Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
Odd stats about the 2006 payout structure:

-1st place is a larger % of the prizepool in 2006 than 2005 (14.5% vs 14.2%)
-2nd place is a smaller % this year...
-Every other final table spot is a larger % this year than last
-The early payout levels pay a substantially smaller % of the prize pool this year

These make no sense to me...especially 2nd paying a smaller % and every other final table spot paying a higher % when the field is substantially bigger.

Steve

[/ QUOTE ]

They really should come up with a percentage payout before the tourney starts, like Stars or any other online site does. If they get 8000 people they pay 800 spots (or whatever they set) and have the percentages that each spot gets already set. It seems like they just go through and randomly pick amounts to have each pay increase go up by, starting with 1st place and then distributing it down from there(which is actually backwards to how it should be done I would think).

For TV's sake if they really want to adjust the first place prize some go for it.

Ex. First place should be $9,763,000 from the set percentages, then steal a little from the rest of the final table and make it an even $10mil.

[shaniac]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought it was Mike Caro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keller on Tournament Payouts

Caro on Tournament Payouts

[/ QUOTE ]

Fantasies about turning major events like the WSOP ME are purely masturbatory, but it would be cool if casinos starting introducing SOME events as winner-take-all. Would be an interesting dynamic. Also, speed poker. When are we going to get SPEED POKER?!

[BadgerPro]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the 2005 structure better except for one glaring problem. 10th place pays out 600k. 9th pays 1mil. 8th pays 1.15 mil. That means you make 400k by going from 10th to 9th, but only 150k by going from 9th to 8th place. By the time the final table hits, we should be in the part of the exponential tournament payout curve that starts to increase its positive slope. At the very least, it should be a linear increase in payouts, but never a decrease in amount gained.

Sorry if I didn't word that clearly, but hopefully it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't make sense but this was done 100% for TV/publicity so that they could say the entire final table made $1 million+. But I agree that normally the payout jump from 10 to 9 shouldn't be larger than from 9 to 8.

[octop]

Caros opinion is rediculous especially in todays world. If you're playing a tournamannt with 30 people that is one thing. Then again if they only payed the winnder you might only get 30 people.

[octop]

The other problem is there would be so much chopping in an 800 person tourny it wouldnt matter if they only did award first place.

[Caldarooni]

We need a union.

[monix]

[ QUOTE ]
Will somebody else do the #s for 2006?


2005: 5,619 players; $52,818,600 prize pool





1st: 7,500,000 (14.20%)
2nd: 4,250,000 (8.05%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (4.73%)
4th: 2,000,000 (3.79%)
5th: 1,750,000 (3.31%)
6th: 1,500,000 (2.84%)
7th: 1,300,000 (2.46%)
8th: 1,150,000 (2.18%)
9th: 1,000,000 (1.89%)

<font color="red">2005 Final Table: $22,950,000 (43.45%) </font>


2004: 2,576 players; $24,214,400 prize pool (plus extra $10,000 paid out by Harrah's to bubble players)[/b]

1st: 5,000,000 (20.65%)
2nd: 3,500,000 (14.45%)
3rd: 2,500,000 (10.32%)
4th: 1,500,000 (6.19%)
5th: 1,100,000 (4.54%)
6th: 800,000 (3.30%)
7th: 675,000 (2.79%)
8th: 575,000 (2.37%)
9th: 470,400 (1.94%)

<font color="red">2004 inal Table: $16,120,000 (66.57%) </font>


2003: 839 players; $7,802,700 prize pool

1st: 2,500,000 (32.04%)
2nd: 1,300,000 (16.67%)
3rd: 650,000 (8.33%)
4th: 440,000 (5.64%)
5th: 320,000 (4.10%)
6th: 260,000 (3.33%)
7th: 200,000 (2.56%)
8th: 160,000 (2.05%)
9th: 120,000 (1.54%)

<font color="red">2003 Final Table: 5,950,000 (76.26%) </font>

[/ QUOTE ]


2006: 8,773 players; $82,466,200 prize pool

1st: $12,000,000 (14.6%)
2nd: $6,102,499 (7.4%)
3rd: $4,123,310 (5.0%)
4th: $3,628,513 (4.4%)
5th: $3,216,182 (3.9%)
6th: $2,803,851 (3.4%)
7th: $2,391,520 (2.9%)
8th: $1,979,189 (2.4%)
9th: $1,566,858 (1.9%)
<font color="red">2006 Final Table:$37,811,922 (45.9%)</font>

I'll post a chart with all four years shortly...

[VBCurtis]

Whose online payout structure is best-liked by skilled players? Base the WSOP structure on this. Perhaps bias the payouts so smaller buyin tourneys are flatter and larger buyins are steeper, to satisfy the pros for the big ones and Joe Everyman for the smaller ones.

Make first and second fairly close together for the ME, since the income from endorsements is the real prize. Something like 10M, 7.5M, 5.5M for 1-2-3. Shift the extra money to the 30-100 finishers.

edit: oops, this idea is more top-heavy.. perhaps 9-6.5-4.5M? Is 10M a magic number?

What about only paying top-500 finishers, but paying 50-500 more than they get now? Cashing in the ME should be a *big* deal, but cashing for $14k just isn't. Pay more people in the 50k-150k range; the buzz those winners generate among their poker-playing friends will draw more players the next year.
-curtis

[RitmoEnElCaos]

I think a large part of the weird play we've been seeing from 800 players on down is that the incentive to nurse a stack up to the next payout level is really low compared to the allure of doubling up a few times and making the big money. I blame the stupid payout structure this year.

[monix]

Looks pretty similar to last year, and less weighted to the top spots from previous years...