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