a satellite qualifier say, "no, i don't want to play in this tournament because they only pay the top 10-15%. i'm really gunning for 20%?" I.e., this assumes that the tournament organizers are trying to keep the satellite qualifiers happy and figure this is a way to do it. This assumption doesn't make any sense to me -- why would you expect to get more satellite qualifiers with a greater payout. Satellite qualifiers almost by definition are trying to take a shot at something bigger, they got in cheaply, and I've never heard a satellite qualifier complain about a top-heavy payout.

(2) If the players do have a say in it, why wouldn't the pros who buy in directly and would be more likely to be dissuaded from doing so by a bad structure, have greater weight?

(3) Another underlying assumption is that good players prefer a steep payout structure. Though much of current MTT strategy is based on this, that's because most MTTs have a steep payout structure (chicken and the egg). Does anybody have an a priori reason that such a structure inherently favors the strongest players significantly over the weaker players? If this is the case, where is the magic cutoff number? Why not pay only first?

(4) 18%-20% payout is significantly different than 10-15%.