Payouts - How do they affect play?

[archcity]

I play in a semi-regular home game, $20 NLHE Tournament, 8-12 guys. Players range in ability, and we are not strict with the details (ie blind schedule, payouts, etc. are not set in stone and we agree before play starts). This works for us generally but one problem we have is agreeing on payouts.

Some guys like the big winner, for example with 9 or 10 players, second place gets $40 and the winner takes the rest ($140 or 160). To me this is just such a crap shoot, even if you are a good player it takes so much luck to make any money.

A couple of us contend that we should pay 30%-33% of the players. So in a 10 person game the winner would take $100, second $60, Third $40.

I contend that this flatter payout results in better play, rewards good skilled play with a better chance to win some money, cuts down on luck, and more people go home happy for 2 reasons: 1) Obviously, more people go home with some extra money. 2) Bad beats don't hurt as much at the end of the game.

What are your thoughts and how do you structure your home game payouts?

I just posted a similar thread about a 50-person tournament advocating top-heavy payouts and why I dislike the flatter payouts. But when we play a SNG with 9 or 10 people, we pay out like this:

1st-50%
2nd-30%
3rd-20%

Hope this helps.

[TomHimself]

100
60
40 is good

[Hedge Henderson]

In the home game I host, we've got a payout that's flatter'n Kansas.

For ten, first gets around a third, and fifth barely gets their money back. That's the way it is and, since I host, that's they way it will be.

The best players in our game like it just fine, the mediocre players are split on it, and ones who consistently bust out near last place don't like it at all. Funny how that works, ain't it?

So far, I've taken first or second in 2/3 of our tourneys, so I really didn't set things up that way just to buy a big-screen TV or something. I did it mainly so the less skilled and the once-in-a-blue-moon players have a chance to make the money now and then. Even those who bitch about the flat payout really like getting their money back.

I figure some players just want to gambool, and I'm better off not tailoring my game specifically to them. They'll still show up and donate their money regardless, and they tend to do it with more enthusiasm if they made a profit of $2 in the last tournament.

[Yawkey]

My regular game had been paying out the top three (50%,30%,20% usually along those lines). But recently we have switched to the big winners (66%,33%), and it has hurt our game I think. In fact we lost a regular that was almost always in regardless of if he could afford to play or not. The big problem is that when you make it top two are big winners, play for everyone becomes more about the money. This is not what you want, when you pay out more places people are much more relaxed and frankly play at a lower level more often. Plus you send more people home happy, which means more returns. Most home games are about having fun rather than the money, the guy who wins first place is just as happy with 50% of the pot as he is with 80%, so why not spread it out. Also remember the people who finish out of the money: when the guy who finishes 5th asks the next day how the game finished, which is more enticing for the next time? You almost made it, the fourth player played solid for a half hour and then lost putting the top 3 in the money, or the last 3 was a real grudge match that lasted three hours before the top two were decided.

P.S. still pissed off I finished 3rd tonight after holding the chip lead from the very first hand for over four hours, just to double up both my opponents on the bubble making me the short stack where it counts.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
I play in a semi-regular home game, $20 NLHE Tournament, 8-12 guys. Players range in ability, and we are not strict with the details (ie blind schedule, payouts, etc. are not set in stone and we agree before play starts). This works for us generally but one problem we have is agreeing on payouts.

Some guys like the big winner, for example with 9 or 10 players, second place gets $40 and the winner takes the rest ($140 or 160). To me this is just such a crap shoot, even if you are a good player it takes so much luck to make any money.

A couple of us contend that we should pay 30%-33% of the players. So in a 10 person game the winner would take $100, second $60, Third $40.

I contend that this flatter payout results in better play, rewards good skilled play with a better chance to win some money, cuts down on luck, and more people go home happy for 2 reasons: 1) Obviously, more people go home with some extra money. 2) Bad beats don't hurt as much at the end of the game.

What are your thoughts and how do you structure your home game payouts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Compromise. With ten people give the third guy his buy in back and the extra twenty to the winner. So 120, 60, 20. I've liked it just fine int the games I've played with the last money winner just getting his buy back in, I'm there to have fun and if I break even that doesn't suck and I like the "big" score if I win.

The first structure I don't like at all, if you're only paying 2 people with 10 players, second has to get a bit more than that. At least make it 140 and 60. If its 160 and 40 I'm chopping every time the other guy will agree no matter what the stack sizes and where's the fun in that?

--Zetack