Flatter payout structures

nicnicnic

I noticed stars are paying flatter in there guaranteed tournaments lately, tonights 250k

was

18%
13%
10%
7.5%
5.5%
4.5%

What do people think? I'm probably in favor a little I think, its common enough for payout structures giving 5/6 times for first what 4th gets here its just over two and a half. I think this type of flatter payout is fairer epically in large and very large fields and will also lead to a lot more tournaments being played out without chops. They have also introduced 3 pay jumps between 18th and 9th positions another good step I feel. I always thought there should be a difference in what the 11th place finisher gets and the 20th while most sites and live tournaments pay the same %

eagle eye

I think its a good idea as well.
I definitely don't want to play for 3/4 hours to get back my buyin and maybe make a 60% profit.
I don't think this is going to happen in many tourneys though.
I have noticed that they are doing this in the new tourneys with bigger buyins.
It might be that a lot of the high stakes mtt players got together and made this happen.

RoundTower

I like the extra pay jumps so long as it doesn't lead to c*nts stalling every hand.

Not sure if I like the flatter payouts at the top, think I prefer a good big touch for 1st-3rd.

bops

i like it - most tourneys (live and online) are way too top heavy and just lead to silly fag chops imo

wp pokahstars

YULETIRED

nicnicnic wrote: »

I noticed stars are paying flatter in there guaranteed tournaments lately, tonights 250k

was

18%
13%
10%
7.5%
5.5%
4.5%

What do people think? I'm probably in favor a little I think, its common enough for payout structures giving 5/6 times for first what 4th gets here its just over two and a half. I think this type of flatter payout is fairer epically in large and very large fields and will also lead to a lot more tournaments being played out without chops. They have also introduced 3 pay jumps between 18th and 9th positions another good step I feel. I always thought there should be a difference in what the 11th place finisher gets and the 20th while most sites and live tournaments pay the same %

observation.
only played a few online tournys, the winner of any tournament should get at least 30% imo. If chopping happens im sure the better players know a good deal when they see one. eg standard of player vis a vis money offered........flatter suits the donks imo

darby I'm surprised you like the flatter payout.

DeVore

Agree 100% Nicky, particularly in the large and very large fields. The fact is that, live at least, the payouts are actually flat at the moment because the players reconstruct the silly payout-structures to equal chops. We made that mistake in the first GJP big tournie.

DeV.

nicnicnic

YULETIRED wrote: »

darby I'm surprised you like the flatter payout.

maybe I'm feeling my age kid I'm even answering to darby, but take the million off the top of my head the top three paid get circa 1st 210K 2nd 110k 3rd 80k now in a typical field the first guy beats off 6999 players the third 6997 I donno but getting nearly two and a half times the third for two spots in a 7000 runner field just seems skewed to me.

gigetheman

nicky you will never get old,you might look old but feel it (never)

ozpoker

Personally, I'm more in favor of steeper payouts. But I think that it's pretty clear than flatter ones are better for the majority of players and the poker site also.

jimbling

surely flatter payouts are better for the majority of players here. I mean, isn't the point that a higher skilled player will get to top end more often.
Not me though; My game is based on luck

seriously...... it makes sense. There's a whole lot of luck involved when you get to a final table of a tournament, and as it's been said already, if you're after playing for 11 hours, getting past 6k+ players then come 4th :eek:

Only downside is that the weaker run of the mill player is attracted to the first prize place. They're on a gamble and looking to win big. And the bigger the first prize, the more players you'll attract. Don't think pokerstars will have that problem though :rolleyes:

And I like the extra steps between 20th and 11th too. I don't think the slow playing will be too much of a problem. Hand for hand works okay when down to two tables. It's when you got 50 tables that it's retarded, pointless and slows the game down more than the slow players..... and people STILL slow play during it.

Mellor

I like the flatter payout, reduces varience, which is generally good for better players

phantom_lord

good for the poker economy imo

RoundTower

Mellor wrote: »

I like the flatter payout, reduces varience, which is generally good for better players

actually it's slightly -EV for better players - consider what would happen if you took this to the extreme and paid everyone back their buyin minus rake.

ArmaniJeanss

RoundTower wrote: »

actually it's slightly -EV for better players - consider what would happen if you took this to the extreme and paid everyone back their buyin minus rake.

But if they brought it to the other extreme and paid no-one except the winner (taking 100% of the prizepool) then that wouldn't be good for better players either - the variance would force you to play at a smaller level unless you had an infinite bankroll (or a lot of time to iron out variance).

Mellor

AJ pretty much says what I was going to, neither extreme is great for anyone,
So the optimum is in the middle, somewhere.

But the two examples above involve changing the paid places, which is not the idea here. The flatter structures keep the places paid, but alter amounts only.
Going to the extremes here also;

Top 10% paid, everyone gets the same amount

Top 10% paid, everyone gets buy-in back, except winner who gets the rest

IMO the first is better for good players, especially in large field events. Where if you consistantly cash you will do well long term, and the luckbox element needed to cash in an event like WSOP ME is removed

RoundTower

Mellor wrote: »

AJ pretty much says what I was going to, neither extreme is great for anyone,
So the optimum is in the middle, somewhere.

But the two examples above involve changing the paid places, which is not the idea here. The flatter structures keep the places paid, but alter amounts only.
Going to the extremes here also;

Top 10% paid, everyone gets the same amount

Top 10% paid, everyone gets buy-in back, except winner who gets the rest

IMO the first is better for good players, especially in large field events. Where if you consistantly cash you will do well long term, and the luckbox element needed to cash in an event like WSOP ME is removed

wat