Flatter Payout.... How Disgusting is it?

[soneill34]

1 $ 8,250,000 -
2 $ 4,840,981 -
3 $ 3,048,025 -
4 $ 1,852,721 -
5 $ 1,255,069 -
6 $ 956,243 -
7 $ 705,229 -
8 $ 585,699 -
9 $ 525,934 -
10-12 $ 476,926 -
13-15 $ 429,114 -
16-18 $ 381,302 -
19-27 $ 333,490 -
28-36 $ 285,678 -
37-45 $ 237,865 -
46-53 $ 190,053 -
54-62 $ 190,053 -
64-72 $ 130,288 -
73-81 $ 106,382 -
82-99 $ 82,476 -
100-162 $ 58,570 -
163-225 $ 51,398 -
226-288 $ 45,422 -
289-351 $ 39,445 -
352-415 $ 34,664 -
416-477 $ 29,883 -
478-500 $ 25,101 -


I dont even know if i'm supposed to like the flatter payout or despise it.

What do you guys all think about it?

FT not all millionaires but in 2005 w' less people was wtf????

Horse Payout structure was [censored] too.

Enerything with the words structure and WSOP blows.

[rageotones]

i like it

[bogey]

It sucks Gold will be at the top of all-time list for the convceivable future, but its not the payout structures fault. The jump at the end seems huge compared to the flatness of the rest of it.

[chicheebee]

hang on - is that definitely right? pokernews has it down as the top 621 getting paid - seems to agree on other particulars tho

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
FT not all millionaires but in 2005 w' less people was wtf????


[/ QUOTE ]

That is [censored]

2005 Structure

1 - $7,500,000
2 - $4,250,000
3 - $2,500,000
4 - $2,000,000
5 - $1,750,000
6 - $1,500,000
7 - $1,300,000
8 - $1,150,000
9 - $1,000,000

2007 Structure

1 - $8,250,000
2 - $4,840,981
3 - $3,048,025
4 - $1,852,721
5 - $1,255,069
6 - $956,243
7 - $705,229
8 - $585,699
9 - $525,934

[Aleo]

yeah, it's horrible. No rhyme or reason I can see to the strange increments of increase in the final 9.

Also, why bother paying 20K as a minimum prize when so many sattellite in in the first place. For most, just getting the 10K back is a payday.

[StepBangin]

[ QUOTE ]
hang on - is that definitely right? pokernews has it down as the top 621 getting paid - seems to agree on other particulars tho

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokernews only showed the top 500 payouts but 621 do get paid, I know 621st is $20,320

[rageotones]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, it's horrible. No rhyme or reason I can see to the strange increments of increase in the final 9.

Also, why bother paying 20K as a minimum prize when so many sattellite in in the first place. For most, just getting the 10K back is a payday.

[/ QUOTE ]

all the internet qualifiers had to actually take 10k in cash to buy in this year if i'm not mistaken. i'm all about the 20k minimum.

[flavio321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FT not all millionaires but in 2005 w' less people was wtf????


[/ QUOTE ]

That is [censored]

2005 Structure

1 - $7,500,000
2 - $4,250,000
3 - $2,500,000
4 - $2,000,000
5 - $1,750,000
6 - $1,500,000
7 - $1,300,000
8 - $1,150,000
9 - $1,000,000

2007 Structure

1 - $8,250,000
2 - $4,840,981
3 - $3,048,025
4 - $1,852,721
5 - $1,255,069
6 - $956,243
7 - $705,229
8 - $585,699
9 - $525,934

[/ QUOTE ]

how about...

1- 8m
2- 4m
3- 3m
4- 2.5m
5- 2m
6- 1.5m
7- 1.3m
8- 1.1m
9- 950k

$500k for 9th seems like bs for 10 days of sweat!

[JP OSU]

How sick is it that 27th place last year got more than 10th will get this year?

[rageotones]

i guess i'm dumb, but....

why is everyone so worried about the 9 out of >6000 and not the large % of people who will be positively affected by this?

[flavio321]

[ QUOTE ]
How sick is it that 27th place last year got more than 10th will get this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

jack effel and harrah's at it again.

[Jurollo]

Because we dont play tournaments just to cash. The difference between 15k for the bottom tier and 20k for the bottom tier wouldnt really effect the sat players as they are making much more then prize money-buyin and it negatively effects the rest of the payouts a ton as it is a huge multiplier going up the payout ladder. They should have started @ 15k and flattened the FT a little, the whole thing looks like a huge mess.

[W brad]

Barry Greenstein was a big advocate of the new flattened structure. We need him to explain his reasons.

It seems to me to be a reasonable way to reduce variance. Even the best players in the world will only get to the final 20 spots about once every 10+ years with the current number of entries. This makes getting into a lower position in the money still worth the effort.

[5_year_old_bully]

[ QUOTE ]
Even the best players in the world will only get to the final 20 spots about once every 10+ years with the current number of entries.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol idiots.

Define 'one of the best players in the world': someone who I see on ESPN in the final 20 of the WSOP

Reaction: wow, isn't it amazing that the best players in the world make the final table once every ten years?

[chicheebee]

[ QUOTE ]

$500k for 9th seems like bs for 10 days of sweat!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. you've never had a job, have you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[flavio321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

$500k for 9th seems like bs for 10 days of sweat!

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. you've never had a job, have you? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i part-timed as a cook back in college. that's about it.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, it's horrible. No rhyme or reason I can see to the strange increments of increase in the final 9.

Also, why bother paying 20K as a minimum prize when so many sattellite in in the first place. For most, just getting the 10K back is a payday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, minimal rhyme or reason I can see anywhere. 1.5x is plenty for the post-bubble people, and WTF with the random number increments elsewhere?

Final table==$1M is a sweet idea, and was quite doable.

In Harrah's/whoever's defense, there was huge uncertainty about the number of entrants. But this structure still seems wack.

[Silent A]

I've always felt that payout structures should follow the following pattern as closely as possible ...

1st place/2nd place = 2nd place/4th = 4th/8th = 8th/16th...

with the ratio being whatever number it needs to be to ensure x% get paid and that the bubble is some minimum value.

If you do that with these numbers (60m pool, 621 paid, $15000 for surviving the bubble) you get a ratio of about 0.51 and payouts of:

1st $7,899,729
2nd $4,020,646
3rd $2,708,425
4th $2,046,348
5th $1,646,466
6th $1,378,480
7th $1,186,230
8th $1,041,509
9th $928,584

10th $838K
15th $565K
20th $427K
30th $287K
50th $175K
75th $118K

100th $89K
200th $45K
300th $30K
400th $23K
500th $18.5K
600th $15.5K
621st $15K

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always felt that payout structures should follow the following pattern as closely as possible ...

1st place/2nd place = 2nd place/4th = 4th/8th = 8th/16th...

with the ratio being whatever number it needs to be to ensure x% get paid and that the bubble is some minimum value.

If you do that with these numbers (60m pool, 621 paid, $15000 for surviving the bubble) you get a ratio of about 0.51 and payouts of:

1st $7,899,729
2nd $4,020,646
3rd $2,708,425
4th $2,046,348
5th $1,646,466
6th $1,378,480
7th $1,186,230
8th $1,041,509
9th $928,584

10th $838K
15th $565K
20th $427K
30th $287K
50th $175K
75th $118K

100th $89K
200th $45K
300th $30K
400th $23K
500th $18.5K
600th $15.5K
621st $15K

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a sweet structure. Have to adjust for 9-handed somehow, to get the table breaks in the right place, but that shouldn't be too tough.

Please get yourself on the Players Committee or something. This stuff really shouldn't be all that difficult.

[chicheebee]

does some kindly and numerically literate soul want to redo that structure with $20K at the bubble (since that was something they specifically decided to introduce, and not random as much of the rest of the payouts seem to be)?

[flavio321]

[ QUOTE ]
does some kindly and numerically literate soul want to redo that structure with $20K at the bubble (since that was something they specifically decided to introduce, and not random as much of the rest of the payouts seem to be)?


[/ QUOTE ]

20k at the bottom sound good because 5k is the expense to play the damn tourney.

[J.C. Gloves]

Ugh, so painful. They could've @ least made all the payouts at the top nice-n-neat w/ all those zeros we like to see /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Clean-up on payouts @ WSOP Final Table '07!!!

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
FT not all millionaires but in 2005 w' less people was wtf????


[/ QUOTE ]

This type of attitude starts with the assumption that the 2005 payouts were correct. Why are people making this assumption?

With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
does some kindly and numerically literate soul want to redo that structure with $20K at the bubble (since that was something they specifically decided to introduce, and not random as much of the rest of the payouts seem to be)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do that with my proposed system you get:

1st $5,918k
2nd $3,205k
3rd $2,224k
4th $1,736k
5th $1,425k
6th $1,213k
7th $1,058k
8th $940k
9th $847k

10th $772k
15th $539k
20th $418k
30th $292k
50th $186k
75th $130k

100th $101k
200th $54.5k
300th $38.1k
400th $29.5k
500th $24.2k
600th $20.6k
621st $20k

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always felt that payout structures should follow the following pattern as closely as possible ...

1st place/2nd place = 2nd place/4th = 4th/8th = 8th/16th...

with the ratio being whatever number it needs to be to ensure x% get paid and that the bubble is some minimum value.

If you do that with these numbers (60m pool, 621 paid, $15000 for surviving the bubble) you get a ratio of about 0.51 and payouts of:

1st $7,899,729
2nd $4,020,646
3rd $2,708,425
4th $2,046,348
5th $1,646,466
6th $1,378,480
7th $1,186,230
8th $1,041,509
9th $928,584

10th $838K
15th $565K
20th $427K
30th $287K
50th $175K
75th $118K

100th $89K
200th $45K
300th $30K
400th $23K
500th $18.5K
600th $15.5K
621st $15K

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to say that this is a beautiful structure, but there are problems.

In no structure should the increase from one pay level to the next actually be less than a previous increase.

for you, 11th to 10th jumps almost 300K, but then the next increase is only 90K, and similarly in a couple other spots.

I'm not sure but you seem to be running into this problem because your method of calculating payouts takes into account that 5 spots have been moved up, but it still makes too big a pay increase in those spots. I almost started thinking it could work if you simply paid every spot differently the whole way, but that could be a nightmare to implement.

[Aleo]

Yeah, as I was saying about no increase being smaller than a previous increase. look at the actual 2007 wsop payouts

64th 130K
63nd 190K

a 60K increase

13th 429K
12th 476k

a 47K increase

terrible

edit: looking back at the OP, I'm starting to suspect that's a misprint in the post and the jump is to 160K before 190K. Would make sense

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a sweet structure. Have to adjust for 9-handed somehow, to get the table breaks in the right place, but that shouldn't be too tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

The spreadsheet I made calculates a unique payout for every position. If you want to make groups, all you have to do is average them. For example, if you want 10-12 to pay the same (as the WSOP does) then 10-12th becomes $768k with a $15k bubble and $713k with a $20k bubble.

If you like these structures and hate the WSOP ones, it will probably pain you to know that it took me less than 10 minutes to do this from scratch without using any fancy functions at all.

[Aleo]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to make groups, all you have to do is average them

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that explains my other concern. I prefer not averaging them, but I'm sure no TD wants unique payouts the whole way.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just about to say that this is a beautiful structure, but there are problems.

In no structure should the increase from one pay level to the next actually be less than a previous increase.

for you, 11th to 10th jumps almost 300K, but then the next increase is only 90K, and similarly in a couple other spots.

I'm not sure but you seem to be running into this problem because your method of calculating payouts takes into account that 5 spots have been moved up, but it still makes too big a pay increase in those spots. I almost started thinking it could work if you simply paid every spot differently the whole way, but that could be a nightmare to implement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My method calculates a unique payout for each position. I wasn't about to post all 621, so I just listed some to give you an idea. For the 15k bubble, 10th through 15th would be ...

10 $837985
11 $763667
12 $701591
13 $648952
14 $603743
15 $564491

If you think groups are better for practical reasons, all you have to do is average all the values in each range.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to make groups, all you have to do is average them

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, that explains my other concern. I prefer not averaging them, but I'm sure no TD wants unique payouts the whole way.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a simple solution for Harrahs, Average and round down to the nearest 500 and put that into the aggregate for the next payjump. and dump the left over dollars somewhere near the final 27-9 possibly 10th?

[Aleo]

No, neither solution really works.

If you average the groups, the pay increases are too much compared to later.

If you have unique payouts, you get nightmares like stalling on every hand, simultaneous bustouts, disputed priority, etc, etc.

I'm curious what it looks like if you simply treat each group as a single pay increase.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I have never understood why this idea is so difficult to grasp for many players in this forum.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
No, neither solution really works.

If you average the groups, the pay increases are too much compared to later.

If you have unique payouts, you get nightmares like stalling on every hand, simultaneous bustouts, disputed priority, etc, etc.

I'm curious what it looks like if you simply treat each group as a single pay increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you're saying. One of the problems with the WSOP system is that there are sudden changes in the sizes of the groups. Groups of 1 for the FT (obviously), groups of 3 for the final 3 tables, groups of 9 for the final 9 tables, a group of 18 when it's down to 10 and 11 tables.

So far it's not too bad. But then they make the next group 63 players? 100th = 162nd? That's nuts. From there on in it looks like groups of 63 to the bubble.

The most immediate problem is that you can't have smooth payouts and a reasonable progression if you make sudden changes like this.

The other problem is that if you concede that groups must be made, then you should think of the 10-12 group as tied for 10th and understand that the gap between 9th and "10th" is really a gap between 9th and 11th.

With that out of the way, I will post what my system produces if we accept the following basics:

pool = $59.8M
# paid = 621
bubble = $20k
the same groupings as in the 2007 WSOP (including the ridiculous 100-162).

Any strange behaviour is mostly due to WSOP's groupings.

1 $ 6,332k
2 $ 3,382k
3 $ 2,343k
4 $ 1,806k
5 $ 1,476k
6 $ 1,252k
7 $ 1,0889k
8 $ 965k
9 $ 867k
10-12 $ 727k
13-15 $ 583k
16-18 $ 489k
19-27 $ 375k
28-36 $ 277k
37-45 $ 221k
46-54 $ 184k
55-63 $ 158k
64-72 $ 139k
73-81 $ 124k
82-99 $ 108k
100-162 $ 78.2k
163-225 $ 54.3k
226-288 $ 42.0k
289-351 $ 34.3k
352-414 $ 29.2k
415-477 $ 25.4k
478-540 $ 22.5k
541-621 $ 20.0k

[fluorescenthippo]

does anyone know the percentages for each place compared to last year. im too lazy to do the maths.

[Silent A]

Last year about 14.5%, this year 13.8% (for first)

[NickMPK]

The structure this year is a lot better than the structure last year. The problem with last year was that you could outlast 99% of the field, and still get only $50K...the pay-out increases were tiny all the way from 800th place to about 80th.

The 2005 pay-out was better, but because of the obsession with paying everyone at the final table $1 million, you ended up with some really strange jumps (e.g. $400K b/w 10th & 9th, but only $150K b/w 9th & 8th...and only $250K b/w 4th & 5th!).

The 2004 pay-outs were also really bad for the people who cashed in the middle (only $30K for 70th, $80K for 30th).

This year, the pay-outs are good for (a) the top 3, and (b) the people in "the middle" who outlast 98%-99% of the field but fail to make the final three tables. It would be better if they took a bit away from the bubble and made the structure less steep in the 4th-8th range. 15K should be fine for the bubble, as long as the pay-outs appropriately rise from there, and aren't stuck in the 20K range until you get top 100.

But people are always going to find something to complain about in the structure.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I have never understood why this idea is so difficult to grasp for many players in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, good point. Look at how much money Jamie Gold took out of play forever, instead of donking it off on HSP or something.

Oh... wait... never mind.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I have never understood why this idea is so difficult to grasp for many players in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Debatable
2. Irrelevant

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
The structure this year is a lot better than the structure last year. The problem with last year was that you could outlast 99% of the field, and still get only $50K...the pay-out increases were tiny all the way from 800th place to about 80th.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, in this sense the payouts this year are much better. There is no big inflection point this year, unlike last year where the payouts grew incredibly slowly until the final 100 or so when they literally skyrocketed.

I think my system points out one clear thing though, the top 3 places get extra large payouts at the expense of 5th to 27th with 8th probably getting the worst of it.

The only other potential problem is the 20k bubble, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as some others.

As long as prize growth is smooth, i'm OK with it, and this year's is pretty smooth.

[s33w33d]

I guess last year's absolute carnage once the bubble was broken won't happen this year.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, good point. Look at how much money Jamie Gold took out of play forever, instead of donking it off on HSP or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument, since for all but the handful that are playing that particular game that money IS essentially gone from the poker economy. A large number of smaller prizes would suggest that the money would come back in at a lower level, which more people would care about. And it would likely eventually filter upwards anyway.

I look forward to your sarcastic rejoinder.

[CrushinFelt]

FT should all be 1 mil+.

That being said, this year there are a lot less "free" entries via the poker sites and thus if people saw $24k for makign it 8 days that would probably be worthy of a "wtf". That is no longer the likely $23k profit and is now only $14k profit.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
FT should all be 1 mil+.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they should all be 2 mil +. so there!!

I agree with Dynasty and Sirio, the flatter structure is good. the entire poker world is better off with it this way, while the 10 FT's are worse off.

[Nicok7]

We should just pay half the field 20k, the poker world will be better off this way /images/graemlins/wink.gif

I don't understand this reasonning, it's a multitable tournaments and therefore should pay a few people a lot of monies, that's kind of the point.
That said the structure suggested by Silent A looks really nice, please join the WPA committee as suggested or write them your idea at least, and thanks for posting!

[Admo]

[ QUOTE ]
FT should all be 1 mil+.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Arbitrary requirements like this are the root of most payout structure evils.

(ie. WPT Reno: "we have to pay $1M for 1st place since this is a TV event and all, but the field is so small and it's only a $5k buy-in, so let's only pay 4% of the field instead of 10%.")

Structures should be set in stone before the prize pool is determined, not according to TV-friendly payout numbers.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, good point. Look at how much money Jamie Gold took out of play forever, instead of donking it off on HSP or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is a particularly compelling argument, since for all but the handful that are playing that particular game that money IS essentially gone from the poker economy. A large number of smaller prizes would suggest that the money would come back in at a lower level, which more people would care about. And it would likely eventually filter upwards anyway.

I look forward to your sarcastic rejoinder.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a counter-point, not an argument. Now we are into definitions of "poker economy". In other words, it's not clear-cut.

I could argue that huge prizes ==> TV ratings ==> idiots traveling to Vegas with $$ to donate. And I'd probably win.

But the real issue is that "helping the poker economy" should be about 12345098170987623 on the list of considerations of creating a WSOP payout structure, IMHO. And when it's not clear-cut, that moves it even lower.

[gumpzilla]

Silent A: I really like the logarithmic structure idea. EDIT: Err, I guess actually it's 1/x, so strike that.

[Artsemis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I have never understood why this idea is so difficult to grasp for many players in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, good point. Look at how much money Jamie Gold took out of play forever, instead of donking it off on HSP or something.

Oh... wait... never mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol you have just proven their point.

Yes, a Jamie gold donked it off... how is this better than 20 Jamie Gold's donking it off?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I could argue that huge prizes ==> TV ratings ==> idiots traveling to Vegas with $$ to donate. And I'd probably win.


[/ QUOTE ]

Once upon a time, perhaps. The pools are large enough now that first prize is still going to be huge (is it really going to stop people that first prize is only 8 million instead of 12?), and I would tend to think that the media saturation of poker has already happened to the point where people who want to be playing poker aren't going to discover it based on the TV broadcast of the 2007 WSOP. I bet prizes do correlate well with TV ratings, but I think that's more because both correlate with interest in poker in general. (EDIT: To expand if it's not obvious, I mean that if more people are interested in poker you're likely to both have more entrants for a larger prize pool AND higher TV ratings.)


[ QUOTE ]

But the real issue is that "helping the poker economy" should be about 12345098170987623 on the list of considerations of creating a WSOP payout structure, IMHO. And when it's not clear-cut, that moves it even lower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what are some good considerations, then? That one seems to me as good an organizing principle as any.

[AngusThermopyle]

FT structures with % of FT prizes

2005 Structure

Total on final table: $22,950,000

1 - $7,500,000 32.68%
2 - $4,250,000 18.52%
3 - $2,500,000 10.89%
4 - $2,000,000 8.71%
5 - $1,750,000 7.63%
6 - $1,500,000 6.54%
7 - $1,300,000 5.66%
8 - $1,150,000 5.01%
9 - $1,000,000 4.36%


2007 Structure

Total on final table: $22,019,901

1 - $8,250,000 37.47%
2 - $4,840,981 21.98%
3 - $3,048,025 13.84%
4 - $1,852,721 8.41%
5 - $1,255,069 5.70%
6 - $956,243 4.34%
7 - $705,229 3.20%
8 - $585,699 2.66%
9 - $525,934 2.39%

So, looking at just the FT, the payout was 'flatter' in 2005.

[CrazyEyez]

Admo is right. They should have devised a set % structure regardless of the number of entrants.

But it's all marketing. The two most marketable payout sectors are a) 1st place and b) the bubble survivors. They wanted to drop a) as little as possible from last year, while maintaining/bolstering b). This led to 4-9 getting completely hosed.

Silent A for WSOP Payer-outer '08.

[drewjustdrew]

[ QUOTE ]
But people are always going to find something to complain about in the structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as the payout structure is announced beforehand and all the $ is accounted for, I'm fine with it. Not sure those conditions were met here. When did they announce the payout structure?

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FT not all millionaires but in 2005 w' less people was wtf????


[/ QUOTE ]

This type of attitude starts with the assumption that the 2005 payouts were correct. Why are people making this assumption?

With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem I have with it is they "flattened" out the pay structure, but jacked up the top 3 spots too much. Final table is only about 900k less than 2005 because the top 3 spots are so high. I think flattening the final 3 a little (like 2M less between the 3) and redistributing it through the final table would be more equitable. Winning 7M vs. 8M for first not as big a difference to the average player as 500k vs 1M.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With so much money to be won, a flatter structure is better for the game than giving out a very high % to just a single table of players. It's more likely to keep the money in the poker economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I have never understood why this idea is so difficult to grasp for many players in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, good point. Look at how much money Jamie Gold took out of play forever, instead of donking it off on HSP or something.

Oh... wait... never mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol you have just proven their point.

Yes, a Jamie gold donked it off... how is this better than 20 Jamie Gold's donking it off?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? If all, or some given %, of the money's going back "into the poker economy" then the payout structure doesn't matter at all. It just depends whether you are DN (in case you want the final table as high as possible because you will get a piece one way or the other) or a low-level grinder (in which case you want 90% to get back $10.5K each).

So what you are really saying if you argue for a flatter payout for the benefit of "the poker economy" is that you aren't good enough to play the bigger games. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, what are some good considerations, then? That one seems to me as good an organizing principle as any.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about "the payout structure seems fair to those actually playing in the tournament". Which helps attract more players. Which creates more rake and a bigger prize pool. Everyone wins. Even the "poker economy" I suppose.

[Bobbo539]

[ QUOTE ]
$500k for 9th seems like bs for 10 days of sweat!

[/ QUOTE ]

I get what you are saying here in relation to the previous few years and the fact that people put in 10k to gamble here...

but if the majority of the world could read your comment they would probably be pretty disgusted with it.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
FT structures with % of FT prizes

2005 Structure

Total on final table: $22,950,000

1 - $7,500,000 32.68%
2 - $4,250,000 18.52%
3 - $2,500,000 10.89%
4 - $2,000,000 8.71%
5 - $1,750,000 7.63%
6 - $1,500,000 6.54%
7 - $1,300,000 5.66%
8 - $1,150,000 5.01%
9 - $1,000,000 4.36%


2007 Structure

Total on final table: $22,019,901

1 - $8,250,000 37.47%
2 - $4,840,981 21.98%
3 - $3,048,025 13.84%
4 - $1,852,721 8.41%
5 - $1,255,069 5.70%
6 - $956,243 4.34%
7 - $705,229 3.20%
8 - $585,699 2.66%
9 - $525,934 2.39%

So, looking at just the FT, the payout was 'flatter' in 2005.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because the 2005 FT was artificially flattened to assure that everyone got $1 million. What you posted conveniently omits the huge jump between 10th (600K) and 9th (1 million). IMHO, this big a jump (percentage wise), should never occur, except maybe between 1st and 2nd. The places below 9th got screwed just so that 9th place could get $1 million. This year, things go a little too far in the other direction, but on the whole, 2007 > 2005 >>> 2006.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But people are always going to find something to complain about in the structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as the payout structure is announced beforehand and all the $ is accounted for, I'm fine with it. Not sure those conditions were met here. When did they announce the payout structure?

[/ QUOTE ]

They announced it well before the WSOP started....I remember reading about how the prize pool would be distributed if they had the same number of entries as 2006, and it was along the same lines: ~$10 million for 1st, $20K on the bubble, etc.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, what are some good considerations, then? That one seems to me as good an organizing principle as any.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about "the payout structure seems fair to those actually playing in the tournament".

[/ QUOTE ]

This begs the question. What kind of criteria are those people using to assess the fairness of the structure? Should more skilled players have more say? Or is it just majority rules?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Silent A: I really like the logarithmic structure idea. EDIT: Err, I guess actually it's 1/x, so strike that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the basic equation is this:

payout = A * X^[log2(n)]

A = 1st place payout
n = finishing position
X = a number that must be calibrated to ensure the entire pool is paid out (usually on the order of 0.5-0.6 if approx 10% are paid)

and log2(n) means "base 2 logarithm of n" (in case it isn't clear).

You need to give the formula two of the following: bubble payout, number paid out, and 1st place payout. Whatever parameter you don't give, the formula will calculate to satisfy the pool.

If you plot this on log-log paper (payout v position) it gives you a straight line (because the formula can be converted into a simple power relationship).

Edited to add: out of curiosity, by "strike that" do you meas you don't like it anymore?

[afadeyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've always felt that payout structures should follow the following pattern as closely as possible ...

1st place/2nd place = 2nd place/4th = 4th/8th = 8th/16th...

with the ratio being whatever number it needs to be to ensure x% get paid and that the bubble is some minimum value.

If you do that with these numbers (60m pool, 621 paid, $15000 for surviving the bubble) you get a ratio of about 0.51 and payouts of:

1st $7,899,729
2nd $4,020,646
3rd $2,708,425
4th $2,046,348
5th $1,646,466
6th $1,378,480
7th $1,186,230
8th $1,041,509
9th $928,584

10th $838K
15th $565K
20th $427K
30th $287K
50th $175K
75th $118K

100th $89K
200th $45K
300th $30K
400th $23K
500th $18.5K
600th $15.5K
621st $15K

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to say that this is a beautiful structure, but there are problems.

In no structure should the increase from one pay level to the next actually be less than a previous increase.

for you, 11th to 10th jumps almost 300K, but then the next increase is only 90K, and similarly in a couple other spots.

I'm not sure but you seem to be running into this problem because your method of calculating payouts takes into account that 5 spots have been moved up, but it still makes too big a pay increase in those spots. I almost started thinking it could work if you simply paid every spot differently the whole way, but that could be a nightmare to implement.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Edited to add: out of curiosity, by "strike that" do you meas you don't like it anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I meant that the payout relationship seemed to me to be just 1/x. 1/x would obviously satisfy the requirement that payout(n) / payout(2n) would be constant (it would equal 2) for all n. It looks like it is not quite that, since you allow the ratios to vary. That's all I meant; I think it still gives the big rewards for finishing strong while naturally flattening itself out in a reasonable manner as you get lower.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just about to say that this is a beautiful structure, but there are problems.

In no structure should the increase from one pay level to the next actually be less than a previous increase.

for you, 11th to 10th jumps almost 300K, but then the next increase is only 90K, and similarly in a couple other spots.

I'm not sure but you seem to be running into this problem because your method of calculating payouts takes into account that 5 spots have been moved up, but it still makes too big a pay increase in those spots. I almost started thinking it could work if you simply paid every spot differently the whole way, but that could be a nightmare to implement.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out that there is no big 300K gap between 10th and 11th, it's a 300K gap between 10th and 15th. Again, my method produces a unique payout for every position.

I agree that groupings are needed for practical reasons. Then, it's simply a matter of averaging out each group as if they were in a 3-way or 9-way tie. This will produce some slightly uneven jumps when you shift from, say, a 3-group to a 1-group.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that. But if you think the jump from 9th to 8th should be bigger then 10th to 9th (even though 10th is grouped with 11th and 12th) then it isn't hard to shift the money around a bit, which usually means taking money away from 9th and giving it to 8th and 10th-12th.

I guess I don't understand why people think the jump from 9th to 8th should be bigger than the jump from 10th to 9th but they have no problem if the "jump" from 12th to 10th is nothing at all.

Finally, my proposed method is meant to be an idealized guideline - one for a world where you could pay every position a unique prize. I think it's a good starting point that is easy to tweak to satisfy any reasonable payout structure and/or practical concern.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Finally, my proposed method is meant to be an idealized guideline - one for a world where you could pay every position a unique prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine this would be that difficult from a payment processing perspective. Is the difficulty identifying bust order or something? It seems like it would only be a pain in terms of mentioning the structure, as a lot of people might flip out when math rears its head.

[NickMPK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, my proposed method is meant to be an idealized guideline - one for a world where you could pay every position a unique prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine this would be that difficult from a payment processing perspective. Is the difficulty identifying bust order or something? It seems like it would only be a pain in terms of mentioning the structure, as a lot of people might flip out when math rears its head.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty hard to identify bust-out order exactly when you have more than fifty tables going simultaneously. Plus, you want to limit the potential benefits of stalling. Some tournaments go hand-for-hand at every prize jump for these reasons.

[CrazyEyez]

Probably not worth dealing with arguments over bustout order, and it probably speeds up play to have groups with the same payout.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, you want to limit the potential benefits of stalling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, stalling would be a bigger problem that way for sure. Okay, I'm sold.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Finally, my proposed method is meant to be an idealized guideline - one for a world where you could pay every position a unique prize.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't imagine this would be that difficult from a payment processing perspective. Is the difficulty identifying bust order or something? It seems like it would only be a pain in terms of mentioning the structure, as a lot of people might flip out when math rears its head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Difficulty in bust order and the potential for requiring hand-for-hand at every position (if you want to avoid bust order arguments).

The math doesn't have to be mentioned since one could easily simply publish a list of percentages if they didn't have hangups about wanting a nice round 1st place prize or a pre-fixed bubble prize.

Actually, there would be nothing stopping them from publishing the basic percentage of the pool structure (as you see in on-line tourneys) with a footnote that these are approximate and that Harrah's reserves the right to fine tune the final structure (to produce round numbers, for example).

[buckslayer80]

[ QUOTE ]
How sick is it that 27th place last year got more than 10th will get this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unacceptable, B.S., etc.

[buckslayer80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
does some kindly and numerically literate soul want to redo that structure with $20K at the bubble (since that was something they specifically decided to introduce, and not random as much of the rest of the payouts seem to be)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you do that with my proposed system you get:

1st $5,918k
2nd $3,205k
3rd $2,224k
4th $1,736k
5th $1,425k
6th $1,213k
7th $1,058k
8th $940k
9th $847k

10th $772k
15th $539k
20th $418k
30th $292k
50th $186k
75th $130k

100th $101k
200th $54.5k
300th $38.1k
400th $29.5k
500th $24.2k
600th $20.6k
621st $20k

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this one. Seems flat from top to bottom.

[dDiabolical]

I like flatter structures for sure, but this is not right.

BTW the jump between 1st and 2nd is [censored] sick retarded.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I like flatter structures for sure, but this is not right.

BTW the jump between 1st and 2nd is [censored] sick retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that different from this year's "flat" structure.

I'm just curious what you think an appropriate 1st to 2nd drop is, 33%?

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sick is it that 27th place last year got more than 10th will get this year?

[/ QUOTE ]

jack effel and harrah's at it again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it was Barry Greestien and the other poker pros on the comittee who suggested this.

[jogsxyz]

Anything sacred for having 10% of the field being payed? Before Moneymaker rarely were fields greater than 300 entrants. Pay fewer places. 7% + 3 persons. Start the lowest payoffs at twice the buy-in. On this ME just pay about 450 places. More money for each of the remaining ITM players.

[Hawklet]

I think paying <10% would be bad because more people would leave pissed that they didn't cash.

I think the payouts should be much flatter in the beginning so that 600 gets 15k, 300 gets 20k and make the final 27 increase much more rapidly.

[W brad]

ITM must be big enough for the typical fish to make it there often enough to stay interested in tourneys.

[dDiabolical]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like flatter structures for sure, but this is not right.

BTW the jump between 1st and 2nd is [censored] sick retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that different from this year's "flat" structure.

I'm just curious what you think an appropriate 1st to 2nd drop is, 33%?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think that the luckiest part of the tournament (heads-up) should not have the biggest jump of the prize structure.

FYI I hate tournaments and don't play them

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like flatter structures for sure, but this is not right.

BTW the jump between 1st and 2nd is [censored] sick retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that different from this year's "flat" structure.

I'm just curious what you think an appropriate 1st to 2nd drop is, 33%?

[/ QUOTE ]

Emperor really likes your payout structure.
Especially that each place has its own payout amount.

Emperor thinks pros would really like to see an even flatter payout structure.

Emperor wonders how your payout structure compares to Stars Million.

[wonderwes]

Does anyone else miss it being at Binions?

I disaprove of the payouts. Final table should at least get 750k. I say just keep the final pay our at 7.5 million. That equation would make 9th place 10% of first place.

Harrah's is raking in on this tournament.