[Tom Bayes]

I know that the question of what percentage have make the money and how flat/steep to make the payouts will always be a matter of opinion and most of us will be self-serving in our desires. The very strongest players with the deepest bankrolls would probably like to roll back the clock and play "winner takes all", but you'd probably lose most of the field. I think most of the donks, average, and slightly above average players would quit in that environment. If all online tourneys were winner take all, I'd limit myself to single-table SNGs.

I spent a little bit of time and analyzed approx. 500 Stars tourneys (all $5 and under, various games) that I have played in over the last 2+years. If the current 20% scheme had been used the entire time, I personally would have lost about 10% ROI. Keep in mind that I have zero wins (embarassing, but true) in these events and 16 final tables out of 504, so I suck. Better players who go deep and make more final tables and win some tourneys are going to take a bigger blow to their ROI than me. No one else has mentioned it, but the new payout scheme really sticks it to the people who make the second to final table (something I've done a fair bit of). The players that will benefit are those who rarely go deep but frequently barely make or barely miss the money.

Also, I just have a big problem with a freezeout tournament that pays prizes that are less than the buy-in. If 10% is not enough in Stars' view to keep the bulk of their patrons happy, maybe go to 12.5% or 15% of the field. I sometimes play on the B2B Network (24hPoker and other skins). They usually pay 1/6 of the field, which is still a bit too much IMO, but at least they never pay less than the buy-in in a freezeout. I did manage to lose money when finishing ITM in a rebuy their once.