Bellagio 5 Diamond Payout

reecelights · #1 12-14-2005, 02:11 PM

555 Entries

100 Paid

18% of the field paid.

ansky451 · #2 12-14-2005, 02:15 PM

Post of the year

reecelights · #3 12-14-2005, 02:17 PM

Thanks. Sarcasm noted.

I found this interesting with all the Stars 20% payout discussion that has been going on lately.

ansky451 · #4 12-14-2005, 02:18 PM

I think a lot of the WPT events have 20% payouts, or close to it. I suppose it is because so many people are internet/satellite qualifiers.

Proofrock · #5 12-14-2005, 02:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it is because so many people are internet/satellite qualifiers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? How do you draw that conclusion?

Jurollo · #6 12-14-2005, 02:31 PM

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

billyjex · #7 12-14-2005, 02:47 PM

comparing the payouts of a $15k tournament to a $5 tournament is kinda silly.

Exitonly · #8 12-14-2005, 03:07 PM

why? we're bankrolled for $5 tournaments, and most of us were pissed that they moved to 20%.

If you were bankrolled for the $15k buyins wouldn't you be pissed that it's at 20%?

granted, we're not rolled for the 15k so for us 20% is just fine.

KneeCo · #9 12-14-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
we're not rolled for the 15k

[/ QUOTE ]

Speak for yourself.

...wait, I meant to quote the part where you said we *are* bankrolled for 5$ tournaments [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Proofrock · #10 12-14-2005, 03:32 PM

[ 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%.