A Proposal For A New Way To Distribute Tournament Prizes

[BustoPro]

[ QUOTE ]
That means that when there were 105 or fewer players and you were in say 87th place, you would be a fool to gamble with small but clear edges. Merely folding means you are over 90% to pick up 45K while gambling might add a one half of one percent chance to finish first.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that the above analysis is, often, exactly the wrong way to approach the bubble. It's much more complicated than that, and depending on exact stack sizes and blinds (i.e., M and Q), gambooling it up can be correct (it depends what you mean by a "small" edge, I suppose). In particular, your actual rank in the tournament is virtually irrelevant.

[Supwithbates]

I just wish they paid like 5% or fewer in the big buyin tourneys and made it flatter.
I always manage to make it deep, final 8 tables or so, then go bust. I'd prefer a somewhat flatter payout structure but one that pays a lower % of finishers.

[BarryLyndon]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Interesting idea. The one way to implement it is to become a tournament director yourself and promote this because you sure as hell know that no existing TD will implement this.

Good luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Your books have been instrumental to my increasing success as a poker player. However, pwned.

[NoahSD]

I kinda think this is cool, but it would clearly cost good players EV in almost every tourney.

[shaundeeb]

if this is what you want to do then take your 100bbs and every 15minutes move up stakes and reduce your stack by like 1/2bbs seriously tourneys are the way they are because of they payout structure such an awful idea like this is to avoid variance, heck why not do a tourney where ever there is an AI and a call to not even run the remaining cards but distrubute the pot based on equity. (note the sarcasm)

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's terrible. Making a less intuitive system would reduce the popularity of tournaments, especially with regard to TV viewers. Start explaining this system to the general public and they probably lose interest.

Keep in mind a lot of people who watch poker still have no idea why chips are valuable. They stick to phrases such as "You can't go all-in on a draw" which any regular tournament player would find patently absurd. Consequently, if you want to sell the sport you can't focus on pleasing its experts, you have to maintain a framework simple enough that everyone can get interested and excited about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting that my suggestion would kick in and be over with well before it got to TV time.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]
if this is what you want to do then take your 100bbs and every 15minutes move up stakes and reduce your stack by like 1/2bbs seriously tourneys are the way they are because of they payout structure such an awful idea like this is to avoid variance, heck why not do a tourney where ever there is an AI and a call to not even run the remaining cards but distribute the pot based on equity. (note the sarcasm)

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with the tone of this post. One of the reasons (that I see) for the popularity (aka dead money) in MTTs, is the random luck factor. It is one of the little secrets of tournament poker. But I am not sure that there isn't a middle ground, where we reduce short term variance, and still keep the lottery-like attraction.

As far as Noah's post, I am not convinced that EV changes all that much. Sure, the bubble should be less of a factor, but players that typically play too tight on the bubble probably won't alter their play that much. Basically, you change their decision from "Should I risk the 12k payout for finishing in the money for more chips which makes a higher finish more likely?" to "Should I risk a 5k to get 10k if I win, plus the possibility of more?" Logically, I agree that this should entice risk taking. In reality, I think it is the fear of coming away empty handed that scares player on the bubble, not any deep thought on the future $EV of a play.

I honestly, think EV would remain largely unchanged, but your typical win would be closer to your long term average.

[Sotiria]

Why?

Fish feed tournaments.

Bad players winning any amount of money in a tourney funds cash games.

There's no reason to change the way things are. Frankly this is just as stupid as ideas that suggest ways to take luck out of poker.

[Eggpie]

I think this is a good idea, though i doubt it would ever become the norm. People like the simplicity of the current pay schedule, it feels more logical to those new to poker. Whereas most people on these forums can at least understand (wether or not you agree is a different matter) the concept, the regular fish wouldn't like it.

It would be a good thing to try out. I wonder if someone can get in touch with stars or something, and maybe we can have some private forum run $5-$20 tournaments using this new form of 'cashing'. Maybe 5 or so tourneys so you get some idea of how to exploit these tournaments to find your edge.

(this probably won't work, because you would need to have a lot of people to have the two bands of the payout structure to become relevant. I doubt you could get enough people on this forum to try it out for 5 different tourneys)

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit I think it's a terrible idea. People like tournaments and they are immensely popular. Why would one want to drastically change the payout structure at a time like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]... what makes you think tournaments would be any less popular than they are now with this change?