[Sherman]

FWIW, I don't think David's idea is a bad idea per se.

Imagine if David's proposed prize distribution had always been the way tournament prizes were distributed. I assume we would all be used to this struture.

Imagine then that someone proposes that we change the structure from one we are all used to, the the one we have presently (if that makes any sense).

I'm sure many people would be complaining that changing the structure is a bad idea. In other words, most of us (myself included) calling this is a bad idea are biased by what we like presently. If we had always been using David's idea, we would be arguing for exactly the opposite.

Using David's idea, I can imagine that appropriate tournament strategy might change. In all likelihood, poor players will still not play appropriately. The point is, that if we were all used to David's structure, we would have found ways to exploit our opponents there as well. And we would now be complaining that this "new" structure would cost us our edge if we changed it.

As a final word, would appropriate strategy be to play tighter at the bubble in David's structure? I think it would not be optimal. If at each payout level, the total monies paid is to be distributed by stack sizes of the remaining players, it seems that it would be more appropriate to gobble up as many chips as possible before the payouts.

Every chip at that level is worth more $. Barely making the payouts would be relatively worthless. It would be worth even less than making barely making the payouts in the old structure. Especially compared to making the payouts with an enormous stack of chips.