#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
Someone needs to do a pretty excel graph comparison of these numbers.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
I agree - especially when the winner is going to get even more in endorsements.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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.
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Comparing 2006 and 2005 payout structure for the ME
Negreaneau also said that he would rather have just the final table pay
|
|
|