Flatter Payout.... How Disgusting is it?

[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 [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

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.