Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The ideal payout structure IYHO.

  • 23-11-2005 12:44am
    #1
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    100 people play a hypothetical 1000 freezeout making the prizepool a nice round 100,000

    1. How many would you pay?
    2. How much in terms of cash do the various places get?

    Obviously I'm looking for feedback for the Paddys game but this is different. The answer to this can be applied to any game as the %'s (I might need a bit of help with them, awful tough buggers to understand) and the ratios could be applied to any game with any number of players.
    If I get a chance I'll write a little spread sheet to automate that as freeware, muso might even incorporate it into his website of useful bits and pieces!

    I'll post my own thoughts next to get the ball rolling.

    DeV


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    I think 10% is a good % of the field, it means cashing isnt too easy, and it worth is something. In the case of a 100 person tournament they should round it so 9 people get paid. 1st place should be around 30% and 9th should be around 2%.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    top 10 paid

    1st 30000
    2nd 20000
    3rd 12000
    4th 9000
    5th 8000
    6th 6000
    7th 5000
    8th 4000
    9th 3500
    10th 2500


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    imho, 10% of the field should get paid. so thats 10 places.

    Final table of 9 means that the guy who doesnt get to the final table at least gets something I guess!

    I've attached a spreadsheet in XL which allows us to muck with the numbers until we are happy, making sure that it adds up to the prizepool and that the percentages add up to 100.

    For those that don't have excel (and for speed of comparison and reading) lets paste any suggestions here.
    Place	Percent	Cash	Prizepool:	 €100,000 
    1	28	 €28,000 		
    2	20	 €20,000 		
    3	14	 €14,000 		
    4	10	 €10,000 		
    5	8	 €8,000 		
    6	6	 €6,000 		
    7	5	 €5,000 		
    8	4	 €4,000 		
    9	3	 €3,000 		
    10	2	 €2,000 		
    				
    Totals	100	 €100,000 		
    
    

    Ok, now a brief explanation of my thinking around this (and I think people should consider these things carefully when putting a structure forward).

    1. A more linear approach to the money at the top.
    We've had multiple rows here about deal making and how its ruining the fine art of playing for the win etc etc etc.
    Ironically its the top heavy structure that makes deals happen. I should know, I use it all the time to get deals that even the anti-deals crowd here have had to admit are pretty good for me!
    Suppose the payout structure for the last three ran something like (its extreme for effect).
    1. 50,000
    2. 16,000
    3. 6,000

    Now if the stacks are any way level, this is the logic that will happen:
    Lets add up those amounts and we come to a figure of 72,000 and divide it by 3 giving 24,000 a man on an even split.
    How many times in the clubs have we heard "sure you'd have to win to do better!". This is actually what KILLS the final table play out because this makes a good deal of sense. The risk is simply too big for the players comfort zones, they came to risk 500 notes, not 18,000 notes (the difference between the deal and third)!
    If you were to reject the deal and come either second or (God forbid) third, you've lost money by rejecting it. The way people think of that is: "I've a 2/3 chance of losing money or a 1/3 chance of making more. I'll take the deal" Should they think like that? probably not but would you turn that deal down?

    If you alter the top and the bottom then the amount risked for playing on becomes more reasonable and so more likely to be risked for the outright win. I understand this flies somewhat in the face of the maths but we have to consider psychology here too. Our job is to make a structure people go away from saying "that was a great structure, why doesnt everyone use it!"

    If we make that same 72k split this way:
    35k
    24k
    13k

    Now if we add them together and do the split, it comes out to be equal to second, and only a risk of 11k to possibly win 11k more. This is more likely to be rejected as a deal, which we are presuming is a GOOD thing.

    This is more obvious when it comes to a 4 way deal.


    2. 10% of the field get paid. In a field of 100 people I think we can agree 10% seems like a nice number to pay.
    Any objections? More? Less?

    3. A more linear rise in payouts from 10th to 4-5th.
    Oscar played his heart out in Limerick and got ~500 notes for his trouble on a 350+ 35 buy in. Hardly life changing cash though he did beat 100 players to get there. I got a little bit further (in comparison to the field we played through, not much further!) and the 10% I swapped with him was worth more then his entire winnings. I think that thats wrong.

    I remember getting 5th in the 100 game in the Fitz when it was reknowned for being the toughest tournie in Dublin, I played through a field of 60 people and got 150 quid as I recall. It might have been 200. Considering it cost me 110 to enter I was disgusted and angry. I am still annoyed when I see the prize money taken from the lower end of the final table so that the tournie operators and organisers can crow about a huge first prize. Thank fully its tending now towards crowing about the size of the prizepool but none the less it still is far too common.
    The same happened recently to Davey Devil in the 100 tournie and he expressed the same feelings to me, its just not worth the time/risk.
    One lucky bugger (or more usually 3 equally lucky buggers) walk out happy and everyone else feels stiffed.
    Hence I have dropped first second a third a little more then usual and spread the love around a little.


    If you disagree with me about the deals element, ask yourself this, when was the last time the 270 game was played down to headsup? and how common an event is that? Its rare that ANY tournie I have been in or have witnessed has been played through headsup to declare an outright winner without a deal being done (possibly behind the scenes in the bigger tournies but it still happens)
    You have to ask yourself why that is.

    I've attached the xl spreadsheet to this post.
    DeV.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dub13


    bohsman wrote:
    top 10 paid

    1st 30000
    2nd 20000
    3rd 12000
    4th 9000
    5th 8000
    6th 6000
    7th 5000
    8th 4000
    9th 3500
    10th 2500


    I would go with this.


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Yup, Oscar and I seem reasonably close, in fact I think I prefer Oscar's but I want to look at it side by side.

    DeV.
    (and he did it without an essay :) )


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    I dont think it make sense to structure a tournament so as to discourage deals.

    I dont really see the need to go through this argument again, but I think tournaments work well, and are exciting to play when there is a big jump between each of the places at the top end. This means both aggression and sensible play are rewarded, a more linear payout means people will gamble much more (because they dont fear going broke as much) and make for worse poker IMO.

    I know it can be annoying to battle through x number of people just to sneak into the money and then be rewarded with your buyin * 2, but I believe a good tournament player should feel like that because you have failed. Feeling good about limping into the money is a bad pschological attitude, given the prizes structures out there now you should play to win. If you play to win but bust out having made the correct decision taking into account your objective then you can be happy with your efforts. I think this is an opinion that ALL good poker players should share because playing to cash is a big leak that weak tournament players have, and we should be glad of any structure that increases our edge. Making the prize money more linear and giving money to the bottom few decreases a good tournament players edge.


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    They aren't exciting to play or watch because they are almost never played out.

    DeV.
    ps: we may be arguing over nothing because you suggest 30% for top and 2% for 10th which is very close to the suggested. Aside from our theoretical debate, do you see anything wrong with the payout structure as suggested, HJ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Hectorjelly


    DeVore wrote:
    They aren't exciting to play or watch because they are almost never played out.

    DeV.

    Ban deals then


    Edit - just so I have this straight, (I know that sounds cheeky but Im not trying to be!) you think we should change the normal payout structure soley so as to discourage deals?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Ban deals then


    Edit - just so I have this straight, (I know that sounds cheeky but Im not trying to be!) you think we should change the normal payout structure soley so as to discourage deals?

    He is giving out about the times when 75% of the prizepool is given to the top 2 and/or too high a percentage of the field is paid
    ie the Fitz end of month - 120 players 30k prizepool 18k to top 2 with 18 players paid. It gets too stretched out with 18through 12 getting maybe 300 the next four getting 600 etc


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Exactly. Boy, Oscar really had his Reddie Break this evening...

    I think deals (while not entirely the work of Satan, I kinda like them myself) are the players way of restructure a crap payout structure into something somewhat better. I'd like to make a structure that is GOOD and which ALL players feel is fair. If they still want to make a deal then fine but Oscar puts my concerns well.

    DeV.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,506 ✭✭✭Shortstack


    Lets have a pure poker tournament - Winner takes all.


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    back in your box you. Don't you have a car to repair or something? ;p

    DeV.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,881 ✭✭✭bohsman


    Shortstack wrote:
    Lets have a pure poker tournament - Winner takes all.

    They tried that in the cavendish and the players went and restructured it.

    Im all for it though, this thursday Mike?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,506 ✭✭✭Shortstack


    bohsman wrote:
    They tried that in the cavendish and the players went and restructured it.

    Im all for it though, this thursday Mike?

    That was only because they gt'd first prize and didn't get the anticipated numbers. A winner takes all event would be great as a one off and 120 players is not that many to beat. A once a year job with long levels and loads of chips.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,666 ✭✭✭Imposter


    I like the system PokerStars use for their big tournies. You have to keep 10k to play for at the end in the event of deals. I like those payscales DeV and Oscar but i'd add in the clause that any deal must leave at least 5% of the toal prizefund (in this case 5k) to be played for to determine a winner. That way if 4 people did a deal there's still 5k to play for at the end. Similarly even if 2 did a deal it's not such an insignificant amount of money that the players would be all-in next hand. I'm sure it's also a lot more agreeable to sponsors too as they get a champion at the end of it all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,533 ✭✭✭ollyk1


    I'm sure it's also a lot more agreeable to sponsors too as they get a champion at the end of it all.

    I only agree with restrictions on dealing or a no deals policy from sponsors if they have donated more than the difference between 1st and 2nd prize to the prize pool. Otherwise its the players money and they have payed a reg fee and therefore they are 100% entitled imho to tell tv, so called sponsors and anyone else to f**k off and do whatever deal they want.

    Sponsors whose sole input is to advertise an event for their own benefit and give some more profit direct to the bottom line of the organisers have got their advertising and their branding opportunities but they haven't given a whole lot to the players so they shouldn't think that allows them any say in the game itself because they haven't "paid" anything for that right. If you put 20k into a 100k prize pool and insist that any deals that are made must result in the 20k being played for at the end thats fair enough and I'd be happy to play under those rules but don't tell me no deals when you are tellingme what I can and can't do with my money.

    I like Oscars payout structure.

    Devore I feel that if a prize pool is top heavy instead of doing a 3 way chop players always have the option to restructure the prizes although I agree with HJ that a restructure or a deal can take the pressure of weak players and why would you want to do that? But players at this level aren't stupid and the ingenuity of deals can be fascinating. Including facotrs such as 1 weak player who is clearly out of his depth and other players subtly using this in how they struture deals or play out their hands. Personally I find the negotiation of deals among, say 5 remaining players, and the play leading up to a possible deal maneovre when the field drops to 3 fascinating and its an added complexity to any tournament.

    Its going to exist with almost any structure and why fight it?? - advertise it to the audience. Explain to the audience on tv why a player might make a move that may seem odd given that the players should be playing for first but in the context of a deal happening soon may make sense.

    I was sweating a friend playing in a tournie with a decent prize pool along with a newbie to the game and when I explained the payout structure and the possibilities of business being done if certain things happened she was absolutely fascinated as she hadn't thought about the possibilities to maximise cash from the tournament in that way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,666 ✭✭✭Imposter


    ollyk1 wrote:
    I only agree with restrictions on dealing or a no deals policy from sponsors if they have donated more than the difference between 1st and 2nd prize to the prize pool. Otherwise its the players money and they have payed a reg fee and therefore they are 100% entitled imho to tell tv, so called sponsors and anyone else to f**k off and do whatever deal they want.

    Sponsors whose sole input is to advertise an event for their own benefit and give some more profit direct to the bottom line of the organisers have got their advertising and their branding opportunities but they haven't given a whole lot to the players so they shouldn't think that allows them any say in the game itself because they haven't "paid" anything for that right. If you put 20k into a 100k prize pool and insist that any deals that are made must result in the 20k being played for at the end thats fair enough and I'd be happy to play under those rules but don't tell me no deals when you are tellingme what I can and can't do with my money.
    While I more or less agree with what you've said a poker tournament imo is a competition. Yes there is money involved and yes it is the players money but it is still a competition. Crowning a winner (and not by pushing all-in for an insignificant sum) is important in promoting poker as a game of skill and not a game that is solely about money imo.

    Your point about doing this with added funds by sponsors is a good one and one that would be a good solution, which should be agreeable to both the sponsors/organisers/TV people as well as the players.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,886 ✭✭✭Marq


    bohsman wrote:
    top 10 paid

    1st 30000
    2nd 20000
    3rd 12000
    4th 9000
    5th 8000
    6th 6000
    7th 5000
    8th 4000
    9th 3500
    10th 2500

    Gorgeous.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭RoundTower


    Shortstack wrote:
    Lets have a pure poker tournament - Winner takes all.

    I had no intention of playing the tournament but I would definitely consider it if it was winner-take-all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,434 ✭✭✭cardshark202


    bohsman wrote:
    top 10 paid

    1st 30000
    2nd 20000
    3rd 12000
    4th 9000
    5th 8000
    6th 6000
    7th 5000
    8th 4000
    9th 3500
    10th 2500

    Agreed. Very nice structure.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    Paid..... Cash
    1..... 25,000
    2..... 16,000
    3..... 14,000
    4..... 10,000
    5..... 7,500
    6..... 5,000
    7..... 4,000
    8..... 3,000
    9..... 2,000
    10.... 1,500
    11.... 1,500
    12.... 1,500
    13.... 1,500
    14.... 1,500
    15.... 1,500
    16.... 1,500
    17.... 1,500
    18.... 1,500

    100,000

    And an equal split deal for the last six. :)

    And play for the trophy. Should Pokerevents insist that €1,000 is left on the table if there is a deal (like PokerStars do in the $215 Sunday game) and they play for that and the trophy? What do you think, Tom? :D


  • Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    I wasnt going to drop 50 quid for the trophy but then I'm a weak player who limps into the money. :p

    DeV.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,013 ✭✭✭kincsem


    Beware the injured golfer .... probably applies to limping poker players as well. :)


Advertisement