Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME

[Fast_Steve1]

how about tv adding to the pool not there pockets only,,maybe espn adds 10 million to final table and that leaves more to spread around

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]

(if the graph isn't clear, each years line gets closer to the point of origin)

This is the percentile vs. percent of prize pool. The x-axis is the finish percentile, the y-axis is the percent of prize pool. I only showed back to the 7th percentile because it shows the larger trends. When looking at this graph, remember that more people are getting paid in the more recent events (2005-06 paid up to the 10th percentile; 2004, 8.8; 2003, 7.5; 2002, 7.1; 2001, 7.3; 2000, 8.8)

[/ QUOTE ]Change the y-axis to a logarithmic scale, it makes the graph much more readable and you can extend the x-axis to include all payments while still keeping it readable. I did it just for '05 and '06, but I like to see what previous years looked like too and don't have the data on hand.

[debater]

Thunder does not advocate paying 100% to the winner in a tournament this large. This is what he said from the Link above....

"I am not suggesting that we make all major tournaments winner-take-all events, as I think that would be pretty absurd, especially given the ever-growing size of the fields of many major tournaments. Can you imagine Greg Raymer taking home $22 million for winning the 2004 World Series of Poker, or second-place finisher David Williams getting nothing?"

Does anyone argue a winner take all in tournies this big? It would make no sense to me. It would make the WSOP more like a lottery, not less. I think that would be bad in most every respect.

Debater

[Corey]

I hate Excel's charting utility, so the x-axis stays on top of the chart. Also, there's a fair degree of degredation from shrinking the image.

No matter how you look at it, the more recent events have seen a greater acceleration in payouts as the field gets smaller.

[Jingleheimer]

I think they pay you according to how well you do compared to the 873.

Specifically, if you apply the formula:
Payout=$14000/(Place/873), you get really close to the numbers they use.
The sum of this function from 1 to 873 = $89.8M, so either the 14k needs to be revised down a bit ($13700 or so), or they have moved a little money around elsewhere, which is also true: Here is my top 12:

My #s WSOP
1 12,222,000 12,000,000
2 6,111,000 6,102,499
3 4,074,000 4,123,310
4 3,055,500 3,628,513
5 2,444,400 3,216,182
6 2,037,000 2,803,851
7 1,746,000 2,391,520
8 1,527,750 1,979,189
9 1,358,000 1,566,858
10 1,222,200 1,154,527
11 1,111,090.9 1,154,527
12 1,018,500 1,154,527

They juice 3rd-9th (at the expense of some lower places), but things match pretty well from 12 on down.

For the low places (e.g.: 820th-865th), they obviously add all the prizes for that interval together and divide evenly.

So the general algorithm appears to be:
Get the total # of entrants. Take out your juice, then you have the prize pool.
Take about the top 10% of the field. Now make a spreadsheet with that many entries in it. Now make a column in which there is a formula: Payout = $Base/(Place/$top10%#). Sum that column and play with $Base until the sum = prize pool (you wouldn't need to do this if you had a functional form for the sum of the harmonic series from 1 to $top10#). Now you look at the bottom places, where the last place gets 14000 and go up in place until the prizes are 15000. Then take all of that money, and distribute it evenly as $14,500 among all of the places between last and the place which had 15000 on the spreadsheet. Continue this until you start to get into the big money.

I think this is how Harrah's did it.


Is this the best way to do this? I think you want a function that looks like 1/x^n. Maybe A/x^n + B or A/(x^n+B) + C is the general form.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate Excel's charting utility, so the x-axis stays on top of the chart.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right click the y-axis > format axis > scale > Value (X) Axis Crosses At: Enter 0.0001

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there's a fair degree of degredation from shrinking the image.

[/ QUOTE ]
Highlight the whole chart and copy and paste into paint.

It's easier to read too if you right click the plot area (anywhere within the axes and away from plot lines and axes), select Format Plot Area, then click none in the Area section. Just makes the background white.

That'll fix those problems. Either way, still interesting.

[EnderW27]

I made my own payout schedule from place 920 up through the final table. It took awhile fiddling with the numbers for them to come out about where I wanted them to.

920-791 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 15,000.00[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 1,950,000.00
790-671 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 15,825.00[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 1,899,000.00
670-561 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 17,565.75 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]1,932,232.50
560-461 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 20,464.10[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2,046,409.88
460-371 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 24,966.20[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2,246,958.04
370-291 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 31,831.91[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2,546,552.45
290-221 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 42,336.43 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2,963,550.41
220-161 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 58,635.96[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3,518,157.70
160-111 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 84,435.78[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4,221,789.24
110-71 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 126,231.50[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5,049,259.94
70-41 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]195,658.82[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5,869,764.68
40-21 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]314,032.41[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6,280,648.20
20-15 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 521,293.80[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2,606,469.00
14-12 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 860,134.77 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2,580,404.31
11-10 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]1,198,975.74 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2,397,951.48

48,109,147.84
0.55

Let me explain the grid a bit. The first column are the places paid. The second column is the prize amount for that level. The third column is the total prize pool given on that level.
The bottom number is the total amount of money given for places #920-10. That equalled approximately 55% of the total prize pool (given 8700 entrants) leaving 45% for the final table.

Here's how I created it. I started at 920 and a base pay of $15,000. Level one started at that base pay for 130 players. Every level cut ten players from the total amount in that level while increasing the prize by 5.5% per level. Thus level 2 had 120 players and an increase of 5.5% over level 1. Level 3 had 110 players and an increase of 11% over level 2. Level 4 had 100 players and an increase of 16.5% over level 3. etc.

What ends up happening is
1) more players are paid.
2) Players are paid a touch less than the actual payout schedule up until around 220 where my payout rockets them forward a good deal.
3) This lasts until the we near the final table (about 20 away) where those players are paid less than WSOP payout.
4) Payouts in the WSOP and my grid merge again as we come down to the last 5.

So what do you all think?

[fluorescenthippo]

[ QUOTE ]
I made my own payout schedule from place 920 up through the final table. It took awhile fiddling with the numbers for them to come out about where I wanted them to.

920-791 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 15000.00[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 1950000.00
790-671 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 15825.00[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 1899000.00
670-561 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 17565.75 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]1932232.50
560-461 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 20464.10[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2046409.88
460-371 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 24966.20[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2246958.04
370-291 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 31831.91[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2546552.45
290-221 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 42336.43 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2963550.41
220-161 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 58635.96[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3518157.70
160-111 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 84435.78[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4221789.24
110-71 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 126231.50[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5049259.94
70-41 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]195658.82[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5869764.68
40-21 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]314032.41[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6280648.20
20-15 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 521293.80[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2606469.00
14-12 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 860134.77 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2580404.31
11-10 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]1198975.74 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2397951.48

48,109,147.84
0.55

Let me explain the grid a bit. The first column are the places paid. The second column is the prize amount for that level. The third column is the total prize pool given on that level.
The bottom number is the total amount of money given for places #920-10. That equalled approximately 55% of the total prize pool (given 8700 entrants) leaving 45% for the final table.

Here's how I created it. I started at 920 and a base pay of $15,000. Level one started at that base pay for 130 players. Every level cut ten players from the total amount in that level while increasing the prize by 5.5% per level. Thus level 2 had 120 players and an increase of 5.5% over level 1. Level 3 had 110 players and an increase of 11% over level 2. Level 4 had 100 players and an increase of 16.5% over level 3. etc.

So what do you all think?

[/ QUOTE ]

edit this quick to add commas. kinda confusing consider how they arent even

[EnderW27]

done and done.

[jimpo]

I am a bit surprised that they still have "pay ramps", as in 12, 13, 14th place finishers get the same amount. Wouldn't it be fairer if 12 got more than 13, and 13 got more than 14? Since they most likely calculate these with computers it should not be any harder to do.

Of course, if they for example print out payout sheets it would be a bit more complicated. But the printouts wouldn't have to contain each and every one of the lesser payouts, it the sheet says #820 is $14,597 and #775 is $15,504, player who is at risk to finish about #790 has enough information to adjust his play.