Irish Open - Payouts

Ace Reporter

I am considering publishing an article on the subject of payouts at the Irish Open, in particular those at the lower end of the scale. For a major 4 day event I think it is unacceptable for the players who just make the money, ie places 72 to 64, to be awarded a prize of €3,500, the exact amount of the buy in to the tournament. Surely after playing for two days and making the top 10%, players should be entitled to make a bit of profit, if only to help cover their expenses, hotel, travel etc. What do you think?
Mick McCloskey

sosh

I toatally agree with the idea of at least covering expenses

nicnicnic

I agree players should achieve a reward greater then the buy in for cashing. The 2006 IO was amazing in relation to this when it paid .66 of buy in for a cash.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/event.php?a=r&n=16631

cuterob

i think it has a lot to do with pp being able to say 1st place got 600k in thier tourney

Doc Farrell

exactly cuterob.

sponsorship or a sugardaddy to buy into tourneys that pay out so top heavy.

(not bitter about the 400 i spent not winning ticket...)

edit: been a long time since i called a guy named Rob cute, almost a week.

Ollieboy

a lot of people feel paying 10% is even too much, that they should only pay 5%. Whats really bad is players coming 18 and only getting maybe 10k when the winner gets 600k, the difference between the top 3 places is far to much and forces deal making.

Would perfer flatter payout structures at the final table, but at the bottom end I'm happy with people getting there buy-in back.

cardrooms.ie

I do think prizes should be greater than the buy-in. Why play for 2 days to just get your money back. And i know some with say that its better than nothing but I don't buy into a tournament to win my money back plus it takes the pressure of the low stacks much earlier who can just start pushing with anything.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

mocata

Paying out more to the bottom only rewards nitty play. Every prize comes off first prize really I bet there are numerous players who have scraped into the £££ multiple times by allowing themselves to get short-stacked and then outlasting the bubble only to have a good whinge about their time/reward when they push for 1.5 BB and get knocked out.

mormank

i would argue that by getting your money backis covering your costs. once you pay to buy into the tournament or whatever that money is no longer yours and anything you win back is a 'bonus' and helps to cover your expenses. its not like a cash game where you might want to make some profit to cover your weekend or whatever.

having said that i would agree that 10% of the field is the max for payouts. i am unaware of the nukber of runners this year in the irish open. it is so obvious tho that less is being payed to the bottom few players to enable PP to say how big a first prize there is on offer etc..and tbf you cannot blame them for wanting to do this whether we agree with it or not.

whenever i get into the money i see my reward as getting my money back or doubled or whatever plus a 'free shot' at winning a much greater prize...

mormank

also to anyone who voted that the bottom payout shoulod be at least double could you explain to me where you got this idea?? also do you think it should be double for just this tournie or for your local 50 fo also and for the WSOP main event??

nicnicnic

mormank wrote: »

also to anyone who voted that the bottom payout shoulod be at least double could you explain to me where you got this idea?? also do you think it should be double for just this tournie or for your local 50 fo also and for the WSOP main event??

it is at least double in the wsop main event

bohsman

Any tournament I do have involvement in the prize structure I will push for the first payout to be double the buy in, Ive always hated playing a tournament for hours only to get my money back, its also completely put me off stars. I agree with Lloyd to an extent but I do think you should be rewarded for being able to finish off a tournament with a wn instead of a very flat structure. I thought the prize structure in the Blanch 300 event on Saturday was very good with just over 10% paid. Opinions?

35 runners, €10,500 prizepool

1. €4000
2. €2,900
3. €1,800
4. €1,200
5. €600

LTL

I just don't understand the arguements against a flatter payout stucture, particularly at final tables where in many tournaments there is little to no play left at this point.

After 2/3 (long) days of poker ,why should the payouts heavily favour those who ,in many cases, were lucky enough to pick up hands for the last hour of a 30 hour tournament.

Over the long term, the people who can play the game well will consistently end up in the money and less 'luck' will be put on picking up hands late on in tournaments when the blind/stack ratio is so low.

Flatter payout stucture favours those who can consistently play the game well and therefore there is less emphaisis on luck.

bohsman

Anyone can go deep into the money in a tournament without playing a hand but theyll eventually be blinded out. People that actually play good aggresive poker should be rewarded for pushing on and having the ability to win a tournament.

corkie123

#
u should be paid at least double for cashing in any tourie i feel .to play long hours and only get bach your entry fee is bollix to me . the world series have bought in double payments at least in there events which i think is right

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Ace Reporter

nicnicnic wrote: »

it is at least double in the wsop main event

As Nic says, the payout in the WSOP main event is now at least double the buy in. The Irish Open is the only major tournament that I know of, worldwide, which has paid out the same, or less, than the tournament buy in.
If someone knows different, I would be interested to know about them.

corkie123

Ace Reporter wrote: »

As Nic says, the payout in the WSOP main event is now at least double the buy in. The Irish Open is the only major tournament that I know of, worldwide, which has paid out the same, or less, than the tournament buy in.
If someone knows different, I would be interested to know about them.

ept aussie millons do as well mick

mocata

I see the point about taking advantage of players tightening, but that is true as well of pay jumps/FT approaching. Maybe wot i am getting at is the place to aim for is the top of the pay structure, the lower payouts are just to soften the blow, not a way to compensate you for your time/pay your expenses. If you cant afford to cheerfully wave goodbye to the buyin/costs then u cant afford to play the tourny IMO.

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Taxipete29

The current structure though does give a good return for those players who have won their tickets( which I would imagine is a decent enough % of the Irish open Field).

If less of the field were paid or if the top prize was not as big, the enticement for more recreational players to try to qualify might not be as great therefore leading to smaller numbers and a smaller pool anyway. Just my 2 cents

ArmaniJeanss

The WSOPME pays 10% and pays minimum double, but yet is still accused of being too top heavy !

I think its those who finish between places 20 and ~200 who suffer, I remember thinking that Hawkeyes payout last summer for finishing so high should have been a lot more.

mocata

In fairness it must be a tough job deciding payouts for the organisers. Absolutely no way to please everyone, I agree with paying smaller field at a far better rate, but as pointed out, that makes it less attractive to the casual punters and potentially lessens future years prizepools.

fixer

If anyone is interested, here's the payout system that TD Matt Savage used for this weekend's $300+35 tournament in LA, with 1898 entries.

http://www.commercecasino.com/images/uploads/TournamentResults/CalStateEvent2Finalnopic.pdf

dacman

fixer wrote: »

If anyone is interested, here's the payout system that TD Matt Savage used for this weekend's $300+35 tournament in LA, with 1898 entries.

http://www.commercecasino.com/images/uploads/TournamentResults/CalStateEvent2Finalnopic.pdf

fair amt of entries that

Wolves

from that list:

Nguyen Nguyen, Westminster, CA

lol win win

Jesus Wept

Wolves wrote: »

from that list:

Nguyen Nguyen, Westminster, CA

lol win win

I recall watching WPT once when a player called Danny Nguyen got allin vs (I think) Scotty Nguyen, leading to Vince Van Pattens finest moment as he announced something along the lines of 'You could call this a Nguyen-Nguyen situation!'

mormank

nicnicnic wrote: »

it is at least double in the wsop main event

i wasnt sayin that it wasnt. its just that alot of ppl's arguments for it being at least double is that it should cover your expenses..well double a 100fo buy in wont cover expenses in the same way thay a 10k buy in tournie would for example...so i think this argument is void tbh

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

Whyno

Imo it should be double the buy in. Nothin as bad playing for two days, scraping into the money just to recieve your buy in back. Doesnt make any sense. Sure it creates a big purse for the winner and thus creates publicity but nothin about a guy who scraps into the money by playing perfect poker only for his aces to be beat by 52 off and only gettin his buyin back after two days or more of poker. Very disheartening imo

mormank

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Taxi, entry fee, food, waitress tips, plus some profit.

ya exactly, whereas double a 10k buy in will not cover just these things so i think to say you need to at least double the buy in to cover expenses is redundant

mormank

Whyno wrote: »

Imo it should be double the buy in. Nothin as bad playing for two days, scraping into the money just to recieve your buy in back. Doesnt make any sense. Sure it creates a big purse for the winner and thus creates publicity but nothin about a guy who scraps into the money by playing perfect poker only for his aces to be beat by 52 off and only gettin his buyin back after two days or more of poker. Very disheartening imo

nah its more disheartening to be playing for two days and be the bubble boy!! would be even more disheartening if it was double the buy in. so again i dont see this as a legitimate reason for having at least double the buy in being the bottom payout...plus its probably even worse to have your aces busted by 5 2 off suit in heads up play or anywhere really so that doesnt really come into the equation either imo.

Ace Reporter

corkie123 wrote: »

ept aussie millons do as well mick

Been checking. Smallest payout at Aussie Millions main 10K event this year was 15K.
Recent Monte Carlo EPT main 10K event, smallest payout 20K.
Regular EPT events this year all paid out more than the buy in for smallest prizes.

fixer

dacman wrote: »

fair amt of entries that

I believe Matt Savage announced that this was the largest live tournament field outside of the WSOP.

Ace Reporter

Anyone from Paddy Power Poker wish to air an opinion on this subject?

LuckyLloyd

This post has been deleted.

corkie123

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

To be fair, I'm not sure the lads who post here would have an influence over the payout structure. Though I could be way wrong on that.

i say BCB should have some idea of how they work out there pay outs and a reply to this would be nice to get there info on this

BigCityBanker

I dont have alot to add other than that this thread has been noted and circulated to the relevant parties. This topic has also been added as a discussion point for our next meeting.

If somebody wants to propose a compelling alternative payout structure then fly ahead. But keep in mind that if you are to listen to the opinions on the parties in this thread (and this is onlt a small sample of ppl) you must

- pay double buyin as the min cash
- pay more to the first half of the cashers
- pay more to those who finish 10 - 18th (or thereabouts)
- flatten the payout structure for the top 3 to avoid dealmaking

Then dont forget the other commercial concerns

- have a meaningful 1st prize in line with other major european tournaments.
- pay a % of the field in keeping with other european majors

We try and be fair with our payout structures and we also try to keep as many people as happy as possible. Perhaps the best alternative is to scrap the first 10 or so cash finishers and redistribute that cash to others? Then you have people complaining that you are not paying 10% of the field. its a vicious circle!

Ace Reporter wrote: »

Anyone from Paddy Power Poker wish to air an opinion on this subject?

I always have an opinion I also have regrets, I should have closed the laptop and went to bed instead of hitting F5

cuterob wrote: »

i think it has a lot to do with pp being able to say 1st place got 600k in thier tourney

nothing to do with this at all, it actually isnt even discussed and isnt a factor. What does a headline saying XXX wins 600k do that a headline saying XXX wins 500k doesnt do?

Ollieboy wrote: »

Whats really bad is players coming 18 and only getting maybe 10k when the winner gets 600k,

this is a point that gets raised elsewhere as a counter argument to paying more to the min cashers. There is only one cake, so if you give some people a bigger slice then somebody else has to go hungry.

Ollieboy wrote: »

the difference between the top 3 places is far to much and forces deal making.

forces deal making? what deals are you referring to? I am open to correction here.

2005 - no deal
2006 - no deal
2007 - deal
2008 - no deal
2009 - no deal

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

- never pay more than 10% of the field;
- be willing to pay a tad less than 10% even;
- make the first payout 2x the buyin;

If you do this it makes for a tougher and more exciting bubble, and lessons the possibility of deals at the end (or players wanting to deal when it 'officially' isn't allowed).

as discussed elsewhere the first payout of 2x is somewhat flawed and dependent upon buyin. But you have to start somewhere so this could be as good a starting point as any.

I agree about the steeper bubble - this would really suit the better players and would also be tense and exciting. The flip side of this is that you would probably have to pay out a smaller % of players and that the structure would go to **** at this point (in almost any tournament not just the IO) as this is by far the greatest inflection point in the tournament and you have just magnified its magnitude (should I be putting those words together?)

Im not aware of many tournaments where dealmaking isnt allowed (poker million?)

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The payout at this year's tournament was hilarious really. 72 paid, of which only 36 doubled their investment or better. Being honest, I'd imagine most players in the field wouldn't have complained if you had simply just paid 36 people - as it is only from there that cashing becomes relevant.

I think you underestimate how much people like to complain and how hard it is to try and please everyone.

nicnicnic wrote: »

it is at least double in the wsop main event

yes but as stated elsewhere somebody has to suffer for this.


Finally - lol donkaments

cuterob

BigCityBanker wrote: »

nothing to do with this at all, it actually isnt even discussed and isnt a factor. What does a headline saying XXX wins 600k do that a headline saying XXX wins 500k doesnt do?

fair enough, i was thinking that if in 07 they had 1st prize of 600k and then 08 buy-in goes up so 1st prize goes up(800k) and if the first prize came down under 600k for 09 it would look bad, like the tourney isn't doing aswell, well that is what i would be thinking if i was running it, but i'm not so it doesn't matter

also as regards deal making, sorel mizzi has said there was a deal done in 07, he got the most in 410k if i remember correctly

other than that, lol donkaments indeed

corkie123

when i ask for BCB to answer what ppp do i did not expect a answer so quick and so good . but for my 2 bob here what i feel .


like u said u can never make everyone happy with what ever u do but i do feel that if u pay into tourie even if its only 50 euro or even up to 10k when u cash u should get if not double at least 50% more than u pay to enter .the wsop have for 1 years or so been paying double your entry on cashing and now ept and aussie millons have followed as well . in the long run people who play in touries do not want back there entry but more than that at least .i think ppp should get the pay out structure the wsop or ept use which should not be that hard to get from them and see what they would look like on paper the payouts and then decide which is best for your players . using last years figures and numbers ye can see what difference would they have been to final table payouts last year .only then can u see the difference

nicnicnic

BigCityBanker wrote: »

forces deal making? what deals are you referring to? I am open to correction here.

2005 - no deal
2006 - no deal
2007 - deal
2008 - no deal
2009 - no deal

2006 deal

Ace Reporter

I just want to thank everyone who contributed to this thread. The poll is open until Thursday so you can still cast a vote about what you feel should be the approximate amount of the minimum payout level.
Thanks again.
Mick

Grafter

There are of course a few players who are good enough to go very deep in the Irish Open (or, for example, the WSOP main event etc) on a regular basis and for whom negotiating a better final table structure is +ev, but for most, regardless of whether they paid for their seat or won it, just cashing in the Irish Open even once would be a quare tale to tell and if it were me (unlikely ), I'd feel deflated if I didn't at least double my money.

Imagine winning a prize in the lottery and just getting your money back, never mind playing your A game for two days or more and then getting sucked out on

Events like this and sites like PPP surely benefit more from "Joe Ordinary gets a nice touch" stories than from "poker pro wins another fortune" ones?

Ace Reporter

Grafter wrote: »

There are of course a few players who are good enough to go very deep in the Irish Open (or, for example, the WSOP main event etc) on a regular basis and for whom negotiating a better final table structure is +ev, but for most, regardless of whether they paid for their seat or won it, just cashing in the Irish Open even once would be a quare tale to tell and if it were me (unlikely ), I'd feel deflated if I didn't at least double my money.

Imagine winning a prize in the lottery and just getting your money back, never mind playing your A game for two days or more and then getting sucked out on

Events like this and sites like PPP surely benefit more from "Joe Ordinary gets a nice touch" stories than from "poker pro wins another fortune" ones?

Good post

PiperT

I didn't see this thread until this evening and funny enough its something I was discussing with somebody recently. I've always believed that payout structures in general are too imbalanced.

I think PPP get more value out of marketing the IO or IWF in terms of the overall prize pool (i.e. €2m or €1m Guaranteed) rather than the value of the 1st Prize. To most, a max payout of 20% of any prize pool for 1st Prize would/should be tasty enough but I'm sure there'll be plenty that would disagree with me.

I think getting your buy-in back is pretty sick after 2+ long days of play. I would like to see it doubled but would even be happy with a 50% return.

In a broader sense, I feel FT payouts are something that need to be more equitable due to the inherent "luck factor" in the final stages of the game.

Having said all of the above, FT's and Payouts are not something I've had too much experience of lately so prob best if I say no more :rolleyes:

nicnicnic

wsop payouts flattened again for this year

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-news/6741-wsop-director-says-2009-payout-structure-best-yet