WSOP Main Event Payouts: 2003-2005

[humdinger]

[ QUOTE ]


In contrast, I played $5,500 of events in a different stretch of the series this year (and probably 30 hours in the cash games, for a net win)
...
... would almost disqualify you from having the rest of this discussion with me

[/ QUOTE ]

man, i was really hoping you were kidding with the "i'm better than you" comment earlier. unfortunately, it really looks like you were/are serious. you think money makes you a better person.

you aren't better. you aren't worse. you are sad and pitiful. but at least you turned a profit. congrats.

hd

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
i think the flatter structure is the only way to go.

i'm in the 'it's alot of money either way' camp for 1st. i don't think a larger 1st prize helps the game as much as more people geting paid. from my point of view, actually knowing someone who made the money would have much more influence on me than knowing that 1st place is $10 mil instead of $7.5 mil.

more people getting paid is the way to go... because most of the players didn't put up the full $10k, so $12,500 is great for them. if the entry is fee is raised it will only fuel the fire of online/sat qualifiers, which is fine by me. i think it's perfectly ok for people 'earn' their seat in a sat.

at the end of the day.... 1st place is still an enormous life changing sum of money, the final table is also close to the life changing amount, the top 10% need to get something so it's less of a lottery, and $40 qualifiers who walk away with $12,500 do exponentially more good for the game than the winner or the PR the winner gets.

that all points to flat structure as far as i can tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

In 2003 first place paid 34% of the prize pool. That's around $17.5 million of the $52 million pool this year, not $10 million. And a traditional structure would pay more than $20 million this year (40%). Dynasty wasn't asking whether they should pay $2.5 million less to the winner and hand it out to others, he was asking about "flat versus traditional".

$20 million is north of $12 million bucks after tax (assuming no state income tax, which I think is the case in Nevada). That's a whole lot of money in the bank, or getting you 5% per year after tax. Call it $600k per year after tax.

$7.5 million is around $4.5 million after tax (sorry if my math is bad here, pretty tipsy on that single malt scotch!), which gets you around $225k of after tax income per year (assuming the same 5% in tax free munis)...which is nice, but it's not retirement money if you spend more than that per year on your life.

In other words, somebody earning the amount of money necessary to plunk down $10k on a lark (which is around $19k of pre-tax income in the people's state of nyc) is probably making enough money per annum that the $225k per year from the win would not let them quit without cutting back how they live.

All of which is by no means to say that the dead money in the 5,500 person field, and the fun of playing, and getting to say you did it, and the shot at the fame, bracelet, etc. are not all good enough reasons to still play. I have two buddies playing this year in the me, both of whom thought it was worth it (obviously). But I did not, and the flat payout structure was a factor in deciding. So, in response to Dynasty's OP, I'd vote "no, stick with traditional" [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

p.s. I also agree with Caro's point about the skills rewarded with a "top 10% of field pays real money" approach (see the link earlier in I think this thread), but I personally think the "take this job and shove it" aspect matters more (in terms of the people likely to put up the $10k of cash).

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


In contrast, I played $5,500 of events in a different stretch of the series this year (and probably 30 hours in the cash games, for a net win)
...
... would almost disqualify you from having the rest of this discussion with me

[/ QUOTE ]

man, i was really hoping you were kidding with the "i'm better than you" comment earlier. unfortunately, it really looks like you were/are serious. you think money makes you a better person.

you aren't better. you aren't worse. you are sad and pitiful. but at least you turned a profit. congrats.

hd

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think money, on its own, makes one person better than another (and particularly not legacy money from ancestors)...but I do think that intelligence, hard work, focus, stoicism, objectivity, and a lot of other stuff that bears some relation to earnings, has something to do with the worth of a person.

And I certainly do think that people who try to mock other people for hard work (calling them "grinders", for example), tend to be the kind of people who are not worth all that much as human beings. So, while I was obviously jopking around a bit with Ben about the single malt thing (since I can only name two single malt scotches, and can't name any wines at all beyond pino, I am by no means a tower of culture!), I also don't put him and you in the same category. You're the guy crashing into the bridge riding your harley at 100mph drunk at night, he's the guy rubber-necking and saying "oh, that's a shame" as he goes by. In other words, he can be forgiven [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[querulous]

I think you're seriously misguided in your approach to this pokergripes.

Assuming a fixed entry fee (of $10k), no matter how you calculate pay structure there will be an income point where below it the money will be life changing and above it the money will not. As you've stated multiple times now, you are in the 'will not' camp with regards to the current structure and think a steeper structure would be more advantageous for you. The fact that this is true places you near the bubble. If you were making 100k more per year, how much steeper would the payout have to be for you to play? 200k more? 400k more? 100k less? What is the point where the money cannot possibly be life changing no matter what the payout?

Now, how many people do you think there are in that income group where the money is currently not life changing but has the potential to be so with a flatter payout structure? What subset of that group are interested enough in poker to play in the WSOP ME? What subset of that group are motivated enough by the money to play primarily due to the potentially life changing money? Do you really think this group is that large?

I think the 'JimBob cashed at the wsop, so can I' effect of a flatter structure is far more beneficial to tournament poker than 'Ashley Topher Vanderbilt can finally afford that really sweet mansion to replace his just pretty awesome mansion due to his win at the wsop' effect of a steeper structure.

Also, I skipped the ME due to financial reasons similar to yours, so I do understand where you are coming from, but I think we are few in a sea of many.

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're seriously misguided in your approach to this pokergripes.

Assuming a fixed entry fee (of $10k), no matter how you calculate pay structure there will be an income point where below it the money will be life changing and above it the money will not. As you've stated multiple times now, you are in the 'will not' camp with regards to the current structure and think a steeper structure would be more advantageous for you. The fact that this is true places you near the bubble. If you were making 100k more per year, how much steeper would the payout have to be for you to play? 200k more? 400k more? 100k less? What is the point where the money cannot possibly be life changing no matter what the payout?

Now, how many people do you think there are in that income group where the money is currently not life changing but has the potential to be so with a flatter payout structure? What subset of that group are interested enough in poker to play in the WSOP ME? What subset of that group are motivated enough by the money to play primarily due to the potentially life changing money? Do you really think this group is that large?

I think the 'JimBob cashed at the wsop, so can I' effect of a flatter structure is far more beneficial to tournament poker than 'Ashley Topher Vanderbilt can finally afford that really sweet mansion to replace his just pretty awesome mansion due to his win at the wsop' effect of a steeper structure.

Also, I skipped the ME due to financial reasons similar to yours, so I do understand where you are coming from, but I think we are few in a sea of many.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may well be true...it is possible that I am projecting onto many potential players a set of considerations that relate to only a small portion of the actual potential players, in which case my point would be that I'd prefer the traditional payout, and not so much whether it is "better" for poker to use the steeper payout. That's a fair point.

Also, I heard somewhere (might have been this site) that a huge percentage of the field this year came from supers played on line at PS, UB, etc., and for those players this debate could cut either way...I think you can make a strong argument that most of them are taking a "moneymaker shot" (where the first place money probably matters a lot more than the number of spots that pay, in terms of draw), but others here think that the "billy bob cashed so why can't I?" factor matters more...and I have no basis to tell which is the better argument.

Once you take out the super-rich, the on-line and BM super winners and the pros, there might not be a lot of players left in this field, or in a field with a steeper payout, so this might not matter much.

Besides, I only bothered to write this much once somebody called me a grinder, which is obviously the point I wound up caring about more anyway lol [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[maurile]

A winner-take-all format would produce a hell of a first prize.

Conversely, they could pay out at least $1 million to the top 50 spots. "Fifty new millionaires" would be a nice marketing slogan.

But all in all, I think the payout structure they're actually using this year looks pretty good.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]

$7.5 million is around $4.5 million after tax (sorry if my math is bad here, pretty tipsy on that single malt scotch!), which gets you around $225k of after tax income per year (assuming the same 5% in tax free munis)...which is nice, but it's not retirement money if you spend more than that per year on your life.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you (spend more than that)? Or rather, for what percentage of the population do you think 225k/year and 0 work wouldn't be life changing? For you personally, aren't a large percentage of your +225k/year living espenses tied to the fact that you work on wall street, which you wouldn't need to do if you won? How many hours a week do you work? Wouldn't it be worth moving or toning down your lifestyle in order to not have to work all those hours? How many consecutive questions can I ask? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I understand a lot of your points, but saying that 7.5 mil isn't life changing is silly. (And I realize that's not even the main question in this thread.)

[SumZero]

[ QUOTE ]
$7.5 million is around $4.5 million after tax (sorry if my math is bad here, pretty tipsy on that single malt scotch!), which gets you around $225k of after tax income per year (assuming the same 5% in tax free munis)...which is nice, but it's not retirement money if you spend more than that per year on your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are crazy here. First of all I think you are being a little conservative in your rate of return and amount after taxes math, but I'll let it slide because you also didn't consider inflation which obviously cuts the other way. But the vast majority of people (even the vast majority of people who play in the ME) spend less than $225K a year. I mean there are only about 15 million HOUSEHOLDS in the US that make more than $100K a year. Only around 2.5 million make more than $200K a year. And only around 1.5 millino make more than $250K a year. And people who make that much do not have to spend it all each year.

The other main point you are missing is that the 1st place person is making more in secondary income from a WSOP ME win now then he would have 5 years ago. So the expected amount of money the person can make in advertising, book writing, backing, celebrity, etc. is way more now then it used to be. So paying the person a smaller percentage directly seems fair as they have the opportunity to make more on the back side.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

p.s. Your statement that "single malt whisky" (by which I assume you mean scotch) has "diminishing marginal returns" (by which I assume you mean that "more expensive is not worth the extra money") would almost disqualify you from having the rest of this discussion with me, but for the fact that you were able to come up with the words "single malt" and use them in an analogy, which puts you way ahead of the field, so I'll let it slide...oh, IMHO that is [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for condescending to reply to one as humble as myself, albeit in a patronizing tone.

1. Whisky (as opposed to whiskey) certainly implies Scotch, but can also refer to Irish. Single malt Irish is also a lovely thing to behold. Where I live, its usually spelled whiskey, and implies blended.

2. Your assumptions about my analogy are incorrect, colored by your apparent inability to see things in terms of anything but strict dollar value (i.e., more expensive necessarily equals better). My use of the term diminishing marginal returns in regard to single malt refers to the fact that each additional glass, glorious as it is, lacks the delicate fine taste of the first. Not the fault of the single malt. I find that after 6 or 8, you might as well be drinking Canadian Club.

3. Your repeated use of the word "populist" sugggests an elitist attitude that if something is has a positive impact on the majority, it must be wrong. Everything is wrong for somebody. The new structure may be "wrong" for a few in strategic terms, but if someone has an extra $10K that they would plunk down for a shot at a $20 mil jackpot, I'm guessing that they will take a shot at $10 mil just as quickly, especially given the additional psychic rewards. For anyone with that kind of cash, other factors (e.g., ego) are more important than the prize.

4. The number of people who decide whether or not to play in the WSOP based on a first place prize of $7.5 mil vs $10 mil, or $10 mil vs $20 mil, is insignificant, and will have zero impact on the game. They can take their $10K and go play in the big game at Teddy KGB's place, and their absence in LV will not be of any note. As you state, the size of the jackpot for you is just one of many considerations, and not the primary one. As you do not note, you and people who think this way (who even think about the size of the first place prize) are in a very small minority. The flattened prize structure will have a noticeable impact on the WSOP in particular and the game of poker in general. And it will have a direct impact on the majority of players, especially those who post here.

[mosch]

Normally I'm a big fan of top-heavy payouts, but with huge fields, I think a structure like this is far more reasonable.

The fact of the matter is that there's not really a big difference between winning 7.5M and 10M. But having 300 extra spots paid is likely to make a huge difference to the majority of people who super-satellite into the ME.

Only the greediest of bastards is going to be upset at "only" winning $7.5M, as any reasonable person knows that their chance of winning 1st was extremely low, even if their name is Phil Ivey or Ted Forrest.