€100 off 1st €50 off 2nd...

MadsL

I'd like to get some reaction on offering a money back deal for the final table when only 6 of the final table are being paid;

Basically last night's SE €50 double chance. I proposed the usual €100 off 1st €50 off 2nd. Bernard was none to keen I could tell, but with 62 runners and a very steep final payout (50% 1st, 25% 2nd, 15% 3rd) and with me with a less than average stack (tilted off 15K when down to 12 ), the deal was to offer some insurance.

The deal was accepted on the nod.

I've my own strategy based reasons for often proposing this, personally I feel that it eases the exit for shortstacks, clearing the way for more play before the blinds increase. I also feel that it increases the double-up opportunities as it encourages more gamble (at least you are getting something back) and with a less than average stack I really want double ups.

Anyone?

ditpoker

i agree with you completely, i've been to the final table of the 50e double chance twice, once as the lowest stack and once as chip leader. Both times i proposed paying to 9th. if all the final table gets something it adds to the 'mystique' of the final table i think. i always think that the final table should at least get the money back, and the 100 off the top 50 off second does the job. and i too have noticed that bernard is NEVER too impressed with people changing his prize structure. if 62 people are playing and you finish 7th i think money back is reasonable. besides, if ur winning 1250 for first, 1150 is still a pretty nice win.

ianmc38

I think it's always good as it relieves alot of the tightness that generally builds up around the bubble.

thesteelheel

I think it is only fair that the final table would get their money back. Great to here the numbers are growing in the SE. I've played the €50 a few times and have really enjoyed it.

MadsL

Anyone else think the payout structure is a bit steep?? I would have thought 40% for first...

(obviously I didn't win it last night )

DapperGent

I like to see 10% of the field being paid and with that only being 6 people 50% for first doesn't strike me as too bad. I'd like to see it reduced personally with a bit of padding down the line (though it wouldn't be a major issue for me) as long as they kept paying 10% of the field.

willis

Paying 6 players from a 62 runner field is apppropriate imo.I hate people who say "i got to the final table and got nothing". To me the final table only starts when there is 6 left here(or 9 when all 9 get paid). 50% is a bit much but most tournies of this size should pay the top 3 heavily. You suggested the deal for your own benefit and it worked,nice 1. If id a big chip lead though i prob wouldnt have agreed...would you have suggested this deal if you were chip leader BTW?

O/T 63 runnners and apparantely 5 tables at the €75 double chance,emporium starting to get the numbers by all accounts

MadsL

would you have suggested this deal if you were chip leader BTW?

yep, have done in the past. For the reason that it eases the pain of getting past the bubble. Although, I know someone will say that the bubble gives more opportunities for the CL to run over the table...but I generally will propose the deal.

pokertroll

willis wrote:

O/T 63 runnners and apparantely 5 tables at the €75 double chance,emporium starting to get the numbers by all accounts

It was busy on Wed also - 5 tables I think.

Waylander

I agree with Dappergent and Willis, I think only the top 10% should be paid.

kincsem

I like to see all the final table getting some cash. Often players who refuse a deal end up leaving with little or nil. I have thought about this a bit. I think they overestimate their skill edge and play looser and get tagged. Even if they do win big without doing a deal other players remember and will make it tough for them in the future. You win an extra €100 and become a target.

In the 2003 WSOP the chip leader with 16 players left finished 16th. He commented before he called (and lost) a big pot that he wanted to win it. He lost the next hand as well (pocket KK) when he went all-in after an ace flopped.

MadsL

Happy with the 10% payout (apart from my rider about moneyback)

Quick poll; which payout structure do we like. (€3200 prize pool)
1. 50% - 1600
2. 25% - 800
3. 15% - 480
4. 7.5% - 240
5. 2.5% - 80

or

1. 30% - 960
2. 20% - 640
3. 15% - 480
4. 10% - 320
5. ~8% - 260
6. ~7% - 220
7. ~6% - 200
8. ~4% - 120

Here's my argument for the flatter structure;

A 50e tournament is likely to be populated by mostly 'social' players, to keep these players interested in the tournaments, and playing weekly (no pun intended) - it makes more sense that they actually make a little cash once in a while.
In my own case, with two 50e tournaments in a week I'd probably play both of these. This week I played 2, cashed in one (5th) and made €50 profit on the week. With a flatter payout structure, I would have made €160.

What's the difference apart from the extra money..As a 'social' player, with the 50 notes, I know next weeks tournie is covered. But I'll look at the hourly rate on that which is a pretty poor €5.55. Next week, I might think, ah to hell with it - I'll play online. With the 160 in my pocket I'm more likely to come back next week and have a shot at the 100 game, a game I wouldn't usually play on my BR. So the flatter payout will feed the higher buyin games and keep the numbers up in the lower buyins. Or am I wide of the mark here???

Also with a 25% 50% Payout for 1st and 2nd, doesn't this almost always mean a chop? The flatter structure discourages dealmaking somewhat..

willis

I dont like either. The first 1 is a bit mental alright,the jumps are too crazy e.g. an €800 differnece betwen 1st and 2nd. It is payouts like this which usually lead to a heads-up/3way deal. 5th should get more and there should be about €100 for 6th, taking this extra money away from 1st.

The 2nd is too flat. I think scrap 7th and 8th and divide the 320 extra evenly among the 4 prizes only,thus increasing all top 4 prizes by €80. This rewards players who can adapt better to the shorthanded game imo. Apart from this its a nice payout system though

RoundTower

Stop caring about the €50 "money back" for sneaking into 7th, 8th or 9th, and concentrate on trying to win the thing. Maybe the following structure would work best in Dublin tournaments:

Instead of €50, make it €100 to play. After one person gets knocked out (because someone has to be the bubble) give everyone €50 back and play for the rest of it with 10% or so getting paid.

MadsL

Instead of €50, make it €100 to play. After one person gets knocked out (because someone has to be the bubble) give everyone €50 back and play for the rest of it with 10% or so getting paid.

I'M LOVIN' IT

Marq

top 9-10% paid. I agree that 50% is too large for first place. I prefer 30-40%.

I have been thinking recently whether or not I would be prepared to deal on restructuring prizepools that are quite clearly ridiculously structured. ie, prizepools where more than 50% of the money is going to first in a tournament with a large field.

Fairer prize structures, more akin to those found in online tournaments (excluding Tribeca), are something that I campaigned for when working in the Fitz. I think that despite my refusal to deal, I would be prepared to restructure a prize distribution I felt to be unfair, but I would play on to the finish of the tournament.

What do other members of the "No deals" brigade feel about this subject?
If you are simply making minor adjustments to the prizepool that is obviously unfair (preferably prior to the final table) and still playing on to win, does this compromise your position on "Deals"?

I'm not referring to deals like "we all take a grand, and play on for 600", or "We'll take x and you take y and we go home now", I reject those outright. I usually dislike taking money off the top for the top 9, especially when there have been less than 70 players in a tournament.

gerire

I think the flatter pay structure is faired, and would lead to less 3 player deals being done, 960 for an evenings work is still a decent enough payday Plus the final table isn't about getting money back its a good return ffor 8th too.

But true enough focus on winning, or like me, clinging to the table for a cash out

MadsL

Interesting article on cardplayer on the subject. Mirrors my thoughts to a good degree - albeit with a bit more clarity.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=14639&m_id=65559