Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

I just made this post in *my blog*, and I thought it could be a good discussion here in the forum; maybe we can even get an insider to tell us who decided this years payout structure.


This is the payout structure for this year Main Event:

1 $12,000,000
2 $6,102,499
3 $4,123,310
4 $3,628,513
5 $3,216,182
6 $2,803,851
7 $2,391,520
8 $1,979,189
9 $1,566,858
12,11,10 $1,154,527
13-15 $907,128
16-18 $659,730
19-27 $494,797
28-36 $329,865
37-45 $247,399
46-54 $164,932
55-63 $123,699
64-72 $90,713
73-81 $65,973
82-126 $51,129
127-189 $47,006
190-252 $42,882
253-315 $38,759
316-378 $34,636
379-441 $30,512
442-504 $26,389
505-567 $22,266
568-621 $20,617
622-666 $19,050
667-720 $17,730
721-774 $16,493
775-819 $15,504
820-873 $14,597


I would like to know who decides the structure and what are the guidelines to make such decision? I just don't understand the need to give 12 million to 1st place. 10 million would be a very nice round number and enough for marketing purposes, hell, even last year's 7.5 million was an insane amount of money. I find ridiculous to win only about $50k if you finish 82-126, you just beat like 99% of the field and you win only 5x your buy in? Let's compare to the 2005 payout 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
10 $600,000
11 $600,000
12 $600,000
13 $400,000
14 $400,000
15 $400,000
16 $350,000
17 $350,000
18 $350,000
19-27 $304,680
28-36 $274,090
37-45 $235,390
46-54 $173,880
55-63 $145,875
64-72 $124,835
73-81 $107,950
82-90 $91,950
91-100 $77,710
101-110 $65,360
111-140 $54,965
141-170 $46,245
171-200 $39,075
201-230 $33,197
231-260 $28,375
261-300 $24,365
301-350 $21,070
351-400 $18,335
401-450 $16,055
451-500 $14,135
501-560 $12,500


It just does not seem right, if you finish 37th in 2006 you win around the same as if you finish 37th in 2005; but the difference between the number of players was more than 3000 !!! 8773 compared to 5619.

Even more ridiculous is if you finish between 82-90, in 2005 you win $92k but in 2006 you win only $52k, WTF??

I have always been a big proponent of flat payouts, usually this means to take money from the top places, but if there is a tournament where you can do this without affecting the "heavyness" of the top prizes, it's this one. I just don't understand why in the world you want to give 1st place 12 million and take out of the poker economy a lot of money. The wealth should be spread, it's not that I'm a poker communist (if even the term makes sense); it's just better for the poker economy. They should cap the 1st place to 10 million, that's enough money; I think even for the guys at Bellagio that play the big game, 4-8k, they should be happy with that number the one time one of them is going to win in the next 50 years. Why did they decide this structure for 2006? Any of your guesses is better than mine.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

I completely agree . . . looks like in 2006 the entire top 27 is top-heavy compared to the top 27 of 2005. 5x your buy-in for beating 99% of the field is just retarded. They could have easily made the top prize a nice even eight figures at 10 mil and scaled down from there.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

It has to be just pure fan appeal. The average joe watching on TV doesn't know and doesn't care what the guy in 80th place receives.

I also prefer flatter payouts just for reducing variance etc. However since this has become a made for TV event, having a huge first place prize makes for better drama I suppose.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

Who was it that thought the main event should be winner take all? I can't recall where I read it.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

Someone needs to do a pretty excel graph comparison of these numbers.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who was it that thought the main event should be winner take all? I can't recall where I read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I remember Thunder Keller wrote an article advocating a winner take all sturcture.

I could not agree more with sirio11. This payout structure is really bad. Is there any place for players to voice their opinion with Harrahs?

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

I agree - especially when the winner is going to get even more in endorsements.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

Yep, the 2006 payout structure is a joke, but this tournament is not about the players, its about good TV.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

I think both years are way better than most WPT structures I've seen and I like 06 better than 05. I like how spots 10-36 are rewarded better. I do find it funny that spots around the 100 actually get less this year though.

Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
 

Negreaneau also said that he would rather have just the final table pay