Any word about Stars and the 20% structure?

Is this a December thing? Has anyone gotten any proof on if they are keeping/not keeping this? I really would prefer it go back to the old 10% model so 1st place is actually a nice grand payday for a $3 tourney and 9th place isn't a measly 40 bucks for 5 hours of work.

[McMelchior]

Anybody who doesn't like the 20% can choose not to play them. There are a TON of alternatives.

The 20% pay-out is a very important and positive move to keep online poker expanding. I see them as one of the best initiatives lately to keep tournament poker profitable for us, that belongs to the group of winning - but clearly mediocre - players.

20% pay-outs is an incentive to keep everybody playing - a chance for even the most inexperienced (poor) players to cash just once in a $#@! while and keep it interesting for them to continue buying in.

20% tournaments just might keep online tournament poker expanding with a rate high enough to make it profitable for more than the top 5% - 10% of the players. Because the donks that donate their money to us are going to stop doing it if they don't cash - just once in a rare while. Professional poker players have realized this way back. Read for instance (the highly recommended) "The Professor, The Banker and the Suicide King" by Michael Craig. Or think of it this way: Who will continue playing a slot-machine that never pays out - not even a few quarters?

Remember, whoever don't like 20% pay-out still have a ton of 10% tournaments to buy in to.

Without renewal, developments and adjustments of low buy-in tournaments to benefit the vast majority of players who play tournaments online because they see them on TV, who play exclusively for leisure, and who have no interest in spending 5 - 10 hours a week studying tournament poker - tournament poker will much sooner than you might think stop being profitable for us non-top-of-the-line players.

So stop knocking the 20%s ! [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Best,

McMelchior (Johan)

I think a really high 1st place payout does a better job of getting people interested.

[suckbot]

As a person that is certainly improving his MTT, but not a lock for placing in a conventional payout, I like the 20%s. However, as I continue to improve and place higher more consistantly, I'll probably be back to the 10%ers.

[Sam T.]

I'm actually of two minds on this one. I understand McMelchior's point, and think that good players whining about 20% pay-outs is akin to high buy-in players complaining about low buy-in events. (I played five hours for a measly $2k?) The games are what they are, so live with it. (Now, if they went to a 20% format for a substantial number of tournaments, so many that I couldn't find one I liked, then I would have a problem. Of course I've fallen in love with the 20-table SnGs, so event that would be okay.)

My only problem comes when I accidentally register for one, but that's my own fault. If Stars included a "Hey, you realize that this is a 20% tournament, right?" pop-up, my complaints would vanish.

Sam

I'd love to play in some ridiculously steep structures. If it's not a final table, the cash doesn't mean much of anything anyways, so I'd love it if ALL the cash went to the final table. A 5$ where only the final table gets paid would be sick.

Something like:
1st - 32%
2nd - 17%
3rd - 12%
4th - 9%
5th - 8%
6th - 7%
7th - 6%
8th - 5%
9th - 4%

[reecelights]

I'm still not all that experienced in MTTs but $1198 payout (after a final 2 deal where I gave up $188 for the guy in 2nd) for a $5.50 investment last week in a 20% payout field was OK by me.